Neil Cole’s new book Organic Leadership is insightful, provocative, and prophetic. The first section of the book points out the weeds growing in the soil of the American church. One particular weed is the parasitical effect of parachurch ministries. To be sure, Cole does not view all parachurch organizations as an impediment to the church; however, he prophetically points out how the parachurch has assumed the role and mission of the church leaving her weak and anemic. Consider these areas of capitulation:
- Her leadership development has been assumed by colleges, seminaries, and Bible institutes.
- Her compassion and social justice have been given over to nonprofit charitable organizations.
- Her global mission has been relinquished to mission agencies.
- Church government and decision making have often been forfeited to denominational offices.
- Her prophetic voice has been replaced by publishing houses, self-help gurus, and futurist authors.
- Her emotional and spiritual health has been taken over by psychologists, psychiatrists, and family counseling services.
The Anemic Church
Now, before you react let this settle. Detect the truth in these statements. Where can your church recover certain elements, perhaps not in totality but in measure? Cole is not sweeping all parachurches aside. Rather, he is pointing out the professionalization and specialization of the church into ministries that have left the church anemic. We have capitulated to this fragmentation of the church. Cole notes:
The world today looks at the church wondering what relevance she has. The only use they see for the church is performing the sacerdotal duties of preaching, marrying, burying, baptizing, and passing around wafers and grape juice. The church was once a catalyst for artistic expression, social change, and the founding of hospitals, schools, and missionary enterprise, but today she has settled for providing a one-hour-a-week worship concert, an offering place, and a sermon. (116)
Ralph Winter: Sodality and Modality
Cole is careful to note the distinctions made by Ralph Winter regarding sodalities and modalities. Winter’s helpful article emphasizes the more apostolic, missionary nature of certain entities like Paul’s roving, planting, missionary bands. These are sodalities. These sodalities don’t do everything that the church is responsible for, instead they specialize. Modalities, on the other hand, are a little more static though missional and are churches. The church is a modality because it is given the responsibility to do everything that God has commanded us to do (feed the poor, disciple, translate the bible, etc.). A church is modality and parachurch sodality. Sodalities can weaken or strengthen churches.
Cole affirms the need for both modalities and sodalities but contests these distinctions as a point of division between church and parachurch. He writes: “both modality and sodality are part of God’s redemptive purpose. Both are the church in the eyes of Paul. I do no think he saw himself as at all separate from the church…” (122).
What do you think? Where has your church capitulated to the parasitical parachurch? Is there a way forward? And what of the modality sodality distinction? Are both mission agencies and local churches together the church? Much more could be said on these matters.
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 22, 2009 at 5:51 am
Brandon Hatmaker
Jonathan,
I think you know where I land on most of this conversation. I’ve long thought the non-profit sector has taken the place of the church in our culture. Even many of the faith-based non-profits have begun to do their work “in spite of” the church. Whether that’s because of a lack of passion on the part of the church or an organizations simple avoidance of the typical church red tape, it’s not their fault, it’s ours. Neglect comes to mind. Like you said (kinda) it seems to be the norm to just “let them do it”.
I’ve had some great conversations in the last week in regards to Sodality and Modality. Although Austin New Church is an intentionally ministry based model church, we are in reality a “hybrid” when it comes to gathering and sending.
With that in mind, we’ve found a real strength in partnering with local non-profits instead of capitulating to their head start and success. There’s much we can learn (and leverage) from others who have gone before us.
What we’ve found? Most non-profits don’t mind a faith based community partnering with them. In fact, we’ve found nothing but open arms. One of our missional communities was literally told at the LiveStrong Challenge that they were the best group of volunteers they’ve ever had. What a compliment.
And it makes sense. Why would I try to start my own food bank when we gather a mile away from the Capital Area Food Bank that feeds over 40,000 people a week? Seems like they know what they’re doing. Why re-invent the wheel? The only reason I can see is if we cannot represent the church while serving with and for them. So far, it’s not been a problem.
So what do we do? I suggest partnership. Bold, innovative, Gospel centered partnership. Let them know the Church cares. That just might be a paradigm that needs changed anyways.
February 22, 2009 at 7:01 am
Brandon Hatmaker
One more thought.
While I know most parachurch orgs are indeed faith-based non-profits, I assume you are mostly speaking of parachurch organizations beyond the service sector (which is what my post mostly dealt with), like Young Life, Campus Crusade, etc… as well as other local and global Mission Organizations.
However, I feel the same towards them as I would faith and non-faith based non-profits. I would love to partner with Young Life (and hope to do so in the future) and other faith-based parachurch initiatives in the same capacity we would any non-profit.
In answering your question “Is there a way forward?”: I think so. Is this ideal? Maybe not. Is it a good option for bringing things back together? Possibly.
Just an FYI, I think the principles are the same (or at least similar).
