Parachurch revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Do you think that the parachurch idea benefits the the local church or hurts it in it's ecclesiology?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
 
I think it is more of a symptom of bad ecclesiology than a cause of it.

Usually parachurch organizations perform the kinds of functions that more naturally belong to the higher courts of the Church. If there is no Presbyterian form of government, who is going to send out missionaries, train ministers, etc.? Hence the parachurch.

The obvious problem with it is that the Church has been given the task to perform its functions through its functionaries (or officers). In the parachurch, men run unsent.
 
This is a huge problem that is gutting the church. Let's say you have someone who comes to Christ in high school and goes to Young Life, or at college and is involved in Crusade or RUF. He decides "full-time Christian work" is the way to go, so he attends seminary but isn't required to be involved with a church. After graduation he now either tries to work in a church, bringing a bunch of parachurch mannerisms along with him, or goes with an independent group into missions. This is a route that produces evangelistic praise ministies but no real discipleship, situations where individuals become strong leaders who satan delights at cutting down morally and very publically, and seems to happen in all kinds of denominations.
 
The New Testament assumes itinerant evangelists and mobile folks traveling around for the sake of the Gospel. Often these brought letters of recommendation with them from local churches, but their ministries were not confined to a local church.
 
The New Testament assumes itinerant evangelists and mobile folks traveling around for the sake of the Gospel. Often these brought letters of recommendation with them from local churches, but their ministries were not confined to a local church.

I cannot think of an example in the NT where a man is preaching and teaching without being sent by some body and/or Apostle.

Even in times of persecution (like Acts 8) there were no evangelists just popping up of their own recognizance.
 
The New Testament assumes itinerant evangelists and mobile folks traveling around for the sake of the Gospel. Often these brought letters of recommendation with them from local churches, but their ministries were not confined to a local church.

I cannot think of an example in the NT where a man is preaching and teaching without being sent by some body and/or Apostle.

Even in times of persecution (like Acts 8) there were no evangelists just popping up of their own recognizance.

I am not arguing that they were not initially sent by a church. Though, we are not given the background info on many except Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13-14).

My assertion is as follows: Many employees and workers at parachurches are sent or commissioned by their home churches. The issue is that many spend the majority of their time working outside the local church or circulating among churches (eg. the Pauline mobile band). Their labors are not confined to their one local church. And this seems a common NT pattern. Both modalities and sodalities have been with us from the NT. The two little epistles of John and the Didache treat the issue of itinerant ministers popping up at churches and traveling through.
 
Last edited:
I cannot think of an example in the NT where a man is preaching and teaching without being sent by some body and/or Apostle.

It seems that something like this happened to Jesus and the Apostles:
Mark 9:38-40
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
 
The New Testament assumes itinerant evangelists and mobile folks traveling around for the sake of the Gospel. Often these brought letters of recommendation with them from local churches, but their ministries were not confined to a local church.

The office of the type of evangelist described in scripture has passed.
 
I cannot think of an example in the NT where a man is preaching and teaching without being sent by some body and/or Apostle.

It seems that something like this happened to Jesus and the Apostles:
Mark 9:38-40
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

The key phrase there is "he followeth not us".

As I noted above in the NT there are cases where we are not told explicitly who sent them, but they were sent by someone (in Mark 9, Christ Himself through the Spirit).

But that situation in Mark 9 is a far cry from the kind of "parachurch" thing in the OP.
 
I cannot think of an example in the NT where a man is preaching and teaching without being sent by some body and/or Apostle.

It seems that something like this happened to Jesus and the Apostles:
Mark 9:38-40
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

The key phrase there is "he followeth not us".

As I noted above in the NT there are cases where we are not told explicitly who sent them, but they were sent by someone (in Mark 9, Christ Himself through the Spirit).

But that situation in Mark 9 is a far cry from the kind of "parachurch" thing in the OP.

It seems there is biblical example of people circulating all over to preach the Gospel. Mobile missionary bands existed with only loose ties to a sending church (Paul was released from Antioch, yet did not seem to consult Antioch for every on-the-field decision, place of ministry, recruitment of co-workers, etc, though he did return there after his assignments to share and report).

