One of the most notable features of American evangelical Christianity in the

How Church and Parachurch Should Relate: Arguments for a Servant-Partnership Model JOHN S. HAMMETT This article addresses the relationship between churches and parachurch groups and argues for a servant-partnership approach. With this model parachurch organizations work as legitimate and valuable partners with churches in ministry, but possessing a status subordinate to that of churches. This model is based on a claim of theological priority for the church, in both local and denominational expressions, and the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. One of the most notable features of American evangelical Christianity in the second half of the twentieth century has been the prominence of parachurch groups. While not at all new, parachurch groups have mushroomed since the end of World War II, with one estimate in 1981 putting the number of parachurch groups in the United States alone at more than ten thousand (Youngren 1981:38). More recent estimates are as high as 100,000 for parachurch groups worldwide (Willmer and Schmidt 1998:xii). Though no exact figures are available, David Barrett believes that worldwide giving to parachurch ministries has recently passed worldwide giving to churches (1997:24). While many churches applaud the work of parachurch agencies, there has also been a persistent undercurrent of concern regarding parachurch groups, especially the issue of their theological basis and their relationship to church structures. The International Commission on Evangelical Co-operation, a study group convened by the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, described the issue in these terms: A few churches feel they must reject the validity of all groupings other than traditional congregational structures. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who advocate acceptance of these other Christian ministries not merely as biblically valid, but as equally "church" in the congregational sense. (Lausanne Committee 1983:83) John S. Hammett is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, where he has taught since 1995. Prior to that, he served as a missionary in Brazil with the International Missionary Board of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1991 to 1994. Missiology: An International Review, Vol. XXVIII, No. 2, April 2000

200 John S. Hammett Between these two extremes, a variety of models have been suggested. Jerry White identifies six views regarding the relationship of churches and parachurch groups: local church only, temporary legitimacy for parachurch groups, church and parachurch as two distinct structures, legitimacy for church planting parachurch groups only, dual legitimacy for both structures within the universal body of Christ, and an anti-institutional view which rejects all structures (1983:65-66). J. I. Packer has argued for the legitimacy of parachurch groups alongside churches as two of the forms in which God's kingdom is manifested: "the life of the faithful congregation is the kingdom in corporate manifestation; and the life of a faithful parachurch body is the kingdom in a form of executive manifestation" (1995:166). He believes that this has been the way in which the issue of the theological legitimacy of parachurch groups has "regularly been resolved" (1995:166). This paper will offer an alternative model for the relationship of churches and parachurch groups, the servant-partnership model. This model combines a positive appreciation for the ministry of parachurch groups with an emphasis on the theological priority of the church. Parachurch groups are seen as partners, or helpers, raised up by God to aid the church, but possessing a status subordinate to that of the church. Thus, the parachurch group should defer to the church, honor the church, accept its ministry under the authority of the church, and "find justification for its existence only in the mission of the church" (Jason 1986:200-201). Still, the relationship is a partnership in which each has something to offer the other: "the local church should offer the para-church its priority, structure, polity, and security... while the parachurch should bring to the local church the power of deeper dedication, specialist knowledge and adaptability" (Jason 1986:202). This article will delineate two basic theological arguments for this model, mention briefly other pragmatic benefits of this model, and suggest some ways in which it may be fleshed out in practice. The Priority of the Church In the Theological Preamble to the report of the International Commission on Evangelical Co-operation, previously mentioned, John Stott contrasts the arguments given in favor of the parachurch and the church. Arguments for the legitimacy of parachurch groups tend to be largely historical, "namely that under God they [parachurch groups] have made a much greater contribution to world evangelization than has the church" (Lausanne Committee 1983:13). Indeed, J. I. Packer adds that such groups "found acceptance and were blessed and used by God before any question of their theological status and legitimacy was raised" (1995:166). On the other hand, Stott notes, arguments for the priority of the church rest on Scripture, asserting that "only the Church can claim to be a divine creation" (Lausanne Committee 1983:13). Nearly a hundred years ago, A. H. Strong argued for a qualitative distinction between the church and organizations like the Young Men's Christian Association or the Temperance Society, based on the unique "divine appointment" of the institution of the church (1909:892). While Stott sees some merit in both the historical and the scriptural arguments, he believes that Scripture should be our primary and normative guide, and thus calls the parachurch group to subordinate itself to the church. He believes we may "grade"

