I have long thought that to say "parachurch ministries" are not "churches" is essentially to say they are not part of the Church. I think most probably wouldn't go so far as that--hearing it "out loud" shows that it must be in error--but it seems to me to be the functional equivalent. What can a specific congregation do that a mission agency - or a mission team - can't? (Especially a denominational foreign mission board; but, for that matter, any given non-denominational mission agency.) Possibly certain civic-important things (e.g. marriage, burial)--but we might ask, why? Is that not a civically-defined definition of church? (Side note: This isn't really unique to our time or even our tradition--for example, as I understand it, the Jesuits had exactly this issue within Catholic circles, too. Are we not all part of the Church?) I think an individual mission team or agency is just as much the Church as an individual congregation.
I think we can say that people within agencies/orgs are part of the Church, but those agencies/orgs aren't churches. Defining markers of church (preaching/teaching, ordinances observed, accountability, regular gathering, giving, intentionality about being a church, etc) aren't markers of an org. Throughout the NT, our examples of missionaries being sent and received have that sending and receiving done by churches.
Perhaps another way to phrase it is Andy Johnson's characterization -- the church is the bride and parachurch orgs are the bridesmaids. Orgs are helping churches, not taking center place.
In practice, when missionaries/ministers see their authority and accountability as to an organization rather than the local church, all kinds of unhelpful issues usually ensue.
Churches are families made up of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, with identifiable leadership. Orgs are businesses (doing much good!) but orgs don't aim for multiplication of themselves. Churches do. The missionary task was given to churches, and orgs help facilitate that.
There are a number of areas in this where I'd have to (hopefully courteously!) disagree. But perhaps I might ask this question - if churches are to be the sole senders, then shouldn't churches send and take responsibility for their own workers? They really shouldn't be sending through agencies.
(And, one more note - the missionary task, as I read it, wasn't given to churches or mission agencies, but to believers. What would that imply for this conversation?)
The term "para-church" is demeaning, if not insulting, for those of us who serve as missionaries. It has little biblical, historical or missiological justification. This unique Protestant perspective of ministry that means "less than" continues to hinder our global missionary efforts. Would that Protestants structurally embrace what our Catholic and Orthodox counterparts have always known ...Mother Teresa was not a para-Catholic.
If something is really important to someone, you're likely to see a pattern of emphasis in their life and teaching. An isolated comment pro or con can take the sharp edge off the trendline, but doesn't disprove the bigger picture. And, perhaps, the fact "they had other battles to fight" in that era only reinforces the point that the battles they chose weren't fought over global mission.
Thank you so much for raising these important topics. I continue to encourage leaders to read and reflect on The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission by Dr. Ralph Winter and The Church Is Bigger Than You Think: The Unfinished Work of World Evangelism by Patrick Johnstone. These works offer critical insights into the broader scope of the Church and God’s mission.
Within our missions movement, there are individuals deeply committed to church planting and disciple-making movements who have been shaped by Patterson’s more local church–centric view of ecclesiology. While their passion is commendable, from the perspectives of Winter and Johnstone, such a narrow ecclesiology can unintentionally hinder broader missions collaboration and partnership.
Thank you again for your thoughtful input—it’s encouraging to know I’m not alone in grappling with these dynamics.
Kudos to bringing up the topic, correcting possible errors, and yet pushing us to think biblically about missions. Please continue to push on boundaries to help us all gain clarity. As to the topic, as I grew up Baptist and then was in a non-denominatoinal church for many years, it is harder to see how what the reformers wrote years ago still apply today. I think you helped connect the dots, including how it impacts the denominations that flowed out of the teaching of those reformers. I also believe this is very relevant as you noted the misunderstanding of the role of a pastor versus a missionary team. If everything is missions, then there is often much less prioritization of the many globally who have never heard.
From Part 1, your comment " My observation is that how Reformed minded missionaries work tends toward what I would call a “pastoral model.” I am referring to a view of missions which emphasizes heavy doses of preaching and teaching. The missionary role is aligned with the same authoritarian role that a pastor might hold in a local church. The missionary operates like a pastor, preaching and teaching, baptizing and is essentially at the center of ministry activity." describes a moment we're in the US missions world. This view tends to say (implicitly or explicitly) that missionary = elder, which has all kinds of implications, including that women are secondary or supportive in the missionary task. Women aren't co-laborers but helpers as the missionary/elder leads. It de-emphasizes every member ministry and makes ministry/missionary work only for those qualified in special ways. (Not saying that missionaries shouldn't have distinct qualities!)
