12. The Challenge of Parachurch

Help vs. Hurt

Nothing makes for an exciting hero like a vigilante. Fed up with the inefficiencies or corruptions of governing authorities, a zealous hero goes outside the purview of the law to take matters of justice into his own hands. He captures and punishes criminals, unencumbered by red tape and crooked bureaucrats. Fueled by righteous indignation, he restores order in the world. It’s no wonder fictional characters like Robin Hood and Batman garner mass appeal.

In reality, however, vigilante justice is often problematic. Rarely guided by a careful weighing of the matter, psychological instability or mob mentality typically provokes such activity. Even those who do operate with some sense of rationality frequently commit grave errors by abandoning the safeguards of civil government. There is a reason the phrase “kangaroo court” does not ring with positive connotations.

In a sense, the church has her own set of vigilantes. When Jesus established God’s heavenly kingdom on earth, he decided to operate through a franchise of local institutions he called “the church,” assemblies constituted with particular offices and functions. Many have found this structure inefficient, opting to establish their own institutions to accomplish religious ends, widely known as parachurch organizations. Many of these ministries may be accompanied by the excitement of fictional vigilantes, but they often encounter problems similar to the ones faced by real-world vigilantes.

I don’t write all this to challenge the legitimacy of parachurch ministries but to call attention to the fact that they introduce their own complications, especially when it comes to ministry fundraising. Since they cannot rely on the fundraising practice of the church, they tend to create new avenues of support that potentially violate the dorean principle. In this chapter, I would like to offer a quick overview of where exactly the issues lie, and how a healthy focus on the local church may circumvent them.

Church Identity vs. Parachurch Identity

The church is that body of believers Christ instituted to represent his kingdom on earth. The universal church is composed of all Christians everywhere while the local church refers to a particular society of Christians characterized by their regular gathering for worship.

Etymologically, “para” indicates coming alongside something. Parachurch ministry is simply any ministry regulated outside of the local church whose primary goal is to aid the church, whether local or universal. Thus, while the label is typically used for organizations like InterVarsity Christian Fellowship or Compassion International, broadly it applies even to individuals operating outside the structure of the local church with the intent to serve the church.

Church Structure vs. Parachurch Structure

The essential distinction between the local church and the parachurch lies in structure. Understanding this distinction is the key to recognizing the potential pitfalls of parachurch entities, especially as related to the dorean principle. Let’s look at this structure according to the Bible’s breakdown of a church: the congregation, elders, and deacons.

The congregation is the membership of a church. While some churches do not practice formal membership, there is generally an understanding of who is permitted to participate in the Lord’s supper on a regular basis. The congregation ultimately forms the primary source of accountability in the church. Even if the church does not practice congregational voting, the people vote with their feet, joining and supporting those ministries which operate as they see fit. Parachurch ministries rarely have similarly defined membership, or even similarly defined goals.

The elders of a church watch over a congregation, managing the teaching of the church and leading it in discerning doctrinal issues. Ideally, a body of elders would consider church fundraising practices in light of the word of God with especially discerning eyes. Parachurch organizations typically guarantee no such oversight.

The deacons of a church have authority over the physical resources of the church to meet the physical needs of the church. The Bible requires they conform to the standards set in 1 Timothy 3:8–13. Outside the church, those who take on similar roles may be vetted spiritually but are rarely assessed by the same rubric.

In each example, a secular position replaces a sacred one. The structure that protects the ethical collection of resources in the church rarely exists in other organizations, nor can it ever completely. In adding such church structures, a parachurch organization would cease to exist as such and would simply become a church.

Church Fundraising vs. Parachurch Fundraising

The Bible establishes a model of fundraising for the church: the voluntary contributions of the congregation. Presuming they are offered in an effort to colabor with the church, they perfectly accord with the dorean principle.

We see these contributions first in Acts, where the people pool their resources (Acts 2:44–45) to be distributed by the apostles, functioning as elders (Acts 4:34–35), and later a body known as “the seven,” functioning as deacons (Acts 6:1–6). Elsewhere, Paul commands the church in Corinth to contribute weekly on the first day of every week (1 Cor. 16:1–2).

In contrast, the Bible prescribes no source of income for parachurch organizations. Consequently, the exigencies of ministry drive them toward innovative fundraising practices, frequently creating opportunities to transgress the dorean principle. While not exclusive to parachurch institutions, there is a reason the sale of ministry occurs more frequently outside the church than inside the church. Book sales cover author commission, conference tickets cover speaker fees, tuition payments cover tenured salaries, and proprietary licenses cover musician paychecks. Yet by and large, the voluntary contributions of the congregation suffice for church-employed ministers.

Alternative Approaches

Parachurch entities typically form for the sake of expediency, the alternatives deemed too inefficient or ineffective. However, in light of the dorean principle, we should consider several alternatives to the practices of parachurch ministries. Moving from more to less aggressive measures, the following three strategies provide potential replacements for standard parachurch practices that abandon the dorean principle.

Conducting ministry under the auspices of the local church: Many parachurch endeavors could directly translate to church endeavors. Such ministry would be subject to the authority structure of the church and receive its funding directly from the church. The governance of a parachurch entity that seems too large or has too many stakeholders to fit within a single church could potentially be subdivided or franchised to be run by multiple churches.

This would work for many sophisticated organizations, but it would work especially well for ministries of individuals. For pastors and other staff, churches could recognize their special labor in their regular salary. In the case of others, nothing inhibits the church from creating a position for them. For example, some churches have a “scholar in residence” position that could be appropriately compensated. Christian authors who produce valuable teaching ought to be supported so that they have the liberty to write without fearing the financial ramifications of abandoning their day job.