How Church and Parachurch Should Relate 201 parachurch groups on the basis of their relationship to the church: "independence of the church is bad, co-operation with the church is better, service as an arm of the church is best" (Lausanne Committee 1983:13). At the same time, the service of the parachurch as an arm of the church must exist within a context of partnership, for either total domination by the church or total independence by the parachurch is destructive of a proper balance of authority and freedom: The tendency of the "establishment" to control individual initiatives runs theriskof quenching the Spirit. The tendency of voluntary organizations to insist on their independence runs the risk of ignoring the Body.... To quench the Spirit and to ignore the Body are both serious sins; they grieve the Christ whose Body and Spirit they are. (Lausanne Committee 1983:15) Thus Stott urges churches to support and encourage individuals to follow the Spirit's leading in individual initiatives, but he also urges individuals and groups to seek to operate as servants in partnership with the church, rather than independently. Of course, some parachurch groups have claimed for years that they are "arms of the church," but as Willmer and Schmidt note, "far too often these sentiments are just rhetoric, and the actions of the leaders give a drastically different message" (1998:179). They see a need to replace sibling rivalry with genuine partnership. 1 Ralph Winter also registers some hesitancy about the accountability of parachurch groups totally unrelated to congregations or denominational structures. He writes: "About half of all North American Protestant missionaries are sent out by mission offices owing no allegiance to any denomination by name. These suffer from imperfect accountability" (1979.150). 2 He sees the need to "heal the breach" (1979:168) between church and parachurch, but his model for doing so differs from that presented in this paper on a number of points. J. I. Packer thinks parachurch groups are biblically justified by their role within the kingdom of God, but still believes that it is "proper" for parachurch groups to "keep close to the churches, report to them, plan with them, maintain with them a mutuality of interest, care, and prayer, and look to them to embrace the vision out of which the organization was born and which it now seeks to fulfill" (1995:165). From the perspective being advocated here, such a relationship to churches on the part of parachurch groups is not only proper, it is theologically important. As the International Commission on Evangelical Co-operation insists, a theological issue is at stake: It is claimed by some, and with no lack of convincing historical evidence, that the genius of sodalities is their veryfreedomfromthis type of control or accountability. At the same time, a determination to be independent and totally unrelated to traditional church structures is surely a pragmatic pill too difficult for a theological digestive system to swallow. (Lausanne Committee 1983:34) Others would challenge the formulation of the theological priority of the church involved in the servant-partnership model in a variety of ways. Jerry White has argued that since any group of Christians working together may be considered part of the universal church, the only proper distinction is between local churches and "para-

202 John S. Hammett local church" organizations (1983:81). Under this definition, anything other than a local church is a para-local church, including denominational seminaries and denominational mission agencies (White 1983:64-65). Furthermore, there should be no necessity of subordination or servanthood to the church on the part of para-local church organizations, for they are themselves part of the church: "Para-local church structures, made up of individual believers around a common purpose, are as much a part of the universal church as any local congregation" (1983:81). However, this idea overlooks two important distinctions. First of all, there is a difference between denominational agencies and non-related agencies, not only in degree of accountability, but also in ecclesial status. Paul Rees points to the Reformation notae of the preaching of the Word, the right administration of the sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline, and says, "It is the taking seriously of these notae that makes it impossible for me to agree with the view of some that the status of parachurch organizations is no more open to criticism than that of denominations." He adds that denominations are linked to the assemblies of believers in which these notae are seen: "Denominations at least owe their existence, and are answerable, to assemblies of believers amongst whom may be found the notae of church reality" (cited in Lausanne Committee 1983:89). Thus, denominations, and the agencies they create, share in the priority of the church in a way that non-related agencies do not. Second, there is a difference in the way groups of individual believers and the way churches are related to the universal church. Certainly, both are part of the universal church, insofar as they consist of believers. But local churches are related to the universal church in a special, paradigmatic way that individual groups of believers are not. Theron Price describes the local church as "in its own time and place, the manifestation and embodiment of the Church" (1955:447). Dale Moody calls the local church "an outcrop" of the universal church, sharing the same nature as the universal church (1958:16). A. H. Strong contrasted the parachurch groups of his day with churches, saying that the former "lack the transcendent element they are instituted and managed by man alone" (1909:890). The church is the only structure, or institution, that is "of divine appointment" (Strong 1909:892). The mission and divine commission given to the universal church are thus also given to local churches as the representations or embodiments of the universal church. Independent parachurch groups are certainly part of the universal church, but they lack the ecclesial status of local churches. A second and related challenge to the priority of the church and its importance for church/parachurch relationships is raised by Howard Snyder. He begins by saying that the church is best defined as "the community of God's people" (1975:6). From this definition, he reasons: Since the church biblically understood is always people and can only be people, therefore any institutional structure, whether a denomination, a mission agency, a Christian college, an evangelical publishing house, or an evangelistic association, is a para-church structure. (1975:160) Thus far, Snyder's point is similar to White's: denominational structures are as much parachurch as independent structures are. Thus, the same defense of the special status of denominationally related agencies applies, as given above. 3 But there is a second issue Snyder raises, relating to the essence of the church.

