# Para-church dynamics and economics



## MW (Mar 17, 2014)

I am interested to know what others think of parachurch organisations. Do the dynamics and economics of parachurch organisations necessarily interfere with or undermine the dynamics and economics of church planting and growth? I am inclined to think they do and I think some of the weakness of the local church today can at least in part be attributed to the rise of other agencies in which people are seeking and finding Christian nurture. What do you think? What consequences should this have on our attitudes and actions towards "Reformed" parachurch organisations?


----------



## Tim (Mar 17, 2014)

I have suspected for a long time that parachurch groups operating at universities "steal" students who might otherwise spend their time at local church congregations. These organizations are often lead by full-time staff, but I doubt they are Biblically ordained or are required to subscribe to any comprehensive system of doctrine. Meetings include teaching/preaching, praise, and prayer, but no sacraments. Although groups aimed at graduate students exist, ones that cater to primarily undergraduates are _highly_ segregated by age, with 95% of attendees between 18-22 years old.

While I can understand the appeal of seeking Christian fellowship among like individuals (such as having academics or sports in common), the profile of such groups is substantially different from the interactions described in the Bible. The Bible tells us how to organize ourselves, and I see little value in such groups beyond what every church congregation should offer.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 17, 2014)

God has given his elect all they need in his church before and after they come to know Christ. The church provides a profound unity by calling unbelievers, faithfully preaching to the visible and invisible church, and providing the essential nutrients by the means of grace at all stages of physical and spiritual life. To extract the gospel from this setting is, in my mind, a travesty.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2014)

Matthew,
opc.org gives back two pages of hits on "parachurch" using the site search feature (see lowest right corner of main page). Possibly some articles from "Ordained Servant" (see 2nd page) will give you some of the sentiment from within our church (which seems to share your general outlook).


----------



## yeutter (Mar 17, 2014)

We have seen a troubling shift in para-church groups. When I was a freshman in the University, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and Navigators did not view the Church of Rome as a true Church. Now they seem to have not problem with the Roman Communion


----------



## thbslawson (Mar 18, 2014)

A a Christian who works with a para-church organization I obviously have no problem with it fundamentally. Each missionary with our organization must be sent out by and under the authority of a local church. Our organization provides a structured environment for cooperation and mutual encouragement.


----------



## Rangerus (Mar 18, 2014)

do internet discussion forums interfere or undermine mainstream news sources?


----------



## KMK (Mar 18, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> some of the weakness of the local church today can at least in part be attributed to the rise of other agencies in which people are seeking and finding Christian nurture.



Or, in many cases it is the other way around. Many people turn to parachurch organizations for nurture because their local church has turned its back on edification in favor of church growth.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 18, 2014)

I just got burned by an evangelical parachurch this year and so I am re-thinking this issue. A corporate mentality infects many if not most evangelical parachurch orgs I now believe.

The official stance from our Field Director as well as the Asia Area Director that our sending churches had no say in decisions made on the field, but that we were “under the direct supervision” of that field’s Field Director (one man). It was also stated that the decision of the Field Director trumps the sending church’s voice. It was also stated that the role of the sending church was to “identify,” “commission,” and “support” the sent missionary but that the missionary came under the direct control of the agency once they landed on the field (translation: “Send us your people and money, but butt out because we are now in charge!”). 

In the literature and during the recruitment stage, however, this same org played up the vital role that they believed local churches had to play. But, once I was on the inside, I found out that this was mostly rhetoric. I wouldn't be surprised if this is not representative of the majority of evangelical parachurches.


----------



## Edward (Mar 18, 2014)

Instead of complaining about the resources going to parachurch organizations, one should rather ask what shortcomings of the church created the need/opportunity for parachurch organizations. I would suggest that this, perhaps, has the cause and effect backwards. Instead of parachurch organizations causing the weakness, they are a result of the weakness, at least in this country. 



armourbearer said:


> I think some of the weakness of the local church today can at least in part be attributed to the rise of other agencies


----------



## Philip (Mar 18, 2014)

Can we define what precisely a parachurch organization is? A seminary or other Christian educational institution seems to me to be a parachurch organization in some sense. A mission agency is also a sort of parachurch organization. What about Christian publishers? Or a Christian advocacy group (like Prison Fellowship)?


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Mar 18, 2014)

It depends. 1. On the definition. 2. On the particular type of parachurch and how it functions.

