What is a ‘parachurch’? It would be any ministry or religious organization that is Christian in doctrine and practice, yet is not an official Church with a pastor/elders and deacons, and a congregation that meets regularly for worship (Fred Butler). It could also be described as an organization, independent of the church, coming alongside the church for the purpose of assisting the church to accomplish its mission.
Recently, while studying 2 Peter 1, the ‘parachurch’ came to mind.
There is a burden on the heart of the Apostle. Peter knows his days on earth are short (v14). The Apostolic age is drawing to a close. Peter writes with the post-apostolic church in view (v15). His desire is to protect and build up the believers who are at present (or soon will be) coming in contact with false teachers-those who would endanger the church and seek its downfall (2:1ff).
So what does the soon-to-be-departed Apostle tell the soon-to-be-post-apostolic church? “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of Him…” (1:3, NIV).
First, note the source: God and His unlimited, inexhaustible power. It does not originate in us or in the church.
Second, note God’s activity: ‘has given’ is a perfect tense verb, emphasizing the continuing nature of that which was given; a past act with results ongoing to the present.
Third, note his readers: ‘us/we’. We must not make the mistake of reading this as merely referring to the individual believer. Though true for the individual believer, Peter has in view the corporate body; the church collectively.
Fourth, note the sufficiency of this supply: ‘everything needed’ is supplied. Nothing is or ever will be lacking or neglected. Not one item necessary for the church to function as the glorious body of Christ has been withheld or has to be earned.
Peter’s statement is clear: God’s divine provision for His church is all encompassing. The church has been given all the resources it will ever need to: operate in a way that is pleasing to God, defend and protect itself from all enemies, accomplish the eternal purposes of God, spread the gospel of Jesus Christ locally and globally and be pure and holy in a pagan, sin-filled world.
Peter makes clear that not only did the 1st century church have all it needed, but the church in every subsequent generation already had been given all it would ever need to do the will of Christ, the Head of the church (Eph. 1:22). This divine provision for Christ’s church transcends time and culture.
So what does this have to do with the parachurch movement?
We are being told that the parachurch is essential to the church (though it has only recently shown up as a blip on the radar scope of church history).
Parachurch ministries are described anywhere from ‘God’s gift to His church’ to ‘necessary evils in the 21st century’. Examined more closely, the parachurch philosophy is nothing but pragmatism. “We (the parachurch ministry) are able to transcend denominational boundaries and are therefore more effective. We have professionals to fill niche ministries that the typical pastor is just not capable of fulfilling. We are not bound by the pressure of ‘doctrinal differences’ so we can appeal to a broader base, etc., etc.”
Is the parachurch beneficial to the body of Christ or a symptom of a deeper flaw? If the parachurch is so essential and necessary to Christ’s church, where was it in the 2nd century? 12th century? 16th century? Why in the 21st century (and why in North America especially?!) can’t the church function without professional help from ‘outside’?
Peter, by divine inspiration, declared that, in his day and in every subsequent generation, Christ’s church had already been given what it needed, with no lack of any kind, no shortage or meagerness in the outpouring of divine provision. There is no need for Christ’s church to seek for some missing element from any ‘outside source’.
Is not the rise of the parachurch phenomenon a declaration by the church (and the parachurch) that God’s provision for His church is inadequate? And is it not a declaration of the church’s abdication of its God-given responsibilities?
Let’s face it: Do I really need to listen to a football coach with 50,000 other men to learn how to love my wife as Christ commands me to? Do I really need to fly half-way around the world to sit with 30,000 other women to learn how to be the submissive wife Christ commands me to be?
Does the same truth the church has proclaimed for 1900+ years all of a sudden become more believable or ‘doable’ when Promise Keepers shares it? Or is the issue the church faces one of unbelief in the pulpit and pew?
There is no need for the church to look to contemporary trends or the latest innovative brainstorming technique to fulfill its God ordained mandate.
Christ declared: “I will build my church” (Mt. 16:18), not “I will build my parachurch.”
How do we appropriate and apprehend this divine, all-sufficient supply? “through (by means of) our knowledge of Him…” The authoritative and sufficient Word is the God-ordained means of the churches sufficient supply!