But it also seems there is no biblical example of creating a whole organizational structure that is outside the church (unless endorsed and supervised by a church). Many missionary orgs have a board of directors drawn from the pastors of churches that have sent them missionaries, such that there is not merely one sending church supervising their work, but many and they are closely tied to local churches.

Some parachurches, however, have no such accountability structure and seem totally divorced from the local church and I think that is probably what Reformed folks have trouble with.

Strangely enough, many reformed folks sometimes condemn all parachurches with one sweeping generalization and them speak of the blessings of such ministries of Samaritan's Purse, Compassion International, Ligonier, Grace to You, Gideon's Bible Society, Answers in Genesis, Mission Aviation Fellowship, etc.

Do you support seminaries? Many seminaries seem to mirror many parachurch orgs in structure.

Sometimes we see men sent out from local churches to start a ministry and the product of what they start is not a church but a school, org, etc, such as the Apostle Paul teaching at the School of Tyrannus. Was the school of Tyrannus a parachurch ministry? Or does it not matter since Paul was an apostle?

It is not that those who minister in parachurch orgs are "outside the church" but they are part of the Church. Their church sends them to minister. Many employees of Answers in Genesis, for example, I am sure go to their separate churches every Sunday and are not part of an Answers in Genesis Church.

Sometimes parachurches forget that they are not independent of the larger body of Christ. For example, Wycliffe Bible Translators recently got into the practice of advocating High-Contextualization Bible Translations among Muslim people-groups which removed the phrase Son of God and replaced this term with a less "offensive" term in translations marketed for Muslims. It took many efforts by other missionaries, the PCA and other big name pastors to shine a light on this bad practice and issue statements against such a practice until Wycliffe reviewed such practices. Local churches were calling a parachurch into account.

Some parachurches cannot be called into account and that is troublesome. They are totally separate from the larger body of Christ.
 
Last edited:
The New Testament assumes itinerant evangelists and mobile folks traveling around for the sake of the Gospel. Often these brought letters of recommendation with them from local churches, but their ministries were not confined to a local church.

The office of the type of evangelist described in scripture has passed.

That's what you say.

The below from my BCO thinks nothing like the Billy Graham's of the world going around "saving" people like The Apostle Paul did. Read what is expected in the below of our "evangelists" in the PCA. They are sent out to preach and administer the sacraments, and other functions, which Paul was not sent to do as we read in scripture. :)

PCA BCO:

1-6.
The ordination of officers is ordinarily by a court, except in the case
of ordination by a presbytery's evangelist (see BCO 8-6).

5-3.
The mission church, because of its transitional condition, requires a
temporary system of government. Depending on the circumstances and at its
own discretion, Presbytery may provide for such government in one of
several ways:
a. Appoint an evangelist as prescribed in with BCO 8-6.

...


8-5.
When a man is called to labor as a teaching elder, it belongs to his
order, in addition to those functions he shares with all other elders, to feed
the flock by reading, expounding and preaching the Word of God and to
administer the Sacraments. As he is sent to declare the will of God to
sinners, and to beseech them to be reconciled to God through Christ, he is
termed ambassador. As he bears glad tidings of salvation to the ignorant and
perishing, he is termed evangelist. As he stands to proclaim the Gospel, he is
termed preacher. As he dispenses the manifold grace of God, and the
ordinances instituted by Christ, he is termed steward
of the mysteries of God.

8-6.
When a teaching elder is appointed to the work of an evangelist, he
is commissioned to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments in
foreign countries or the destitute parts of the Church. The Presbytery may by
separate acts from that by which it commissioned him, entrust to the
evangelist for a period of twelve months the power to organize churches,
and, until there is a Session in the church so organized, to instruct, examine,
ordain, and install ruling elders and deacons therein, and to receive or
dismiss members.

8-7.
A Presbytery may, at its discretion, approve the call of a teaching
elder to work with an organization outside the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian
Church in America, provided that he be engaged in preaching and teaching
the Word, that the Presbytery be assured he will have full freedom to
maintain and teach the doctrine of our Church, and that he report at least
annually on his work. As far as possible, such a teaching elder shall be a
member of the Presbytery within whose bounds he labors. (See BCO 20-1.)
 