As for 2. a good parachurch model would work closely with the church. Or at the least, it would pointed direct people who are inclined toward dependency upon them to their own church, for example. 

However, my general impression is that they do economically and numerically undermine the church. But maybe that's just in the American scene.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 18, 2014)

For purposes of discussion, I have in mind organizations that take upon the task of spreading the gospel and holding regular meetings for participants to hold a form of worship. 



> do internet discussion forums interfere or undermine mainstream news sources


The difference here is that God has never set forth a news organization. How we gather and interpret news is entirely a matter of Christian liberty within the typical confines of the law -- truthfulness, not being profane, and so forth.

In the scriptures, you see the prophets preaching to the church, you see the apostles establishing, going to, and supporting the churches. They may have engaged in open debates and participated in public forums (not unlike some reformed conferences), but their focus, time, and attention was upon the church. When one came to Christ, he was in the context where he could be baptized, hear preaching that was given under the general authority of the elders both locally and regionally, be regularly shepherded and admitted to the Lord's table. 

Many of the problems in modern American evangelicalism can be traced to para-church organizations. Church lite certainly had its home there. It has encouraged separatism among Christians. As believers we _need _the younger, the older, the infirmed, the wiser, the person who is at a different stage in life.


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2014)

The idea that these organisations are filling a need the churches have somehow failed to provide is without foundation. They create the sense of need. That is what good organisation and presentation accomplishes. Church structure, standards, polity, and accountability mean the church is not free to function in ways these organisations take upon themselves. At the same time, the freedom of these organisations caters to the desire for independency and consumer choice, which enable the clients to enjoy a privilege without taking upon them the normal responsibilities which would result from church-participation.


----------



## Philip (Mar 18, 2014)

Rev Winzer, help me understand a) what exactly you mean by a parachurch organization b) why a parachurch as such is inherently problematic.

In other words, would Westminster Seminary be considered a parachurch organization given that, a) it trains ministers of the Gospel b) it has no official church affiliation?


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2014)

Identifying particular organisations is only going to prejudice the discussion and lead people to argue positions based on favouritism rather than on principle.

To provide a general definition, a parachurch organisation is ANY organisation which assumes ecclesiastical functions outside of the ecclesiastical structure.

If training for the ministry is an ecclesiastical function then any independent theological seminary which trains men (or women) for the ministry would obviously be a parachurch organisation.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 18, 2014)

One thing we learned was that donations sent to a missionary in the name of that parachurch became the legal property of that parachurch. Thus, many orgs very much control the funds which come to their missionaries. They assert this is only to "ensure accountability" yet when disagreements arise, such as in our case, the org additionally defined their duty with regards to our donors' funds as, "We also need to ensure that all your activities conform to our stated vision and values" (an additional measure of control that is much more subjective). We found that we had to ask for permission to use these funds rather than merely report our use of funds. 

Even when local churches and supporters (even a sending church) desired funding to be used for some project or effort, the org had the "right" to veto that project and refuse the release of those funds. 

What is more, ministry buildings and houses built with funds channeled through a mission org (even if given exclusively by one's sending church) become the property of the mission org if the missionary decides to leave or switch orgs. I was reminded that my house was no longer my own once I decided to leave my mission org. I know missionaries that have stayed with orgs because the org exercises undue control over them and to leave would mean to be penalized and lose those ministry assets that they bought with donor funds channeled through the org.

Thus it seems that many parachurches are not "coming alongside" local churches to help them, but are wresting control over many missionaries who should be answering to their local churches. They essentially become employees of the org and only report occasionally to their sending church.


----------



## Philip (Mar 18, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> To provide a general definition, a parachurch organisation is ANY organisation which assumes ecclesiastical functions outside of the ecclesiastical structure.



So, if I am hearing you correctly, an organization which assumes functions without which the church could not function, but which are not, strictly speaking, ecclesiastical (such as a publisher), then it is not a parachurch.

I would make a distinction between organizations aimed at aiding the church in its mission and those which end up usurping that mission.


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2014)

Correct; publishing literature, teaching per se, anything of that nature is obviously a lawful civic employment.


----------



## Philip (Mar 18, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Correct; publishing literature, teaching per se, anything of that nature is obviously a lawful civic employment.



And yet our denominations often have in-house publishers and seminaries, while acknowledging the usefulness of independent institutions of this nature.