How Church and Parachurch Should Relate 203 Though he states at one point that all structures are parachurch structures, he quickly qualifies himself to allow for three structures to be essential aspects of church: leadership based on spiritual gifts; a large group meeting for celebration and developing a sense of peoplehood; and a small group meeting for community, accountability, and ministry (1975:162-164). It is the last of these three, the small group meeting, that attracts his attention. He traces the history of small, restricted mission-oriented groups in the history of the church, citing especially the work of Donald Bloesch (1970) and Ralph Winter (1974). Though he calls these groups "renewal movements" (Snyder 1989), they are in many cases quite similar to present-day parachurch groups. But he thinks the proper place for such groups is not alongside the church (para), but within the church. The model he adopts for the relationship of renewal movement and church is ecclesiola in ecclesia: "That is, it [the ecclesiola] is a smaller, more intimate expression of the church within the church" (1989:277). Such a movement or group is not the whole church, but it is a "visible form of the true church... a restricted community of people voluntarily committed to each other" (1989:279). This group must retain some structural link with the institutional church or its vitality will bring division rather than genuine renewal (1989:277). The picture that emerges from this work of Snyder's is that of a central core and a larger whole. The core is not the church, but the renewal movement, which is very similar to a parachurch group. How does this analysis affect the relationship of churches and parachurch groups and the model advocated in this article? Snyder's model of ecclesiola in ecclesia shares some elements of the servant-partnership model. The ecclesiola seeks to serve the ecclesia and seeks a close relationship with the ecclesia. But there are also significant differences. Though Snyder sees the renewal movements he discusses as comparable to what Ralph Winter calls sodalities (Snyder 1989:52-54) and what others often call parachurch groups, 4 it seems difficult to match parachurch groups with his portrayal. For if it is the local church in which the parachurch group is to be operating as an ecclesiola (Snyder 1989:277-280), many parachurch groups are larger than churches and some are larger than many denominations. Thus the feasibility of seeing parachurch groups as ecclesiolae is questionable at best, and reveals that there may be more differences than similarities between the renewal movements Snyder is thinking of and what parachurch groups more normally are. A second problem some would have with Snyder's model is that there is no discussion here of what Paul Rees calls the notae of church life. Indeed, one of Snyder's early works (1977) was criticized by a reviewer (Recker 1978) for omitting any consideration of matters such as sacraments, discipline, and other traditional marks of the church. In a later work, Snyder does mention the importance of the sacraments, church discipline, proclamation of the Word, and congregational leaders, but it is still not clear if he considers them essential to the church (Snyder 1983:74-93). There is a third problem with Snyder's ecclesiola in ecclesia model as an appropriate model for parachurch/church relationships for those within the believers' church tradition. What Snyder describes as the ecclesiola a group oriented to mission, bound to one another in covenant commitment, where all minister and are ministered to is what those within the church see as the ecclesia. The difficulty of realizing that ideal in practice is recognized by those who hold such ecclesiological views, but their response has been not to abandon the ideal, but to call for reformation of practice (Patron 1978:28-32).

