I think we can all see, in a general sense, that ministries provided for church members are burden-bearing by their nature. But what I've been reflecting on is the practical side of it, not just the general sense of it. Specifically, I've been wrestling with how to answer various objections, such as "Why have this ministry or that ministry?" A church having a Christian day school comes to mind as a perfect example, but we could name any number of example ministries. I need to pick an example that we can put into practicalities, so I will use that one.
Here is a question: "Why might a church that endorses home-schooling as the ideal have a Christian day school for families who don't home-school?" It is an excellent question, with a lot of thought behind it. And it seems like a paradox or enigma. We could extend the same question to any number of other ministries: "Why might a church that recommends families being together in church services as the ideal offer children's ministries?" We could ask a lot of questions about a lot of ministries along these same lines. "If this is the ideal, why do we do that?" But the answer would be the same.
Here is why: Because we don't minister in the "ideal" situation. In fact, if we were in the ideal situation, there would be NO NEED for any ministry!
We do not structure church ministries around where Christians ought to be! Get that! It is vitally important! If you want to understand anything about church ministries, read that sentence three times again, out loud if necessary. If Christians were where they ought to be spiritually, there would be no need for any ministry! There would be no need for preaching, teaching, exhorting or anything else a church does!
Rather, we structure church ministries around where Christians ARE. It is ministry where the rubber meets the road. We certainly want to help them move along closer to where they ought to be (and ourselves as well). But we cannot hold up the spiritual ideal, in any area, and say, "If you're not here, we won't minister to you in that area!" That is not burden-bearing, it is refusing the burden.
Now let me try to put it in a practical, concrete-example sense. I have been a committed home-schooling father for two decades. I believe every Christian parent, at least in America (and probably most elsewhere), should home-school in this day and age. I believe every parent is capable of making it work if they will commit, do the hard work, make the sacrifices, seek help when needed (Hello, grandparents! Hello church family!), and stick to it. I believe every problem or objection encountered by home-schooling parents can be worked around, whether logistical, financial, or otherwise. It can be done!
But I also have to be practical, in the real world, not the world of ideals. Whether or not every parent should, or can home-school is not the question. Whether or not they even share my opinion, conviction or preference about it is not the question. The fact of the matter is, not every parent will, not every parent is willing, and not every parent is convinced like I am. And yet they don't want their children in public school. And neither does the church. Providing a Christian day school is a part of bearing their burdens. And we are commanded to bear their burdens too, by the way, not just the burdens of those who hold to our preferences.
No, it is not ideal. But it is also not unbiblical. You can say home-schooling is the ideal (and I believe it is), but you can't point to the Bible and say home-schooling is the only way. If you say that, you are convicting most Christians for hundreds of years, up until home-schooling became vogue rather recently. You are claiming to live by new revelation that our forefathers lacked. Christians who have chosen to home-school have not done so on biblical grounds, but on practical grounds - largely out of preference over the godless public schools in America today. A church-run school solves the exact same problem, without violating any scriptural principles (regardless of whether it violates anybody's preferences, or ideas of ideal).
I use this example because it is possibly the easiest to put in concrete terms, but any church ministry can be evaluated in the same terms. It is designed to bear one another's burdens. It is designed to "support the weak" (Acts 20:35; I Thessalonians 5:14). It may even be designed to "comfort the feebleminded" (I Thessalonians 5:14 again). It is not designed for the person who already has it all together in that area of their life. Where would be the opportunity to minister there?
The types of questions or objections, raised above, to certain ministries are not such a paradox or enigma after you think rightly about ministry as a burden-bearing, weak-supporting endeavor. Yes, a church that preaches abstinence from alcohol can still minister to drunkards! Yes, a church that stands against divorce and remarriage can still help a remarried couple have a great marriage! Yes, a church that opposes sin can still help sinners! That thought should be kind of a "Duh!" moment. It's not an oxymoron, it's reality. When every church member reaches the spiritual ideal that the church targets, it's time to close the church!
We do not minister in the ideal, because the ideal requires no ministry. Unfortunately, some Christians seem like they only want the church to minister to those who really would need no ministry! That is the real paradox or enigma.
That oxymoron is worse than the old financial dilemma: "You can only be approved for a bank loan if you can show you have enough money to not need the loan." Well, I don't want a church that's ran like a bank! I don't want to be involved in ministries approved with a loan-officer's checklist, "Prove that you're worthy of our help." Rather, I want to sweat, give, labor and spend myself (II Corinthians 12:15) in real ministry, to real people in the real world who really need it. Like somebody did for me!
VM
06-15-2019