Last edited:
I only have a few brief moments. I was thinking of the New Light/Old Light controversy in America as the thread on the Ligonier Statement was debated.

I guess this all depends on what the term "parachurch" means.

Are chaplains examples of parachurch?

It's interesting to look historically at the impact that George Whitefield had on the Church as well as the impact that other revival movements have had in American Church history. These impacts are not only sweeping in terms of the Church but even the political process and, given America's influence in mission work globally, spread throughout a lot of the world.

There is certainly a lot of bad to point to with enthusiasts and sentimentalists. I'm a big believer that discipleship really cannot occur outside of a solid Church. Paul sent Timothy and Titus to plant Churches with elders who cared for people's souls. I don't have the time to share some heart-warming and encouraging testimonies of people who came to our Church who were cared for for the first time in their Christian lives and really discipled. I participate in local Bible studies in what may be considered parachurch. I am often very frustrated about the energy these organizations take from Christians who are not joining a real local Body because the parachurch tends to masquerade as an entity for discipleship.

On the good side, I think history is replete with blind spots where the downtrodden and outcasts are generally not reached by the Church. Pentecostalism grew, in large measure, because they ministered to the poor and ethnic groups in a way that established Churches did not. They were racially integrated well before that was even on many radars. George Whitefield preached to slaves at a time when the Church largely resisted including minorities as full members of the Kingdom of God. I go back and forth as to how God, in His Providence, might have used people to reach groups in an irregular manner. It caused a lot of strife for the Church but it also reached the unreached. I know one PCA friend who says this: "Baptists and Pentecostals convert people and we disciple them." I believe in an educated clergy and will never veer from that conviction but we sometimes just can't seem to keep up with the harvest.
 
Chaplains generally are commissioned and sent by Presbyteries (as are evangelists and missionaries) in our circles, so no that would not be an example of parachurch.
 
Chaplains generally are commissioned and sent by Presbyteries (as are evangelists and missionaries) in our circles, so no that would not be an example of parachurch.

Yes, I understand how Chaplains work. I've examined many in our Presbytery for ordination.

That said (and I'm going to get in trouble here), it's one thing to provide Chaplains where there are no Churches to serve people but Chapels exist near where established Churches exist. Military families tend to see Chapels as examples of "normal Church".

I'll shut up before I write more that might unnecessarily offend and distract from the main point of the conversation.
 
..... I'm a big believer that discipleship really cannot occur outside of a solid Church.......I know one PCA friend who says this: "Baptists and Pentecostals convert people and we disciple them." I believe in an educated clergy and will never veer from that conviction but we sometimes just can't seem to keep up with the harvest.

I am a believer that Our Lord can disciple people in churches that are less than solid. Now saying this I am blessed to be part of a rather solid church and see the advantage of such. :)
 
..... I'm a big believer that discipleship really cannot occur outside of a solid Church.......I know one PCA friend who says this: "Baptists and Pentecostals convert people and we disciple them." I believe in an educated clergy and will never veer from that conviction but we sometimes just can't seem to keep up with the harvest.

I am a believer that Our Lord can disciple people in churches that are less than solid. Now saying this I am blessed to be part of a rather solid church and see the advantage of such. :)

By the way, in writing that I wasn't trying to say that Baptists don't disciple Christians. I was quoting somebody else.

The larger point is that an educated clergy is a pretty time-consuming and resource-intensive task. The qualifications for ordination have been historically much lower for the denominations that spread out quickly across the frontiers of America. Early Methodists were fearless missionaries and their messages were very simple and their clergy generally not trained very rigorously.
 
This sub-topic of "education of the clergy" has emerged. Therefore, let me give a few thoughts:

(1) Some parachurches exist because such education of clergy is not happening. Or such training cannot happen efficiently within a local church. Many local churches are 60-80 members with a lone pastor who doesn't know greek or is too busy to teach

Therefore, seminaries and bible schools and training programs have emerged to educate clergy better. Very rarely do we see pastors totally trained within the confines of a local church.