204 John S. Hammett Snyder recognizes that his model is open to question at this point. He says "whether it is even legitimate to allow for what may amount to two levels of discipleship in the church" is a major question for the ecclesiola in ecclesia model (1989:38). Indeed, in an earlier work, he had insisted that "we must avoid the splitlevel view of discipleship which has compromised the church's witness in the past" (1977:158). This leads us to the second major theological argument supporting the servant-partnership model, that of the priesthood of all believers. The Priesthood of All Believers A second argument supporting the servant-partnership model of the relationship of parachurch and church is that it best preserves the Reformation ideal of the priesthood of all believers that is endangered or obscured by other models. As mentioned above, Howard Snyder recognizes that the ecclesiola in ecclesia model is open to question on this point. Jerry White also raises the issue of the priesthood of the believer, but with an individualistic focus (1983:80). Each individual believer-priest is responsible to use spiritual gifts to build up the body of Christ, but since the body of Christ is more than the local church, there is no reason to limit the exercise of one's gifts to the local church. In fact, he sees the "necessary expression of each believer-priest in his [or her] ministry" (1983:85) as one support for the validity of para-local church ministry. But he does recognize that for those involved in parachurch ministry, there may come times of conflict between involvement in parachurch ministry and involvement in church ministry. In such cases, the "responsibility to choose between two loyalties lies with the individual believer-priest" (1983:85). But a simpler solution lies at hand. White himself claims, "Whatever ministry a believer performs can and should be claimed as an extension of his local fellowship" (1983:82). But this is quite close to the servant-partnership model. If ministry performed by a believer-priest is done in the context of a parachurch group that operates as an arm or extension of the church, then the authority conflict is sharply reduced, if not eliminated. The exercise of one's priesthood is placed in the proper context, as a part of the church's ministry. As Timothy George has noted, despite American interpretation of the doctrine as the individual priesthood of the believer (singular), the proper understanding is the priesthood of all believers (plural), dealing first of all with mutual or corporate responsibilities. Thus the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers should be seen as part of the doctrine of the church (1989:283-294). Another model that may obscure the importance of the priesthood of all believers is what is called the two-structures approach, developed by Ralph Winter (1974:121-139). This model believes that the Christian movement requires two types of structures. One type, called by Winter the modality, is "a mainly non-voluntary, inherited structure," which maintains a "benefit-of-the-doubt membership" (1979:145). The other structure, called the sodality, is "more likely to be voluntary, contractual, and purposive." It is entered into on the basis of a second commitment beyond that required for membership in the first structure, tends to be elitist, and has, in the history of Christianity, borne the weight of mission outreach (1979:143). Winter believes the preferable model for sodalities is that of the denominationally related mission board and sees the traditional, independent parachurch group as suffering from "imperfect accountability" (1979:150). 5 But there must be a second structure because a highly committed group is essential to the accomplishment of mis-

How Church and Parachurch Should Relate 205 sions, especially pioneer mission work, and churches simply cannot maintain that level of commitment in a substantial portion of their membership. While Winter's claim reflects the obvious reality in most churches, it may tend to obscure the ideal of the priesthood of all believers, which "calls for universal participation in the church's task of witnessing to Christ" (Shurden 1987:97). The servant-partnership model can accommodate the reality Winter sees by allowing and even encouraging the formation of sodalities. It can also uphold the ideal of the priesthood of all believers calling upon these sodalities to see themselves and to relate to churches as servants. One of their ministries is to call churches to renewal and to a closer approximation of the ideal of universal participation in the mission of Christ. Here is where the role of the parachurch in the renewal of the church is important. Donald Bloesch has suggested that "para-parochial fellowships" can be "a sign and reminder of what the church itself should be" (1974:17). Howard Snyder's ecclesiola in ecclesia model has some problems, but partnership with such groups, whether they be called parachurch groups, sodalities, or renewing movements, can serve to call the church to its own proper goal. Conclusion There are other pragmatic reasons for calling parachurch groups to a more conscientious partnering with churches. Ralph Winter notes the problem of independent agencies "accountable only to donors uninformed about technicalities and 1RS agents unconcerned about goals" (1979:169). Frank Tillapaugh notes the "transition problem" encountered by those in parachurch groups whose ministry is limited to a particular age group (1982:24). Sooner or later, the great majority of believers will depend on churches for their ongoing spiritual life and ministry, and parachurch groups are irresponsible if they do not prepare their members for that eventuality. Seeing churches as partners would be a good first step. Other practical expressions of the servant-partnership model could be matters as simple as insuring that all staff members of a parachurch group are active members of local churches. Other expressions could also include a parachurch group inviting a church or a denomination to select a representative to serve on its board of directors (Lausanne Committee 1983:33; Willmer and Schmidt 1998:179-185). For their part, churches who have members serving on parachurch staffs may want to list such members in their bulletin as part of their church's staff, invite them to share reports on their ministries with the church, and provide part of their support within the church's mission budget. Perhaps more important than particular actions would be the grasping of the vision of the parachurch as truly the servant and partner of the church, rather than a freelance rival. If that vision could be grasped and accepted as theologically important, the practical steps needed to move toward realization of the vision could be found, and, as a result, Christ's mission to the world would be strengthened. Notes 1. The partnership proposal of Willmer and Schmidt (1998:170-185) is similar in a number of respects to the one outlined in this article, but it lacks an emphasis on the theological priority of the church. 2. This article, published in 1979, noted a trend showing a declining number of missionaries being sent out by denominationally related mission boards in the United States. At this