I have long thought that to say "parachurch ministries" are not "churches" is essentially to say they are not part of the Church. I think most probably wouldn't go so far as that--hearing it "out loud" shows that it must be in error--but it seems to me to be the functional equivalent. What can a specific congregation do that a mission agency - or a mission team - can't? (Especially a denominational foreign mission board; but, for that matter, any given non-denominational mission agency.) Possibly certain civic-important things (e.g. marriage, burial)--but we might ask, why? Is that not a civically-defined definition of church? (Side note: This isn't really unique to our time or even our tradition--for example, as I understand it, the Jesuits had exactly this issue within Catholic circles, too. Are we not all part of the Church?) I think an individual mission team or agency is just as much the Church as an individual congregation.
I think we can say that people within agencies/orgs are part of the Church, but those agencies/orgs aren't churches. Defining markers of church (preaching/teaching, ordinances observed, accountability, regular gathering, giving, intentionality about being a church, etc) aren't markers of an org. Throughout the NT, our examples of missionaries being sent and received have that sending and receiving done by churches.
Perhaps another way to phrase it is Andy Johnson's characterization -- the church is the bride and parachurch orgs are the bridesmaids. Orgs are helping churches, not taking center place.
In practice, when missionaries/ministers see their authority and accountability as to an organization rather than the local church, all kinds of unhelpful issues usually ensue.
Churches are families made up of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, with identifiable leadership. Orgs are businesses (doing much good!) but orgs don't aim for multiplication of themselves. Churches do. The missionary task was given to churches, and orgs help facilitate that.
There are a number of areas in this where I'd have to (hopefully courteously!) disagree. But perhaps I might ask this question - if churches are to be the sole senders, then shouldn't churches send and take responsibility for their own workers? They really shouldn't be sending through agencies.
(And, one more note - the missionary task, as I read it, wasn't given to churches or mission agencies, but to believers. What would that imply for this conversation?)
Oh I want to keep having this conversation and will get back to it soon! Thanks for responding! More soon.
Yes! Thank you so much for articulating this so well!
The term "para-church" is demeaning, if not insulting, for those of us who serve as missionaries. It has little biblical, historical or missiological justification. This unique Protestant perspective of ministry that means "less than" continues to hinder our global missionary efforts. Would that Protestants structurally embrace what our Catholic and Orthodox counterparts have always known ...Mother Teresa was not a para-Catholic.
I’m looking forward to the discussion on “no parachurch.” That is actually my view as well, but I’m curious to see if we have the same reasons! 🙂
If something is really important to someone, you're likely to see a pattern of emphasis in their life and teaching. An isolated comment pro or con can take the sharp edge off the trendline, but doesn't disprove the bigger picture. And, perhaps, the fact "they had other battles to fight" in that era only reinforces the point that the battles they chose weren't fought over global mission.
Thank you so much for raising these important topics. I continue to encourage leaders to read and reflect on The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission by Dr. Ralph Winter and The Church Is Bigger Than You Think: The Unfinished Work of World Evangelism by Patrick Johnstone. These works offer critical insights into the broader scope of the Church and God’s mission.
Within our missions movement, there are individuals deeply committed to church planting and disciple-making movements who have been shaped by Patterson’s more local church–centric view of ecclesiology. While their passion is commendable, from the perspectives of Winter and Johnstone, such a narrow ecclesiology can unintentionally hinder broader missions collaboration and partnership.
Thank you again for your thoughtful input—it’s encouraging to know I’m not alone in grappling with these dynamics.
Kudos to bringing up the topic, correcting possible errors, and yet pushing us to think biblically about missions. Please continue to push on boundaries to help us all gain clarity. As to the topic, as I grew up Baptist and then was in a non-denominatoinal church for many years, it is harder to see how what the reformers wrote years ago still apply today. I think you helped connect the dots, including how it impacts the denominations that flowed out of the teaching of those reformers. I also believe this is very relevant as you noted the misunderstanding of the role of a pastor versus a missionary team. If everything is missions, then there is often much less prioritization of the many globally who have never heard.
From Part 1, your comment " My observation is that how Reformed minded missionaries work tends toward what I would call a “pastoral model.” I am referring to a view of missions which emphasizes heavy doses of preaching and teaching. The missionary role is aligned with the same authoritarian role that a pastor might hold in a local church. The missionary operates like a pastor, preaching and teaching, baptizing and is essentially at the center of ministry activity." describes a moment we're in the US missions world. This view tends to say (implicitly or explicitly) that missionary = elder, which has all kinds of implications, including that women are secondary or supportive in the missionary task. Women aren't co-laborers but helpers as the missionary/elder leads. It de-emphasizes every member ministry and makes ministry/missionary work only for those qualified in special ways. (Not saying that missionaries shouldn't have distinct qualities!)