The words of Jeremiah 2:13 to the people of Israel are sadly, for the most part, appropriate for the church in our land: “My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.” (NIV) Oh, that the church would see in Christ and His word her all-sufficient supply for life and godliness.
Darrell Fletcher, Elder Covenant Reformed Baptist Church Warrenton, VA
There is a great deal of sense in what has been written, but what about, say, Gideons International or M.A.F.? Let’s beware of throwing out the bay with the bathwater.
I would be curious as to how you are defining “parachurch?” I didn’t see a clear definition in the post. Certainly if Christians allow an organization outside the church to replace the source for their spiritual growth, then there could be problems. That understanding of “parachurch” I would reject.
However, I see a good parachurch ministry as coming along side or supplementing the ministry of the local church. Alpha and Omega ministries, James White’s apologetic ministry, is a good example of what I mean. Answers in Genesis is a similar ministry as well. Those are parachurch groups intending to strengthen the church with their expertise and giftedness, where the local church may lack.
Fred
Brother, you make a good point. But my question is: What is the baby?
A significant question that needs to be asked of any parachurch organization is: ‘Are you under the authority of the eldership of a local church? If not, why not?’
If the answer is yes, then it is not a parachurch organization. It is a ministry of the local church, operating under the God-ordained structure of accountability: Christ as the Head and elders as overseers, feeding and protecting the flock entrusted to them (Acts 20:28ff; 1 Pet. 5:1-4).
Darrell
Very helpful BLOG. Too much wasted money and time has gone outside of the Lord’s Church, it is time to work with what the Head of the church is doing and not set up competing organizations!
BTW, James White is one of two elders of a local church. My guess is that Alpha and Omega operates under that church’s oversight.
dc
Great post!
Christ’s church doesn’t need any outside organization to “help it along.” That said, those organizations that operate as part of a local congregation’s overall ministry of the Gospel are quite appropriate.
A word of caution, however. There are many TV style “ministries” that operate under the auspices of local churches that are just as dangerous and unbiblical as any parachurch organization.
Oh Yeah, James White has it right. Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is blessed to have him.
The New Testament churches sent out missionaries, who then (once on the field) voluntarily associated with one another and made semi-autonomous decisions among themselves, i.e. there was a field-based leadership structure even while there was accountability (though not direct day to day authority) from Antioch or other local churches.
Any article on parachurch versus local church needs to look at the example of the Pauline missionary band. Voluntary associations of missionaries, advocated by William Carey, was what birthed the modern missions movement and was opposed by many calvinistic baptists who were anti-mission and voiced many of the same objections – though less restrained – that I hear from some Reformed Baptists or calvinistic baptists today regarding voluntary associations or missionary soceities, almost all of which fall under the label “parachurch” yet mirror the NT example of missionary bands.
P.S.
Thank God for linguists, Bible translators and pilots that reach the lost.
If we throw out ANYTHING that is not DIRECTLY under ONE local church then we not only do disservice to the NT example of broad cooperation among different bands of evangelists sent out by a broad array of churches that collaborated quite freely, but we also strip the world evangelization effort of 80% of its force.
Under some definitions of parachurch, most Bible colleges, mission societies, Bible translation org and Bible societies, and missionary flight orgs are all to be condemned as unbiblical.
One key factor: Who governs the parachurch.
It is an assumption that all parachurches are self-governed without any oversight by local churches. This is not true.
Many missionary societies are actually run by leaders who are pastors and elders from the churches that make up the missionary society.
I.e it is the local churches sending out the missionary and the voluntary association is the path through which the local church sends the missionary. It is the pastors and elders of the churches that send their missionaries through the voluntary association that help run the missionary society in many cases.
There is not the usurpation of authority that occurs in the Promise Keepers and the other bad examples that we can dredge up this way.
One final comment:
It is true that many very bad examples can be listed of parachurches acting like they are indeed churches.
However, most would recognize that parachurches are not churches. Many parachurches in the form of evangelical mission societies are made up of missionaries sent out from local churches, through a path that can better do the essentials for them of finances, and visas and these, while not being churches, are charged with planting churches where they don’t exist.