(2) For missionaries, even seminaries do not adequately prepare them. A former member of the PB here, Don Lowe, once charted the missions classes in every Reformed seminary in the West, and he found that the majority had little to no missionary training. Some had none at all. Therefore, special ministries and parachurches have emerged in order to train missionaries prior to sending them out to the field. From medical, to emotional to linguistic training...I am hard put to criticize these programs in the least and I don't desire to call them unbiblical or seek their disappearance. Most are doing a fine job.
 
Chaplains generally are commissioned and sent by Presbyteries (as are evangelists and missionaries) in our circles, so no that would not be an example of parachurch.

Yes, I understand how Chaplains work. I've examined many in our Presbytery for ordination.

That said (and I'm going to get in trouble here), it's one thing to provide Chaplains where there are no Churches to serve people but Chapels exist near where established Churches exist. Military families tend to see Chapels as examples of "normal Church".

I'll shut up before I write more that might unnecessarily offend and distract from the main point of the conversation.

The OPC still has an active chaplaincy program for which I will apply (hopefully) when I finish seminary.

http://opc.org/chaplain/index.html

But yea, most abuse the designation. Most are independent.
 
I only have a few brief moments. I was thinking of the New Light/Old Light controversy in America as the thread on the Ligonier Statement was debated.

I guess this all depends on what the term "parachurch" means.

Are chaplains examples of parachurch?

It's interesting to look historically at the impact that George Whitefield had on the Church as well as the impact that other revival movements have had in American Church history. These impacts are not only sweeping in terms of the Church but even the political process and, given America's influence in mission work globally, spread throughout a lot of the world.

There is certainly a lot of bad to point to with enthusiasts and sentimentalists. I'm a big believer that discipleship really cannot occur outside of a solid Church. Paul sent Timothy and Titus to plant Churches with elders who cared for people's souls. I don't have the time to share some heart-warming and encouraging testimonies of people who came to our Church who were cared for for the first time in their Christian lives and really discipled. I participate in local Bible studies in what may be considered parachurch. I am often very frustrated about the energy these organizations take from Christians who are not joining a real local Body because the parachurch tends to masquerade as an entity for discipleship.

Rich,
This is why I originally posed the question; does the parachurch movement assist the local expression or do they hinder it by segregating it more, creating facets of illicit indepenency. in my opinion, all organizations should have an overseeing local church or presbytery.
 
Also, let me ask you: What does the Church of God look like? And how does the priesthood of all believers impact our ability to voluntarily interact one with another without a strict chain of command?

Do all activities of Christians need to flow from the top down and through the authority structure of the local church? Or can Christians voluntarily join together in common cause to meet some deficiency or need?

Example 1: I briefly attended a church in NC where the elders desired to review the gospel tracts that believers passed out to people in their spare time. They wanted to give permission prior to any church members sharing the gospel using literature with anyone, i.e. members could only use church-approved tracts to give to others in their spare time. While one elder insisted that this approach was wise, my wife and I drifted to another church as these announcements were made because it seemed too "top-down" and seemed to ignore the priesthood of all believers.

Example 2: A typhoon hits a country. A dozen Christian businessman decide to quickly help, so they meet together and organize relief. Such packages and workers must go out in the name of one banner, so a name is adopted and staff are sought and official registration with the gov't occurs. This Relief Group then sends the relief to the country. And they keep it up for a year or two.

On Sundays, these Christian businessmen go to their own respective home churches. As Christians they are part of their own local churches, but they also voluntarily banded together for this disaster relief project.

Should these efforts have only been done if they were first brought before a local church and approved by it first? And which local church? Suppose the businessmen went to 5 different churches. Must they get group consensus before they move forward or, may they boldly and quickly organize this relief on their own? Should a pastor of one of these churches (with possibly no business acumen) have taken over leadership? Should the churches involved have insisted that a clergy board of directors be formed? Or was it okay that these businessman, as Christians, did something on their own and met the need as the Spirit moved?

