This is a great post! I believe that you are corrent in that our understanding of church vs. para-church stems from a faulty definition of “ekklesia”. I think the term “ekklesia” is a term that should bring togehter the community of God, not a term to seperate God’s people into mutually exclusive groups. Thank you for this post!

-Alan

Well said! Thanks for the shout out.

Peace,
Jamie

Excellent post rick!

I love this post because if I may be honest, being a pastor of a group of people which meet in a “building” I had begun thinking that there was a hard line division between Para-churches and “fixed” churches. Fixed meaning those that meet in a said place every week. I’m glad to hear someone say that it doesn’t matter, we’re all part of the Church and should all be contributing to the overall work of the Kingdom. Thanks for this post Rick!

Right-on, bro! As one who has found my church family with members of a ‘para” church organization (sheesh, I’ve always hated that term), I feel vindicated.

I went back to an institutional church for a couple of years and served there until last August when my wife and I finally realized that our work there was an exercise in futility, and that it was distracting us from much more important things we were doing with our mission work. Not surprisingly, the first Sunday morning outside of traditional church, Stacey led someone to the Lord at the hospital.

The ministry we work with is unquestionably our church family. I love those folks, and we have such a bond because of the passion we share for our mission work. Yet, people still look shocked when I tell them that we no longer attend a traditional church. They just don’t get it, and we always feel like they feel that we’ve backslidden or something.

Not a thing, Rick. Of course music plays a major role in our ministry, so if I wasn’t a musician, I might say that I missed the music. But we have everything else and much more really. This is really the first time in my 51 years I can honestly say that I feel as though I am doing my life’s work; that is, what God has created me for. If I died tomorrow, I know that others are already carrying out work that I have started and that what I’ve done would not be in vain. I may not have much in earthly treasures, but what more could I want? What could trad-church add to that? I’m blessed.

While the definition you give for parachurch is a lousy one (a “non-church” ministry), that doesn’t mean that church/parachurch distinctions are invalid or useless. Just that we need to define or describe the distinctions differently. That’s what you seem to be getting at with the modality/sodality language at the end.

From my perspective, a better definition might be that a parachurch ministry is an entity or ministry that unites Christians from many different churches (congregations?) for a particular ministry purpose. Youth for Christ is an easy example. Volunteers and staff may come from and maintain connections with many different local churches, but they join together for the common cause of connecting with teens, helping them find Jesus, and helping them grow in the faith. This typically includes helping them find a “church home” beyond their involvement in YFC.

So it’s the church working together beyond the typical boundaries of their local congregations for a particular ministry purpose.

When I think “parachurch ministries” my brain doesn’t typically jump to individual-focused ministries (like traveling evangelists, music ministers, etc), though I guess that’s the category they tend to fall under, too…

It’s all “the church” at work…

I don’t mean to say that the lousy definition of “parachurch” originated with you… just that it was the one you shared at the beginning of the blog post. Sorry for any confusion my poor word choices may have caused. :)

rick,

thanks for this one. its going to create some conversations in my community:)

brad

Actually, if you think about it, the terms would better be reversed if they are to exist. I won’t define. I’ll just throw that one out there. ;)

I never liked the whole “parachurch” thing. I’ve never accepted that a “parachurch” ministry is anything less than the church.

Frankly, I’d rather hang with a bunch of YWAM folks who are doing something than a “local congregation” that spends most of their “spiritual time” sitting on a pew.

One thing Jesus said was “On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” The “parachurch” guys are rattling the gates of hell, while most local congregations aren’t even in the fight.

Well that’s my experience anyway.

I love the local congregation, I desire it to be what Jesus intended it to be. But a lot of guys, myself included get tired of waiting for things to changes.

I agree with the assessment. There is no parachurch. What we call parachurch is the church, maybe with just a little different mind set and focus.

We’re already sloppy with the way we use the word “church,” not just in this case. A parachurch ministry is certainly “the church” at work, but is it “a church”? Those are two different ways to use the word. Never mind the whole “going to church” or “clean the church” ways of thinking of church as a building or place.

When Paul and his team traveled from city to city, were they “a church”? I don’t think the terms is ever used that way in the Bible. They were certainly part of “the church,” sent out by “a church” (in Antioch), but they weren’t “a church” in and of themselves, even if there were “two or three” of them gathered in Christ’s name, doing the mission together. At least, the Bible doesn’t seem to describe them as such.

In our town, a group of us pastors have been working together and thinking of ways we can function as “the church of Valparaiso” instead of “the churches of Valparaiso.” It helps us think of “church” more broadly, though I’d say biblically and practically there’s still much value in applying the “church” label to particular gatherings (”the church that meets in her home”) and not just the broader whole.

I’m not disagreeing with your main point here, Rick. At least, I don’t think I am. :) A parachurch ministry is part of the church. It’s not “non-church.” But most of them haven’t considered themselves “a church,” though I suppose they could function as churches if they wanted to, and many of them already do.

good post rick :)

Rich - let me give you an example and then ask a question - there’s a group of 20-somethings in a college student/young adult “ministry” who “do church” on Sundays in a pretty typical way (worship, teaching, discussion, etc) but their community is primarily externally focused so they do a lot in the community and for the causes of justice world wide. in fact, those things consume most of their resources. Would you say that they need to be part of “a church” that is more “a church” in the traditional sense - a church that is more defined by modality?

this is where the rubber meets the road in my estimation. Many people would agree that a parachurch isn’t less of “the church” but most churches I know would frown upon a group of people who participate in a parachurch situation and don’t also attend a “regular church”.

Ari,

What makes that group a “parachurch” group at all? It just sounds like a church made up of young people to me. Being externally focused just means they’re doing a good job of it. :)

There are plenty of church plants in the USA right now that are made up almost entirely of people in their 20’s, and they self-identify as churches. What makes this group you’re describing any different?

I’m not really familiar with the modality/sodality language, so I hope I’ve answered your question.

Good thoughts from everyone. A couple of months I left my job doing what many people would consider church-based youth ministry, and went to a ministry that is not in a church building. At first I described it to people as a parachurch, but a couple of weeks ago I realized that the term doesn’t do us justice. In our neighborhood we are more “church” than most of the churches. Not that we are doing everything right or reinventing the wheel, but there is something to be said for a holistic youth ministry that is able to invest in kids in several different areas. I look forward to clarifying my definitions over the next couple of days.

I think the worst part of the dichotomy is that it makes it too easy to throw money at a mission rather than a church getting involved with it personally. With no more passion involved than writing a check, even the checks will be small. I believe that all churches should determine the mission agency or “para-church” ministry that it feels God wants them to work with, and then the church should throw itself into the mission in every way that it can.

Besides, what really does define church?

I believe that our mission agency is clearly church. Even though it is widespread enough by now that I have not personally met everyone involved, I have talked with many on the internet and phone. We have a common purpose and vision and there is a kindred kind of bond that exists because of it. When we do have the opportunity to meet each other, there is a kindred sense of love and fellowship that has eluded me in many churches I’ve attended. Is this any different than attending a large church where you never get to meet everyone? It’s better in a way because you know that everyone in the mission is living his or her life serving God.

I’m not saying this to deride the local church, but I do feel that the local church misses many opportunities to do great things for the Kingdom by limiting there involvement with specialized inter-church ministries to writing checks to them. The dichotomy depersonalizes these ministries and that diminishes not only their relevance to the local church, but their mission as well.

Letting the blurring of the imaginary lines begin! ;-)

Webb Kline,

Well put!

Webb, I don’t think the church/parachurch distinction is what limits people’s involvement in mission activity. I’m a pastor, so I see first-hand that people live out their Christian mission in different ways. Some are highly involved through service, through giving, or both. And this can be funneled into local-church-related ministries, parachurch/secular organizations, neither, or both.

Maybe there are churches out there who are “limiting their involvement with specialized inter-church ministries to writing checks to them,” but we’re not one of them. In fact, I don’t think I know a church that doesn’t have people in it who are volunteering “outside the church.”

Just responding from the other side… :)

Rich
I don’t think the question is whether most churches have people volunteering in some capacity outside the church. I think the question is what percentage.

In my local churches I would have been part of that group volunteering outside the local church and I suspect Webb was as well. Frankly, I quit worrying about working with the local church, it was a major waste of time and I don’t have the time or the energy to handle it or the frustration.

This of course is not every local church. A few get it. But not many. If the local church is doing a good job, then why is the church losing ground in our society? We have failed to be salt and light.

I love the church, I want it engaged. That’s not going to happen until Pastors get it and make it a priority.