Nowhere in Scripture do we literally have “churches planting churches”
In the NT, we have some folks who are sent out by local churches who, once sent out broadly cooperate in order to plant new churches and then honor their sending churches by reporting back to them when they return. Their is an accountability to sending churches and a form of authority and yet, on the field, there must be at least semi-autonomous decisions making and some field-based decisions that need not be cleared by the local church body thousands of miles away.
P.s. For all my gripes. I did REALLY like the article. There is a need to return the honor to the local church. AMEN to your main goal. Let us work to honor our local assemblies.
So where does that place Founders Ministries? It seems to fit your definition, “…any ministry or religious organization that is Christian in doctrine and practice, yet is not an official Church with a pastor/elders and deacons, and a congregation that meets regularly for worship…. an organization, independent of the church, coming alongside the church for the purpose of assisting the church to accomplish its mission.”
The churches of Christ carried out their mission for centuries quite effectively without having the so called assistance of parachurch organizations. If all the parachurch organizations disappeared tomorrow the church would continue its work and Christ would be most glorified.
Ephesians 3:20-21
20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
Darrell,
I sympathize with the desire to help the church recover a full-orbed vision for what Christ has called her to do. In my opinion, however, defining a parachurch as “any ministry or religious organization that is Christian in doctrine and practice” and censuring such without any qualifications (and many would be needed) is biting off more than one can chew. Is it wrong to be an organization and religious at the same time? Narrowing the definition to “an organization, independent of the church, coming alongside the church for the purpose of assisting the church to accomplish its mission” doesn’t relieve the burden of an order too tall to fill.
For example, Miracle Hill Ministries is a local organization that runs an orphanage, rescue mission, and shelter for homeless women. Our church is located in an area where there are plenty of needy and homeless people. Because we’re relatively small (membership in the 50’s) and limited in financial resources, we have sometimes directed needy people (when our resources are depleted) to one of the ministries of Miracle Hill. In fact, members of our church minister at the orphanage on a regular basis.
So what should we say about such an organization? It’s religious. It’s engaged in benevolent ministry (as well as sharing the gospel). It’s leadership and staff consists of church members, but its government is not directly under the ministry of any one church. Should we censure such a ministry as “pragmatic” and unbiblical? It may be somewhat true that parachurch organizations are “a blip on the radar scope of church history.” But some might say that about independent, Baptist churches too.
In the apostolic age, living apostles served as the glue that held the individual churches together, enabling cooperative efforts like the one carried out by Miracle Hill. Unfortunately, 2000 years of church history have complicated matters. Consequently, though we minister in a region of the country where local churches abound, our church has close fellowship with only a handful. And I doubt that handful possesses the human or financial resources to do what the Christians who labor in the Miracle Hill Ministries are doing.
I suppose someone might argue that we shouldn’t be satisfied with the status quo but should strive to recapture the kind of cooperative spirit among local churches seen in the NT. Actually, I tried to present something like an argument for that goal in a recent series of blogs entitled, “Towards a Catholic Christianity.” But until local churches can achieve a greater degree of unity and cooperation, I think we’ll unable to conduct ministries on a larger scale and somewhat dependent upon organizations that consist of Christians who band together in order to come alongside the church and help her fulfill her mission. Bible translation societies, Christian book publishers, rescue missions, and even organizations like Founders Ministries, Together for the Gospel, Ligonier Ministries, Desiring God, etc., are all doing the church and the cause of Christ a service in my view.
I think a more fruitful discussion might be an attempt at determining the nature of such ministries (which will vary from one to the other), the kind of biblical principles under which such ministries should operate, and what should be the exact relationship of such ministries to the local church (which again may vary depending upon the organization).
As I said in a recent email exchange on the subject, arguing about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of “parachurch organizations” is much like arguing about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of “contemporary music”: we need to make sure we’re all on the same page and talking about the same thing before we commence a biblical assessment. That’s my two cents.
Bob G.
Bob,
I agree there needs to be a more precise definition of what is a parachurch organization than the current blog post provides. So numerous are these organizations, their ministries and their structure in relation to churches that it is almost an overwhelming task to define. Many of these groups are doing wonderful works in the name of Christ, benefiting the people of God and reaching the lost. Personally I do not consider organizations like Desiring God, Together for the Gospel, and many others you listed as a parachurch. Again this reveals the need for a clear definition.