You could say that they formed a "parachurch" - but also realize that they themselves are part of the Church (Big C). So, this is not so much an expression of a parachurch but of the actions of Christ's Church around the world and how Christians have always functioned.

In the New Testament, we do not see tight organizational structures. In fact, the Bible is not an ecclesiology hand-book and there are lots of silences on how to do things.


Another example: Example 3: I know an old baptist pastor who runs a youth camp that used to be popular. Many people would go to the youth camp, even as the local church that organized and ran this camp shrank and shrank. This old pastor was very much against parachurch orgs. He preached against them often. Every single ministry in the world must be "under the direct supervision of a local church" he would say. That was his mantra.

But now, this shrunken church only consisted of a handful of people. But they wanted the camp to continue. They didn't have enough qualified people from their own local church to sit in on the meetings as directors of this camp to supervise and run this camp. So this church which preached very much against any parachurch organization and asserted that every ministry in existence must be under a local church...they invited outside pastors and men to sit on the board of directors and help lead the camp.

My point is that as Christians want to do something and engage in ministry and meet needs, our convictions can get in the way and become straight-jackets if they are overly strict and not expressly found in Scripture. Are such convictions necessary? Just like the Old Light/New Light controversy, how much of the spread of Christianity can be lead from the top or planned for, and how much happens ad hoc and spontaneous? Much of the expansion of Christianity has been under lay leadership and has happened unplanned. As believers with the Holy Spirit, many Christians simply see a need and organize to meet that need. If such efforts must only be led by one source of leadership or external authority, which church would lead it? How would they lead it, and how much control would they exercise?

I have heard Landmark Baptist pastors decry missionary orgs and bible schools, saying that "the Lord only created one institution for the spread of the Gospel in the world, the Church of Jesus Christ." And because of this, they opposed bible societies, seminaries, missionary agencies, etc. BUT.....believers ARE the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church is broader than merely particular, local manifestations of the Universal Church.
 
Do all activities of Christians need to flow from the top down and through the authority structure of the local church?

Your questions fails to represent the true nature of the issue under discussion. A parachurch "organisation" imposes a new authority structure for the activities of Christians which ipso facto competes with the authority structure of the church.
 
Also, let me ask you: What does the Church of God look like? And how does the priesthood of all believers impact our ability to voluntarily interact one with another without a strict chain of command?

Do all activities of Christians need to flow from the top down and through the authority structure of the local church? Or can Christians voluntarily join together in common cause to meet some deficiency or need?

This goes back to the thread on the recent issue w/ Ligonier and their statement on Christology. in my opinion, when one makes an official statement on particular issues and they stand in effect, for the church or are seen as a responsible vocal witness for the church, it becomes problematic at times. Me having lunch with a friend and making a declaration is not one and the same. All official declarations should have local oversight. Independency is a big problem and we are seeing the fruits of it; in a generation or two, I shudder to think what it will be like. Perg, when you ask 'what does the church of God look like', one muct make the distinction between the universal church and the local expression. In the universal, we will be known by our confession, love for the brethren and our devotion to the local church. Most of my activities fall under the jurisdiction of my overseeing elders. Ultimately, nothing I do is devoid of this and anyone who believes it does, is missing the point.

Example 1: I briefly attended a church in NC where the elders desired to review the gospel tracts that believers passed out to people in their spare time. They wanted to give permission prior to any church members sharing the gospel using literature with anyone, i.e. members could only use church-approved tracts to give to others in their spare time. While one elder insisted that this approach was wise, my wife and I drifted to another church as these announcements were made because it seemed too "top-down" and seemed to ignore the priesthood of all believers.

Example 2: A typhoon hits a country. A dozen Christian businessman decide to quickly help, so they meet together and organize relief. Such packages and workers must go out in the name of one banner, so a name is adopted and staff are sought and official registration with the gov't occurs. This Relief Group then sends the relief to the country. And they keep it up for a year or two.

Both of these examples are ok with me. But, they fall within the distinctions I made above. Serving the needy is fine and should be encouraged; however, my involvement will be w/ oversight from my local church. I don't believe any church organization would need any information toot sweet. But report on the relief would be a blessing to the congregation as the services progressed-possibly financial relief would be given.

