The Church and Para-Church Ministries: Pt II

The Relationship of the Church to Para-Church Organizations

But the church has not always ‘stepped up to the plate’. Many para-church organizations were formed in response to a perceived need to fill the gaps. This is commendable. We rightly thank God for the initiative and vision of leaders who sought to address these gaps. But if according to the NT the local church is the normal and true expression of the Body of Christ, what are we to make of para-church groups?

As the name suggests, para-churches exist to serve alongside and in partnership with the church in fulfilling God’s purposes. As I understand it, this was the original logic behind the formation of many para-church groups today. A number of significant missionary agencies, for example, began among networks and denominational affiliations of local churches looking to pull resources and work together.

I like the metaphor of the para-church functioning as “an arm of the church.” It has a unique and specific focus and function, which is strategic and practical. But it is also necessary that it remains connected to the broader church. We can never legitimize the dismemberment of Christ’s body, or narrowing its constituency and mission. This connection to the body is more than an invisible, spiritual relationship. It must be grounded in actual, concrete expressions of the Church, i.e., the local assembly. Ultimately, of course, the para-church serves the broader church. And in practice this means serving local churches to which they are connected and, in some meaningful sense, accountable.

If, for instance, a disciple-making endeavor is to follow the apostolic example, it must not only make individual disciples, but, in so doing, make every effort to incorporate them fully into the life of a local congregation. This requires, of course, that para-church leaders themselves model a biblical commitment to the local church in their own lives and ministries.

A Question of Authority

According to Ephesians 4:11ff., Jesus has given his church a range of leaders, all critical to its health and growth. Though there is much debate in identifying these “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers,” (or is it “pastor-teachers”?), and whether these roles all continue today, everyone agrees that the church continues to be apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic and pastoral in character and action (even if they disagree as to what all this means). This apparently demands a diversity of leaders who will “take point” in different arenas, equipping the body to fulfill its destiny in the world. Perhaps now more than ever, it is apparent that we in the Western church, for example, need evangelists, who will not only evangelize, but also disciple other believers to share the gospel.

What is the relationship of such gifted leaders to the local congregations? I think it is obvious that they are there to serve those congregations. But it isn’t necessary that they are exclusively limited to a single congregation. Many of these ministries in the first century were itinerant in nature.

On the one hand, these itinerant ministers are recognized, appointed and sent by local congregations (e.g., Ac.13:1-3). On the other hand, their domain of operation lies among multiple churches, and sometimes beyond (e.g., in “pioneering missions”). Their ministries are, in a real sense, para-church. Yet they are also ministries of the churches – both of the sending church (or churches) and the churches of which the itinerant leaders are currently ‘active members’.

Authority in the body is not located merely in its ‘officers’. It is diffused throughout the body, in mutual accountability and instruction (cf. Mt.18:15-16; Col.3:16) – two basic components of discipleship. Every believer exercises spiritual authority when acting and speaking in accordance with the Word of God (cf. Col.3:15; Eph.5:18; Gal.6:1; etc.). However, the ministry of all the members is subject to the oversight of the men God has appointed within that congregation as shepherds (Heb.13:17), laboring under the Chief Shepherd himself (1Pe.5:3). None of us is beyond the obligation to submit ourselves to the oversight of these elders of the church – not even the individual elders themselves (1Tim.5:19-20).

But rather than being a detriment to para-church ministries, by following the biblical pattern, those whose gifts and calling are recognized and embraced by the local congregation (and its leadership) exercise a ministry endorsed, encouraged, and supported by their church fellowship – even if their ministry is well beyond the bounds of that fellowship. Rather than undermining our authority, then, this bolsters and grounds it in the real, flesh and blood community of God’s people. If, however, the people of God do not acknowledge or affirm our calling and ministry, then…that is a real dilemma. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Of course, if we have good reason to doubt the doctrinal, ethical and/or spiritual fitness of the elders of our church, we are morally bound before God to address this within the community, and, if necessary, find another congregation to which we can submit ourselves in good conscience.