I echo John’s thoughts. When I was part of an organized church, including as a leader, there were tons of activity traps, but too many of them were mere aversions from doing real, purposeful ministry. I simply didn’t have the time to waste on unproductive ministry when there is so much need out there. When I assessed my pastoral duties and obligations, it was a real eye-opener. I knew it was time to get out. Man, am I glad I did!

But, that’s just me…

Regarding comments relating to mission organisations - I think it is interesting how much more church-like short term mission teams can be than the local church. The sense of community that develops while on foreign ground (not to mention reliance upon God) can be amazing. I would love to be able to capture this same spirit of interdependance in the local church setting.

Another way of I have heard of describing modality and sodality - Modality is like the General Practioner (family MD) while sodality is like the Specialist, dealing with special needs.

Andrew

Amen and Amen again. And this coming from a National Director in the US Campus Ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ in the US. The fact that we have not recognized this yet is tied to perception, donors and poor understanding of church. However, I think they had to invent this concept in 1950 in order for the church to figure out where to put Bill Bright and others. However, it is time for this to fade away. Thanks for this post.

If we are going to look at what ekklesia means, then it means congregation. The New Testament doesn’t envisage a church that doesn’t congregate.
Thus, when the New testament uses the word ‘ekklesia’ it means either the local congregation, or the universal church (that will one day congregate eternally). Thus we do not want to talk about YWAM, Campus Crusade, the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other parachurch oragnisation as being a church.

I’ve blogged about the relationship between Church & Parachurch (particularly on Campus) here:

Rick - Thanks for sharing these great thoughts. I’m sorry for jumping in so late here — I just came across your blog through (e)mergent Voyageurs and was compelled to comment here.

My wife and were both very involved in our campus parachurch ministries (Campus Crusade and InterVarsity) during our college years, and have since been in full-time vocational ministry in the Presbyterian church for the past ten years (plus a couple of years during seminary). You have given voice to many of the thoughts & questions with which we have been grappling of late.

I will be linking back to this post — I’ve been kicking around some ideas regarding this false dichotomy, and this provides a great frame of reference. Thanks, again!

Thanks for this comment. I agree with you on most points, however, maybe you are misunderstanding what organizations like YWAM and Campus Crusades are promoting. I believe organazations like this are apart of “The Church” and I also believe if you asked them, they would say the same thing. When they define themselves as a “non-church” organization, it is only because of modern language limitations. The “popular” understanding of the word “church” is a denomination or something more specific. You have the right concept of church and I believe organizations like this do as well, it’s the “Secular” community that needs to be educated. This explanation of “Church” that you give needs to be shared with the”Secular” community for sure. I think more damage might be done to the goal of “ekklesia” if we target groups like this and say they have it wrong. Again, I believe they are only using terms like “non-church” to emphasize to the popular audience that they are not affiliated with one denomination and in fact are loyal only to “Christ”, (the head of the Church). I believe you to have the same views as Campus Crusades and YWAM.

I agree w/ your basic premise. What do you think of the practice of being part of a “parachurch” org. but rejecting the “gathering of believers” to worship? i.e. church services and a pastor who leads. I think there’s a danger of slowly getting more and more off-base and sliding into becoming a cult. I have a friend who thinks going to church is “optional”. The passage of scripture that actually says “do not neglect the gathering of believers” is explained away with a comment like “I gather - it’s just a very small gathering”. (like two people).

It seems to me as an interesting chat. Please let us not think church happens in the building. It can happen anywhere as long as believers are together and someone must be there teach me to observe want they have been tought.

If I think I need no one to teach me, I will descive myself.

The local church setup is outlined in scripture, complete with offices, qualifications for such and mission. A parachurch can not copy that biblical pattern. Paul and company preached the Gospel and set up churches wherever they went.

The church seems to foster parachurches because it neglects the office and ministry of the evangelist.

When a parachurch forms around evangelism, the church loses the unrestricted ministry of the Biblical evangelist. Most parachurch organizations are not going to lose funds by pointing out serious doctrinal error. Instead, they go for the softer, interdenominational stance and thus water down their ministry to the saints. They are left with creating new spiritual babies that are thrown to whatever Christian church finds them on their doorstep.

The parachurch group sometimes yields to the temptation of elitism, feeling like “we do it Jesus’ way” while the cowardly church hides behind the doors.

The truth is that an evangelist should be in the church and train others in evangelism since that is his gift. Parachurch is unbiblical and I dare say, even anti-church, albeit unknowingly/unwillingly.