On Sundays, these Christian businessmen go to their own respective home churches. As Christians they are part of their own local churches, but they also voluntarily banded together for this disaster relief project.

You could say that they formed a "parachurch" - but also realize that they themselves are part of the Church (Big C). So, this is not so much an expression of a parachurch but of the actions of Christ's Church around the world and how Christians have always functioned.

I guess this is my problem, trying to see why they need to think along these lines at all? These men all represent their local churches. Why can't that be enough. Why do they need to attach an idea of segregation.

In the New Testament, we do not see tight organizational structures. In fact, the Bible is not an ecclesiology hand-book and there are lots of silences on how to do things.

I don't know if I agree with this assessment fully.


Another example: Example 3: I know an old baptist pastor who runs a youth camp that used to be popular. Many people would go to the youth camp, even as the local church that organized and ran this camp shrank and shrank. This old pastor was very much against parachurch orgs. He preached against them often. Every single ministry in the world must be "under the direct supervision of a local church" he would say. That was his mantra.

But now, this shrunken church only consisted of a handful of people. But they wanted the camp to continue. They didn't have enough qualified people from their own local church to sit in on the meetings as directors of this camp to supervise and run this camp. So this church which preached very much against any parachurch organization and asserted that every ministry in existence must be under a local church...they invited outside pastors and men to sit on the board of directors and help lead the camp.

Maybe the Lord wanted to close this camp. If leadership was not able to continue, for whatever reason, to divert from a biblical hierarchy for the sake of keeping the camp together is in my opinion, unfounded. Ministries need to consider when the Lord is moving away from the direction the flesh may want.
 
Do all activities of Christians need to flow from the top down and through the authority structure of the local church?

Your questions fails to represent the true nature of the issue under discussion. A parachurch "organisation" imposes a new authority structure for the activities of Christians which ipso facto competes with the authority structure of the church.

competes or complements?

Many parachurch orgs have accountability to local churches.

Example: several missionary orgs I know have the pastors of the sending churches of their missionaries sitting on the board of directors for that missionary org. Therefore, the governing of the org falls under the direction of the leadership of the churches which supply the org with missionaries. This can hardly be seen as "competition."
 
A good example of the competition has to do, as it always seems to, with money.

If you are giving $500 to the parachurch, that's $500 which is not going to the church and all of us who pastor churches can vouch for the slim margins our budgets operate on.
 
Many parachurch orgs have accountability to local churches.

Example: several missionary orgs I know have the pastors of the sending churches of their missionaries sitting on the board of directors for that missionary org. Therefore, the governing of the org falls under the direction of the leadership of the churches which supply the org with missionaries. This can hardly be seen as "competition."

Then why have these parachurch organizations at all? Why can't the missionaries simply work from the oversight of the local church? What is something the parachurch organizations do that the local church, presbytery, or denomination cannot do?
 
Many parachurch orgs have accountability to local churches.

Example: several missionary orgs I know have the pastors of the sending churches of their missionaries sitting on the board of directors for that missionary org. Therefore, the governing of the org falls under the direction of the leadership of the churches which supply the org with missionaries. This can hardly be seen as "competition."

Then why have these parachurch organizations at all? Why can't the missionaries simply work from the oversight of the local church? What is something the parachurch organizations do that the local church, presbytery, or denomination cannot do?

Many parachurches have pooled missionary personnel with many years of experience on the fields in which the org operates.

For example: having folks who have served the Arab world for decades and know arabic training you to move to the arab mission field is superior than a local pastor in southern Missouri who may have rarely even left his home state.

Of course, a local church may delegate some of its authority or training and still be the sender of the missionary. This is what many churches are doing. Many have felt burned by irresponsible parachurches and are reclaiming their rightful role in the process.

Also, in matters of finance and paperwork, many local churches are not equipped. My home church is great doctrinally, but the deacons who do the finances do so as unpaid volunteers who do the books in their spare time. Especially for international transactions, a professional accountant would be superior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top