February 22, 2009 at 6:37 pm
chrismarlow
I think there is a lot of truth to what Cole is stating. However, if the church is truly God’s people, then are not all of the above (para-church, non-profits) doing God’s work? Also, the church can’t reach out in all the various domains that need to be reached. Maybe I’m missing the point of this conversation? I also understand that there’s an ecclesiology issue that is important and vital.
Also, how do we define “her?” When you/Cole say that a missions org has replaced “her,” is not the mission org led by people who love God, therefore are not they also the church?
I think the church is weak and anemic because we fail in our priorities to build a gospel-centered community that’s on mission for Jesus in their natural domains. Maybe we have a lot to learn from the para-church folks? Yet, I think the para-church folks must be for the local church and strengthen the local church.
Needless to say I’m caught in this transition right now and it’s a true struggle!
Shalom
February 22, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Jonathan Dodson
Hey Brandon. I love the way Austin New Church has made partnership with parachurch and non-profits central to your missional expression as a church. Austin City Life has done similar things with Dell Children’s, Ronald McDonald House, Mission Possible, etc. So, I am a fan. Strategic partnership is a way forward. And to Marlow’s point, modalities are often more mobile, flexible, and experienced. It would be silly for the local church to refuse to work with them.
However, I think Cole has raised some really good concerns that mustn’t be overlooked. You touch on social mission but what about leadership, counseling, theology, etc? What would it look like for the church to recover some ownership in all these areas, not in spite of modalities but alongside them? The professionalization and fragmentation of the church (leadership, mission, theology, counseling) in many cases has resulted in a weakening of these “disciplines”. Weak in two senses 1) the local expression of the church is relegated to meetings, sermons, and singing. 2) the modalities often syncretize these disciplines with other disciplines in unhealthy, unbiblical ways, i.e. Christian counseling that relies on psychology as the diagnosis and cure to our issues. The responsibilities and gifts of the church are “referred” giving the church/people the impression that a gospel-centered community can’t counsel, lead, theologize, or mission on their own. That is anemic.
February 23, 2009 at 12:05 am
J. R. Miller
a good challenge for us all!
February 23, 2009 at 2:41 am
Brandon Hatmaker
Jonathan,
I couldn’t agree with your additional thoughts more.
So what do we do? In answering your question, “Is there a way forward?”. I’d say yes… and we’re beginning to see it. Thanks for what you do at Austin City Life. I value your leadership and friendship.
BH
February 23, 2009 at 2:53 am
Brandon Hatmaker
Also #2
In your additional question: “You touch on social mission but what about leadership, counseling, theology, etc?”
I think all social mission has to be an expression of what’s going on in “whatever” structure we have created for individual and collective transformation. Hopefully all community efforts are an expression of our… here we go… theology, missiology, and ecclesiology.
It simply has to be a “whole gospel” effort, not just a compartmentalized “now let’s serve our city” once a month effort.
So, as we consider how “the modalities often syncretize these disciplines with other disciplines in unhealthy, unbiblical ways”… this should be our starting point for reclaiming our share of this mission.
February 23, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Malcolm Lanham
I have worked within the context of a church and of a non-profit mission agency & even had my own non-profit… the latter two would classified as para-church ministries.
Here are some things about both… positive & negative…
1) I firmly agree that if churches have been doing what they are called and suppose to do… then there would never be a need for para-church agencies.
2) Para-church agencies have filled the void… very nicely at times… for giving people that may have given their lives to Christ later in life an outlet to be in full time ministry. You see churches, have done a good job of equipping, releasing people to go into full time ministry, unless they go to one of their tribe’s four year colleges or their two year seminaries. So if you accept Christ let’s say at the age of 29… and have a family and cannot redirect into that path… then you could not go into full time ministry. So para church & mission agencies have been good for the Kingdom from that standpoint.
3) Para-churches & mission agencies miss mark though when they think that they are replacing the church. After my experience as a missionary, whose main focus was serving the poor… I realized that we needed a church to plug people into. The church’s where I was at were not open to new people… most of the people had been hurt by church in some fashion. So as we did what the church should have been doing… taking care of the poor… praying for people… building relationships with those around us… people started looking for a church. If the agency, thinks that it can do ministry outside of the context of the church… or is a replacement for a church body… then it is deceiving itself and is not biblical in it’s context.
4) I also believe that an agency should always give way to a church when it comes to ministry. If a church is looking doing ministry at say a college campus and they making a difference on that campus… then why should the agency come in there? It should re-direct it’s efforts and fundraising to places where there is no ministry taking place.
Thoughts?
I am thinking through the go forward for churches… non-profits… and the Kingdom. I will post that shortly.
February 23, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Neil Cole
Jonathan, thanks for the post. I am glad you got your copy of the book, and I am anxious to hear more of what you thought.
On this subject: a BIG reason we are so off on this is because we have a weakened and cheap understanding of what a church is in the first place, therefore we allow for specialized non-profit organizations to fill in. In many cases, just serving communion and baptizing is enough to qualify as a church.
