What about the para church?

Diagram one represents the threefold ministerial responsibilities of the Church:

Diagram 1

If the “para-church” organisation hijacks any of these responsibilities it is “stealing” the core duty of the local church and thus is unbiblical and will not prosper in the long term. As the “mustard seed” of God’s kingdom expands to cover the whole world the Church will need/use “para-church” organisations to further the Gospel. The distinction between institutional Church and the people of God, as argued in my previous paper (Unit 4 Issue 1), can resolve the problem of how we deal with or account for these “para-church” organisations. Jordan (1986, pp. 77-78) comments that;

“in its early days, the church as people of God is virtually identical to the institutional church, being few in number, living in a hostile environment. As the church grows in strength and influence, it is not necessary for the church in its official and institutional aspect to maintain a stance over against the rest of society…The institutional church is the nursery of the Kingdom, and thus as the church grows and develops, many of its earlier diaconal responsibilities can be taken over by separate organizations…Thus there is no need for the institutional church to run Christian hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc. On the other hand, it is not wrong for the institutional church to institute or run such organizations, if the people of God cannot organize to do so.”

The relationship between the Church, her members and the “para-church” organisation ought to be covenantal and governed by the authority of the local church’s elders over the individual. As the Church grows she will so influence society that Christian institutions will be needed. The Church does not possess direct authority over “para-church” institutions but rather indirect influence via the authority line of Her members submitting to the elders. If a member of a local body is involved with a “para-church” organisation, which is denying the divinity of Christ, the elders of the local body should exercise discipline over that member. In this way the Church is influencing these institutions appropriately.

This gives some guidance on how the relationship between Church and “para-church” organisation should be structured. These organisations can be used to outsource specialised functionality from the Church. Another way to put this is: the institutional Church is responsible for the sabbatical functions of corporate worship, administration of the sacraments and discipline; whereas “para-church” organisations can be used to fulfill the Church’s (i.e. as the people of God) culture/dominion mandate. The cultural/dominion activities of scientific research, education and all other areas of life are the endeavors of the people of God and can be done outside of the direct control/authority of the institutional Church. These activities are influenced through the Church’s oversight of her members. Diagram 2 highlights this relationship:

Diagram 2

Thus it seems relatively simple for a local church to join, via its members, a “para-church” organisation to further Gospel. The complexity seems to enter the equation when the organisation steps outside of its cultural/dominion duties and seeks to “hijack” the local church’s sabbatical duties. The lines seem to blur a little when the “para-church” organisation is primarily involved with a teaching/evangelising ministry. This seems to fall under the eldership as opposed to the cultural responsibilities of the church. However, the church as the people of God has been given a general responsibility to evangelise – thus “para-church” organisations aren’t stepping into the local church’s sabbatical role when they seek to evangelise (Jordan 1986, p. 79). Diagram 3 shows this flow:

Diagram 3

Works Cited

Jordan, J. B. (1986). The Sociology of the Church: Essays in Reconstruction. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers.