Parachurch as Church

In the previous post, I mentioned in passing that I have come to view the old "church versus parachurch" paradigm as a false dichotomy. And I promised to post more about that. So, here goes. It all gets back to the question that most of us are wrestling with. No, not "what is the Matrix?"; wrong scenario. I mean, "what is church?"

Len Hjalmarson (the "j" is silent in Len's last name, I've learned since moving here) has often asked "why does 'church-planting' seem to revolve around 'church service-planting?" Many people are looking at what we call "church" and wondering where the "mission" got to -- besides bigger buildings, more staff, and flashier programs, that is.

Many churches have -- and I've been guilty of this too, when I was a pastor -- had a love/hate relationship with para-church organizations. We love what they do, but wish they would quit raiding us for people. And there has often been an arrogance in many parachurch people that, somehow, they're doing it right while all churches have missed the boat (NOTE: this attitude doesn't endear you to churches, nor do you hide it very well).

At the same time, I've often found myself (including when I was pastoring) defending parachurch ministries and saying things like, "well, maybe if we'd start doing what the church is supposed to be doing, the parachurches wouldn't be attracting people who really want to be doin' the stuff!"

But what was clear to everyone, back then, was that church and parachurch were not the same thing. Church was church, and parachurch was not. Everybody knew that. It was self-evident.

But wait a minute... Where did we get that idea? Is there really that much difference between church and parachurch? I'm not convinced anymore that this is true.

Let's just use a typical evangelical understanding of what church looks like, and compare the two:

Church	Parachurch
Worship	Worship
Teaching (focused on spiritual growth and meeting felt needs of congregants)	Teaching (focused on equipping the saints for doin' the stuff)
Fellowship (hanging out, usually around coffee and pastries)	Fellowship (community meals)
Evangelism (events or classes for those who can be convinced that it's important)	Evangelism (one of the main reasons that parachurch groups like YWAM, Young Life, etc. exist)
Small groups	Small groups
Missions (budget line item, something only a small percentage actually do)	Missions (a way of life; the primary focus in groups like YWAM)
Ministry to/with/among the poor (maybe, but usually a donation to a local street ministry will suffice)	Ministry to/with/among the poor (often hand-in-hand with mission and evangelism)

A frequent objection to the idea that the parachurch is the church, revolves around sustainability and permanence. Because, in groups like YWAM, people come and go with clocklike frequency, they are viewed as not "the church".

How many people do you know haven't changed churches? Graduated from high school/college and moved away? Changed jobs and therefore cities? You will likely find, in most churches, a "core" group that is fairly stable and a majority that changes fairly frequently. Same tends to be true in the majority of house churches that I've been privileged to visit. In a group such as YWAM (and other parachurches, of course), you have a core group (base staff) who are fairly stable, and a majority that changes frequently. How is that any different?

In some cases, you could actually argue that the parachurch is more "the church", than the church. But I don't want to continue the old paradigm of "church versus parachurch", only with the parachurch being seen as better. I'd rather see us choosing to humble ourselves and learn from the parachurch, and perhaps make our missional communities of faith truly missional, and not just gatherings of disillusioned former church attenders.