However, a number of Christian authors write and publish books independent of the authority structure and financing of their church. In the end, they frequently support their work by selling their finished product, some even priding themselves for doing so. To draw examples from the spectrum of evangelicalism, Rick Warren and Joel Osteen have both opted out of taking any income from their churches, instead living primarily on book royalties.⁠¹ However, this swaps colabor with reciprocity, reversing the dorean principle. They proudly reject colabor and happily accept reciprocity. The church that wishes to colabor with the minister should be permitted to do so, and none should be asked to purchase ministry through book sales or otherwise. In contrast, some have commendably offered their works for free, rejecting royalties from hard copy sales, living only on the support provided by their churches. John Piper is an example of one such minister.⁠²

Fundraising through church partnerships: Those parachurch organizations which receive their funding largely from individuals could limit their solicitations to established churches. By receiving money from churches that wish to partner with them, they would rely only on the voluntary contribution of congregations rather than the sale of religious instruction.

Prefunding: Rather than attempting to recoup costs after the fact via ticket and literature sales, parachurch organizations could prefund their ministry. For example, religious conference organizers could work with churches and individuals to collect money to support the teachers rather than doing so through ticket sales. Similarly, rather than relying on book sales, Christian publishing houses could work with churches and individuals to establish a joint fund from which authors would be paid. Instead of one entity shouldering all the risk and potentially turning a financial profit, many believers would partner together in sharing the risk, praying together for a spiritual harvest.

Crowdfunding utilities such as Kickstarter or Patreon offer a viable alternative to the work-first, receive-later model of the publishing industry. With these tools, one may receive funds from partners on a regular basis or raise money for a ministry endeavor prior to commencing. These approaches would give Christian ministers a way to raise support from those genuinely interested in supporting the ministry without appealing directly to those who are the main targets of the ministry. However, a word of caution: crowdfunding utilities often encourage offering perks at different donation levels. In the context of ministry, such seeming bribery does not accord with the dorean principle.

Seminaries

As a case study, a particular category of parachurch organizations applies here. Seminaries typically operate outside of the direct oversight of the local church but have significant impact on the church at large.

While financial aid programs exist, rarely does one complete a seminary degree apart from incurring substantial costs. As an example, Reformed Theological Seminary presently charges tuition at typical rates. At $585 per semester hour,⁠³ for a 106-hour Master of Divinity degree,⁠⁴ that totals to $62,010, not counting the additional host of fees that go beyond raw tuition. Given that seminary education constitutes religious instruction in nearly the purest sense, the dorean principle demands that seminaries not accept money from their students in exchange. However, rather than destroying these institutions, several options compatible with the dorean principle offer ways to preserve them.

Rather than raising money through tuition, seminaries could be funded by individuals and churches looking to support the work of the school. For example, such an institution does not have to directly salary their instructors but could instead provide a framework for churches to support them. These issues of staff largely exhaust our concerns since the dorean principle does not necessarily regulate student room and board. For brick and mortar seminaries, compliance with the biblical ethic may largely reside in delineating facility costs from staff costs, ensuring the latter is funded through responsibly sourced donations.

However, the advent of online seminaries offers a new way forward with little concern for physical resources. In fact, several of these seminaries have adopted a similar model, with virtually all faculty receiving no compensation directly from the seminary. For example, The Log College and Seminary and Forge Theological Seminary both provide free educations through removing the financial burden of a physical campus, choosing educational material that minimizes costs, and relying on the support of volunteer faculty. These individuals often receive support for their work from their own churches, who understand their academic efforts to be an aspect of their ministry. By structuring themselves this way, these institutions relegate spiritual formation and other time-intensive aspects of seminary life to the local church.

While this trend represents a radical shift from the traditional model, it promotes the primacy of the local church and, consequently, compliance with the dorean principle. As more seminaries follow this model, we may hope that free education will become the norm in pastoral training.

Conferences

As an additional case study, gospel-themed conferences likewise collect large sums of money from attendees. Not uncommonly, organizers sell tickets at a cost approximating $100 a day. For example, Together for the Gospel’s T4G20 was a three-day exclusive livestream event with registration costing $299.⁠⁵ At thousands in attendance, this represents over $1 million in ticket sales. If the purpose of such events is truly to promote the gospel, then the dorean principle must shape its commerce.

Naturally, large events require substantial sums of money to reserve venues, print conference materials, etc. Thus, it is not surprising that fees are often associated with conference attendance. However, according to our ethic, one should not charge for the actual ministry of the gospel. A key issue here is that in conference tickets, material costs are rarely delineated from the cost of the instruction itself. When they are, it becomes apparent whether the organizers intend to sell religious instruction to the audience. For example, in order to avoid the suggestion that the teaching itself is being sold, a ticket could be labeled a “meal and facilities pass.” Regardless, our ethic also regulates all that directly attends to the proclamation of the word, so gospel-centric event organizers should consider finding willing colaborers rather than charging for attendance.

Conclusion

Because parachurch ministry lacks the structure of the church, it opens itself to additional opportunities to violate the dorean principle. Most notably, it lacks the regular contributions of the saints and so frequently resorts to creative fundraising measures. These measures often cross the line set by the dorean principle.

Recognizing the tacit dangers of parachurch ministry, we should respond proactively, finding ways to generate support through colabor rather than reciprocity. Where possible, we should even consider restructuring parachurch activities under the auspices of the church.