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2014)

I don't see the relevance. The question is whether bodies which are not churches should take up ecclesiastical functions. You seem to be inverting the issue.


----------



## Edward (Mar 18, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> The idea that these organisations are filling a need the churches have somehow failed to provide is without foundation.



That may be quite true in Australia - my knowledge deals only with the United States, where I know that you have not stated does not apply as a universal truth.


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2014)

Edward said:


> That may be quite true in Australia - my knowledge deals only with the United States, where I know that you have not stated does not apply as a universal truth.



I doubt there is any difference. You are free to attempt to substantiate your assertion with an example or two.


----------



## Philip (Mar 18, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> I don't see the relevance. The question is whether bodies which are not churches should take up ecclesiastical functions.



The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a clear understanding (apart from the sacraments) of what constitutes a uniquely ecclesiastical function.


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2014)

Philip said:


> The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a clear understanding (apart from the sacraments) of what constitutes a uniquely ecclesiastical function.



As Protestants "the Word" is front and centre as a mark of the church. With the proliferation of "ministries" which take upon them to teach the Word, it should be quite clear to Protestants when this uniquely ecclesiastical function is taken elsewhere.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 18, 2014)

> The idea that these organisations are filling a need the churches have somehow failed to provide is without foundation. They create the sense of need. That is what good organisation and presentation accomplishes. Church structure, standards, polity, and accountability mean the church is not free to function in ways these organisations take upon themselves. At the same time, the freedom of these organisations caters to the desire for independency and consumer choice, which enable the clients to enjoy a privilege without taking upon them the normal responsibilities which would result from church-participation.


So very well stated Rev. Winzer!

Philip, I think we could draw a circle and place in its center the gospel and the care and feeding of God's people via the means of grace. That is the stricter definition that I was using. It would be fair to place another circle, target style around the first to include the things that can help a church in its mission. 

As an example, while God gave us his word, I can't think of too many places that tells us how it is to be physically conveyed aside from the ark of the covenant and some of the mentions Paul makes inside his letters. Publishing companies like Great Commission serve a valuable role in providing the materials used by the PCA and OPC in Sunday School and VBS classes. It answers to these denominations but has materials available to anyone who comes along. We might draw from materials produced by other publishers as long as their teaching does not conflict with the WCF. So a kind of "grey" area exists where a function may be either inside the church or outside of it. 

I hope I'm not muddying the waters here, but quite frankly, I'm not entirely sure how to handle all of what might be considered in this grey area versus the core center. Seminaries make an interesting question, and I'd love to know if y'all have any knowledge about the mindset of the puritans when they established Harvard, Yale, etc. I have some knowledge regarding the history of these schools, but can't think if they were considered to be under the regional, albeit congregational churches.


----------



## Philip (Mar 18, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> As Protestants "the Word" is front and centre as a mark of the church. With the proliferation of "ministries" which take upon them to teach the Word, it should be quite clear to Protestants when this uniquely ecclesiastical function is taken elsewhere.



So would you then object to preaching of the word being done in, say, the academic context? I know of a number of teaching organizations that exist specifically to aid and supplement the church in its mission.



jwithnell said:


> We might draw from materials produced by other publishers as long as their teaching does not conflict with the WCF.



Does Great Commission publish, say, Calvin's works? When I talk about materials here I'm thinking theology, church history, biblical criticism, all of it. GC publishes a very limited range of materials, indicating that the PCA and OPC recognize that only a small slice of the materials they require even need to be published in-house.



jwithnell said:


> Seminaries make an interesting question, and I'd love to know if y'all have any knowledge about the mindset of the puritans when they established Harvard, Yale, etc. I have some knowledge regarding the history of these schools, but can't think if they were considered to be under the regional, albeit congregational churches.



It's fairly hard to have accountability of any kind under a decentralized structure. Also, when half your denomination goes Unitarian (Harvard) oversight is a joke. On the other hand, Princeton went liberal specifically because of meddling at the denominational level (prompting Machen to resign) which is why Westminster was formed outside the auspices of a denomination.


----------



## thbslawson (Mar 19, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> The idea that these organisations are filling a need the churches have somehow failed to provide is without foundation. They create the sense of need. That is what good organisation and presentation accomplishes. Church structure, standards, polity, and accountability mean the church is not free to function in ways these organisations take upon themselves. At the same time, the freedom of these organisations caters to the desire for independency and consumer choice, which enable the clients to enjoy a privilege without taking upon them the normal responsibilities which would result from church-participation.