The antecedent is that not doing those things allows for these organizations to “not” be church. This is foolish. Church is much more than this and in fact these organizations are functioning as the bride of Christ, even if just in part. In fact, the foolish idea that a single organization can be the fulfillment of Christ’s body is killing us all. I think this is really the core of the problem and I hope I communicated that in the book. If you are connected to the Head and serving a part of His purpose in this world, than you are connected to His body and you are church. It’s as plain as that.
Part of the problem is that certain organizations want to be supported by the institutional church so they fear appearing as competitive. Therefore they have formed under a specific mission as a “help” to the church, but in the end they still end up taking from the church. If we were all a little less stupid about our “territorial rights” in God’s kingdom (how stupid is that!?!) we would see a lot of this cleaned up. It is amazing what can get done if we are not concerned with who gets the credit for it. We should be less concerned with who gets credit and who is funded and be more concerned with our King’s success.
Pressing on,
Neil
February 24, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Jonathan Dodson
It’s a great book, Neil. I’ll be blogging on it more. Concerning your last paragraph, can you clarify how you see parachurch fitting into an Organic church that is recovering strength in areas previously weakened by parasites?
Do you consider a modality a church?
February 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm
David Bunker
David Fitch’s The Great Giveaway (Baker Books) profoundly points out the capitulation of the church to para church organizations. From the theraputic community to family ministry enclaves, the Church has unwittingly cooped out the very charismas and processes that can only truly be meeted out in the context of liturgy, fellowship, spiritual disciplines, and the authority given the Church through Christ. Fitch’s book is a great read.
February 27, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Church vs Parachurch 2 « fresh expressions…
[…] Church vs Parachurch 2 Neil Cole has also had some interesting things to say recently about church and parachurch, as quote… […]
March 2, 2009 at 12:31 am
Duncan Macleod
I’m part of a local faith community that meets in my home once a week, provide leadership in a more conventional congregation, and also work for a denominational organisation as a mission consultant. I am involved in a parachurch organisation that rallies support from local congregations, schools and government funding to provide chaplaincy in local schools. Talking about parasitical in these contexts is unhelpful and unproductive. Talking about one of these alone being church is also unnecessary. Yes – local Christian communities have the challenge of providing leadership in their wider community, beyond running Sunday services. But to suggest we can do that without any level of institutional governance is naive.
March 14, 2009 at 9:53 am
Church vs Parachurch 3 « fresh expressions…
[…] this little series by trying to interact with some thoughts that others (Dave Bish, Steve Timmis, Jonathan Dodson and Neil Cole) were posting on this subject. For those thoughts see part 1 and part […]
March 16, 2009 at 1:45 am
David Bunker
One might need to read Fitch’s book before they rush to defend the para church even if that is where they receive thier paycheck. I work in one as well. His critique is not derisive nor negating but a well reasoned argument for the calling only the Church has. This is a crituqe aimed at closing the the distance between those working inside & outside the church. We need a reinvigorated ecclesiology. Fitch’s assesment is an important and badly needed corrective. Gordan Hackman says of Fitch’s work, “He attempts to uncover the ways in which modern assumptions concerning such things as success, leadership, character formation, and justice have warped our understandings of them as Christians and have lead us to be unfaithful to the Bible and the gospel of Christ. He also attempts show how evangelicals have given away even specific practices of the church such as preaching, worship, and evangelism to the controlling assumptions of modernity, sometimes even when we think we are being the most faithful.” Unwittingly some, (SOME) para church organizations have fallen prey to modernity’s diminishment of the centrality of the Church. This is his point.
March 5, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Parasitical Parachurch? « faith parley
[…] Under: Networking, missional, nonprofit by Brandon Hatmaker — 4 Comments Feb 22, 2009 Jonathan Dodson, Pastor of Austin City Life, a great thinker, and a great friend of mine recently published a blog […]
April 13, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Kevin
I feel that we spend so much time arguing what the church is and isn’t that we forget to spend time on actually going out and being the church. I agree completely that the theology of the church and the role of the church is incredibly important and easily missed in many “churches” today, but I still think that we have a bad habit of sitting, thinking, and speaking of ideas that seldom result in action. Let’s get up and serve and love people. Let’s share the Gospel with people. Let’s not learn and new vocabulary or re-define words. Get up and go!
December 28, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Joe Decker
For me it is a matter of experiencing more than a legitimate peripheral participation in the calling of God. The bureaucracy and polity of many mainstream systems, the clergy-laity distinction, all create hoops the believer has to jump through for full-time legitimate participation. The idea that a single individual can enterprise and innovate on-top of the cloistered stay-local, turned inward in upon itself church (modality) where ministry is legitimate only if it is authorized, controlled and under the organized auspices of a church. Many para church ministries (sodality) operate autonomously, because the corporate conglomerate of most church systems have an authority-fetish. I feel that the historical church, spawned out of the civil Roman mentality, sought to regiment authority by way of a romanized view of “bishops”, created the top-down structure that is still plaguing denominations today with jurisdictional views of ministry, both episcopal and presbytery polity.