206 John S. Hammett later date, the number of missionaries being sent out by non-related missionary agencies may be significantly higher than 50 percent 3 To the theological defense of the difference between denominations and parachurch groups given on page 202 could be added the practical objection of Willmer and Schmidt to the proposals of White and Snyder To a definition of parachurch that sees the Southern Baptist Convention and the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship both as parachurch organizations, they respond "It is hard to imagine how this definition can be seen as a gain It just muddies the terms To follow the solution proposed by Snyder [and White] is to lose a useful word and end up with a gray and amorphous word that tries to cover every Christian organization" (Willmer and Schmidt 1998 24-25) They give independence of traditional church structures, including denominations, as one of their definitional tests for parachurch groups (1998 23) 4 Winter himself sees sodalities as a broader category than the term parachurch as used in this article, for he regards both denominationally related and independent agencies as sodalities, though he sees the unrelated agencies as lacking in the area of accountability (1979 169) 5 In the article cited, Winter presents a chart showing four types of relationships between church and parachurch organizations, ranging from totally unrelated to "denomination-administrated and funded" (1979 150) In a personal conversation with the author, Winter (1999) stated that he favors church-related sodalities and shares some of my reservations about unrelated sodalities References Cited Barrett, David 1997 "Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission 1996" International Bulletin of Missionary Research 18(1) 23-24 Bloesch, Donald 1970 The Reform of the Church Grand Rapids, MI Eerdmans 1974 Wellsprings of Renewal Promise in Christian Communal Life Grand Rapids, MI Eerdmans George, Timothy 1989 "The Priesthood of All Believers and the Quest for Theological Integrity" Criswell Theological Review 3(2) 283-294 Jason, Noel 1986 "The Relationship Between Church and Para-church Biblical Principles" In The Church Gods Agent for Change Bruce J Nicholls, ed Pp 199-203 Exeter, UK Paternoster Press Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, International Commission on Evangelical Co-operation 1983 Co-operating in World Evangelization A Handbook on Church/Para-church Relationships Wheaton, IL Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization Moody, D L 1958 "The Nature of the Church" In What Is the ChurcW Duke McCall, ed Pp 15-27 Nashville, TN Broadman Press Packer, J I 1995 "Crosscurrents among Evangelicals" In Evangelicals and Catholics Together Toward a Common Mission Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, eds Pp 147-174 Dallas, TX Word Publishing Patton, Richard D 1978 "Baptists and Regenerate Church Membership Historical Perspectives and Present Practice " Baptist History and Heritage 13(3) 28-32 Pnce, Theron 1955 "The Church and the Churches " Review and Expositor 52(4) 443-450

How Church and Parachurch Should Relate 207 Recker, Robert 1978 Review of The Community of the King, by Howard Snyder Calvin Theological Journal 13(2) 246-250 Shurden, Walter 1987 The Doctrine of the Priesthood of Believers Nashville, TN Broadman Press Snyder, Howard 1975 The Problem of Wineskins Church Structure in a Technological Age Downers Grove, IL InterVarsity Press 1977 The Community of the King Downers Grove, IL InterVarsity Press 1983 Liberating the Church The Ecology of Church and Kingdom Downers Grove, IL InterVarsity Press 1989 Signs of the Spirit How God Reshapes the Church Grand Rapids, MI Académie Books Strong, A H 1909 Systematic Theology Vol 3 Philadelphia, PA Griffith and Rowland Press Tillapaugh, Frank 1982 The Church Unleashed Ventura, CA Regal Books White, Jerry 1983 The Church and the Parachurch An Uneasy Marriage Portland, OR Multnomah Press Willmer, Wesley Κ, and J David Schmidt, with Martyn Smith 1998 The Prospering Parachurch Enlarging the Boundaries of God's Kingdom San Francisco, CA Jessey-Bass Publishers Winter, Ralph D 1974 "The Two Structures of God's Redemption Mission " Missiology 2(1) 121-139 1979 "Protestant Mission Societies The American Experience " Missiology 7(2) 139-178 1999 Telephone conversation with the author Youngren, J Alan 1981 "Parachurch Proliferation The Frontier Spurt Caught m Traffic " Christianity Today 25(19) 38-41

^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS ) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.