But with that being said, there is no single organization that is necessary for the churches of Christ to fulfill their mission that a local church or an association of churches working together cannot accomplish.
Grace to you,
Steve Clevenger
The Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA) and the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE) are good examples of cooperative efforts of local churches working together to accomplish Christ’s mission in the world.
Steve,
I agree with your statement “there is no single organization that is necessary for the churches of Christ to fulfill their mission that a local church or an association of churches working together cannot accomplish,” at least in an ideal sense. One of my burdens as the dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary is to impress upon local churches their responsibility to participate in and contribute towards (as providence and provisions permit) ministerial training as a facet of the Great Commission. Unfortunately, many local churches see theological education as the role of seminaries, some of which have very little accountability to local churches. But it will take time to foster greater cooperation among our churches in such efforts.
I also agree that ARBCA and FIRE are “good examples of cooperative efforts of local churches working together to accomplish Christ’s mission in the world.” But what about organizations like the Founders Ministries? What about Reformed Baptist Fellowship? RBF is moderated by two pastors who are, no doubt, accountable to their respective churches. But is there something in the constitutions of your respective churches that places this ministry under the oversight of the church?
Once again, my point is not to discount the general thrust of Darrell’s blog or your desire to see the churches of Christ embrace their calling in its biblical fullness. I must confess, however, that I’m not convinced ever religiously oriented organization must be under the direct oversight of the local church. I am uncomfortable when parachurch organizations interfere with the churches ministry or draw people away from their commitment to the local church. But I’m not as bothered by the thought of parachurch organizations coming alongside to help the local church do its ministry. In this case, the church maintains its autonomy and the parachurch organization functions as a servant to the churches.
Bob G.
Steve;
From the very first the NT church had teams outside of the local church that did much of the evangelizing.
It is a myth that the parachurch is a modern invention.
The Pauline evangelism teams of Acts were field-governed semi-autonomous voluntary associations. They went out, sent by the local churches and formed their own structures (teams) once on the field without direct oversight from their sending local churches. This sort of parachurch structure, a field-based semi-autonomous voluntary asociation of missionaries is perfectly Biblical! The Apostle Paul did it!
If we define mission societies as parachurches and than condemn ALL parachurches as unbiblical we are undercutting the NT example that is thoroughly Biblical – local churches sending out missionaries who group together and make field-based decisions and even recruit and assign people without being under the direct supervision of their home churches in Antioch and other locales.
Paul did not ask Antioch before he recruited Timothy. Paul did not ask Antioch permission to go to Macedonia. Paul went out from Antioch, made decisions on the field and reported back when he came home. Antioch gave tacit approval by their releasing and there was an accountability of sorts but not a tight oversight of day to day matters. The Pauline band grouped together and did this themselves, much like mission societies do today. They operated relatively autonomously and grouped together to form additional structures (teams) once on the field, i.e. something that would be defined as a parachurch by this blog.
If parachurches all disapeared, transportation, aviation, translation and most counseling, on the mission field would come to a screeching halt overnight and if local churches insisted on their authority and iflocal churches insisted on possessing what many term as “direct oversight” over all their missionaries than any decision on the field would involves cumbersome communication by folks who are not there in the field to know the local situation.
I think some Reformed Baptists have looked at the bad example of the Promise Keepers and then applied their condemnations to all parachurches without thinking of the bible societies, missionary aviation orgs, translation groups and member care services that parachurches do very well, much less mission societies and bible schools which train and minister without being “under the direct oversight of a local church.”
I am with World Team mission, a missionary society. They are run by a council that is made up of pastors and elders of the churches from which the missionaries come from. Thus, there is input from local churches so that World Team knows that they are serving the local church and being a servant to local churches. Other mission orgs do the same. There phraseology admits that I was sent by my local church through World Team; i.e. my local church sent me and World Team provided the path to make that sending by my local church easier.
Most independant calvinistic baptist missioanaries have a tough time getting farther than Mexico to serve….their local churches have no clue how to do their visas and do not possess the expertise that a grouped-together band of specialized individuals, all sent out from different local churches can provide. They have condemned parachurch structures so vehemently that they would rather fail at fulfilling the Great Commission to the farthest ends of the earth in exchange for an overly strict ecclesiology that would state that the Pauline missionary band was wrong for operating semi-independanttly on the field.
If you want to condemn parachurches, define parachurch to only include those structures like the Promise keepers and not condemn most mission agencies which strive and succeed at following the NT example of Paul and his apostolic band.
Bob, I appreciate your thoughts. A more thorough definition of ‘parachurch’ is certainly needed.
You mentioned, “I think a more fruitful discussion might be an attempt at determining the nature of such ministries (which will vary from one to the other), the kind of biblical principles under which such ministries should operate, and what should be the exact relationship of such ministries to the local church (which again may vary depending upon the organization).” That is what I am attempting to determine from a slightly different direction.
My question in response to the post above (’Let’s beware of throwing out the baby with the bath water’) was ‘What is the baby?’ By that I meant to evoke this question: What criteria do we use to determine what is the baby and what is the bath water? In the current spiritual climate of our land I’m concerned that we are appealing to pragmatism (almost exclusively) to determine what is the baby rather than the text. Though this may be a slight oversimplification I think it is valid.
So rather than focus on the essence of parachurch ministries and their effectiveness (or lack thereof), in my opinion, I think it would be more helpful for the church to examine its own ecclesiology. That is the reason behind pointing out the church’s abundant, divine resources delineated in 2 Pet. 1:3. She has all she will ever need to do the work set before her. In my estimation, this is the heart of the issue. ‘Ministry’in our land would be rethought if God’s word was seen as sufficient and authoritative. We have a saying in relation to our equipping hour classes: “Open the Word and get out of the way!” And we rest in the fact that God has promised to work through this divinely ordained means.
Generally speaking, I’m not sure the church in our land has a biblical understanding of what it is or Whose it is. This lack of focus has driven the church to do some pretty wacky stuff in the name of ministering for Christ and caused it to abdicate its God-ordained role. Hence, in my view, the rise of the parachurch. As I see it, the parachurch is merely a symptom of a church in disarray.
Hopefully this discussion will help in that process of regaining a biblical ecclesiology and bring the church back to the basics of what God has established her to do–Preach the Word, teach the Word, administer the ordinances, equip the body, and share the Gospel with a lost world. And that the people of God will see the church of Jesus Christ (declaring the word of God) as God’s primary means for their edification and that His church is sufficient for meeting the needs of this fallen world.
Darrell
I, for one, am certainly not appealing to pragmatism.
See my argument above. I use the example of what we see in the book of Acts. I am also highly influenced by William Carey’s Enquiry which pushed for a voluntary association, i.e. a misssions society, as a vehicle for pusuing missions. Voluntarily societies of missionaries, operating field-based and semi-autonomously were a major factor in sparking the modern missions movement.
I am trying to prove the validity of at least some groups operating out of the direct oversight of the local church by use of the NT example of Paul’s missionary band, which functioned much like a mission society would function today (and missionary societies often fall under most people’s definition of a parachurch).
We are neither to be too lax nor too restrictive when it comes to Scripture.
The ecclesiology of many of the Reformed stunted missions in the name of “returning to a biblical ecclesiology” or in “regaining an emphasis on the local church”, but if you put calvinistic soteriology together with baptistic ecclesiology (which has been fairly cooperative) then missions explode!
If we did want to “Open the Word and get out of the way.” then we would see the example of Paul and Silas, Timothy and others, called by the Holy Spirit and released by the local church who went and ministered as semi-autonomous teams and made their own field decisions, recruited others, decided where to move to and where and how long to minister and basically governed themselves and were not under direct oversight of the antioch church or any of the “sending churches.” When William Carey advocated this same thing, the result was the Modern Missions Movement.
Again, I hunbly appeal to you that I am not dealing in pragmatism here, but in following the early church’s missionary example.
[...] This aspect of the issue was addressed in our previous blog posted on this sight entitled: “Parachurch-does the end justify the means” (June 24, 08). [...]