You're making tons of assumptions and making lots of sweeping generalizations and, at worst, false accusations. Yes, indeed _some_ organizations are guilty of the things you mention here but there is absolutely no ground to say that all parachurch organizations are. Many parachurch organizations function in submission to local churches. I'm finding many of your claims to be without foundation.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 19, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Correct; publishing literature, teaching per se, anything of that nature is obviously a lawful civic employment.



So far as civic employment, would that disallow publishing religious material and teaching doctrine? In other words, would it be OK in your opinion to simply call it a bussiness and not a ministry if one is allowed to publish and teach religious matters? Or in your opinion should this simply not be done outside the church?


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 19, 2014)

Edward said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that these organisations are filling a need the churches have somehow failed to provide is without foundation.
> ...



Nor does it apply in Canada.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Mar 19, 2014)

Edward said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that these organisations are filling a need the churches have somehow failed to provide is without foundation.
> ...



As an ordained Australian minister, who has worked in churches and para-church organisations, I don't think the statement is true of Australia. Every para-church organisation I have associated with has arisen out of needs that were not being met by churches, or out of a desire to unite the church for a common goal (i.e. sending missionaries).


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 19, 2014)

> Every para-church organisation I have associated with has arisen out of needs that were not being met by churches, or out of a desire to unite the church for a common goal (i.e. sending missionaries).


 Does it make sense then, to take the function out of the church where God has placed it? As an example, the church I joined in Juneau, AK, did not observe the Lord's Table in the entire two years I was there. Would it have been OK to form a para-church organization to meet this need? Almost no reformed person would agree to this. Why is it OK to take other functions out of the church?

I am very aware of the history of my own denomination and of the seminary that provides the training for a great number of her pastors. Part of me wants to say it's never OK to have a seminary board or an institution that trains ministers operating outside of the authority of the church. Clearly there were needs where the northern Presbyterian church was greatly delinquent. This would seem to be the rare exception rather than the norm so many organizations have become since the 1960s or so.


----------



## Philip (Mar 19, 2014)

Part of the problem is this: what if people from multiple churches want to do ministry together? Are we thereby required to unite as churches? An example would be campus ministry: say we have an OPC church, a baptist church, and an Anglican Church, all of whom would like to have a presence ona university campus, but don't want to be competing for students. Which makes more sense: that they form an on-campus organization to aid them in that task (or even see if InterVarsity would be interested in forming a local chapter)? Or should they simply try to minister by themselves and hope for the best?


----------



## thbslawson (Mar 19, 2014)

Philip said:


> Part of the problem is this: what if people from multiple churches want to do ministry together? Are we thereby required to unite as churches? An example would be campus ministry: say we have an OPC church, a baptist church, and an Anglican Church, all of whom would like to have a presence ona university campus, but don't want to be competing for students. Which makes more sense: that they form an on-campus organization to aid them in that task (or even see if InterVarsity would be interested in forming a local chapter)? Or should they simply try to minister by themselves and hope for the best?



I suppose it depends on what they're trying to do and what does it mean to "do ministry together." Are they simply wanting to pass out bibles, talk to students about the gospel and direct them toward a gospel preaching church? Sounds like they could do this with simply some kind of _memorandum of understanding_. 

Sometimes a "para-church" gets formed more for legal reasons and practical reasons. Say the above group wants to start raising money to buy materials, fund conferences, produce resources, etc. In order to do this legally and keep one particular church from having to bear the burden of receipting and distributing funds, a 501c3 (USA) "para-church" could be formed to facilitate this. But how such a para-church functions in relation to the church is not determined by it's legal status but rather it's articles of governance and mission statement. So these three churches could all agree that the goal is always to be directing students to involvement in a local gospel-preaching church. Each participant in the ministry remains under the authority of and accountability to his local church. While all three churches have doctrinal distinctions, there is assumed to be enough in common among them in terms of the gospel, that they would be thankful if a student got involved at any of the three churches.


----------



## MW (Mar 19, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> Many parachurch organizations function in submission to local churches. I'm finding many of your claims to be without foundation.



Yes, "churches," in the plural, setting up a latitudinarian umbrella with a broad statement of faith and a diversity of practices. Thus proving the point that these organisations are free to function in ways that churches are not.


----------

