Para-church Missions
One of the modern phenomena in the evangelical world has been the rise of para-church groups, organizations that do spiritual work outside of the oversight of elders. Probably the most well-known para-church group is Campus Crusade for Christ. In Reformed circles there are also many such groups. There is no doubt that para-church groups have done many good things for the Church.

What is wrong with the para-church movement?
First, like mission boards, para-church groups are usually dependent upon a paid staff that must first meet its budget before it can carry out mission work. The Biblical model of a direct relationship between the church and the missionary does not require administrative expenditures as in para–church organizations. Fund-raising for these groups is in the hands of a bureaucratic staff, not elders and deacons.

Second, supervision of missionaries in para-church groups is usually the responsibility of bureaucrats. Men in organizations such as Campus Crusade choose not to or refuse to work within the confines of the church. They are, by their own statement, non-Presbyterian in government. They ignore that it is the church that has been given the mandate for mission work. This is complicated by the fact that many people in mission situations see Campus Crusade as a church. The Biblical model requires oversight of the local congregation or jointly with neighboring congregations. When para-church groups send missionaries, they are usurping the authority of the congregations.

Third, as budget-driven organizations, boards and para-church groups must often seek the worldly proof of success of the missionary enterprise. They must therefore raise money and build an organization. Mission is often viewed as a McDonald’s franchise – if you can’t produce and quickly, you are shut down. In this environment missionaries must either buckle under pressure and “produce” results, by whatever means, or stand and face the music for not producing results.

Fourth, para-church groups tend to have well-trained or untrained men (and women) as their missionaries. Commenting on this, Morris said in Christianizing Christendom: “ THE NEW PROPAGANDISTS ARE MORE CONSPICUOUS AS LEADERS OF “MOVEMENTS,” WITHOUT THEOLOGICAL TRAINING, WHOSE EXPERIENCE IN SOUL-WINNING CONSISTS LARGELY IN GRATUITOUS ADVICE AND PROFESSIONAL PLATFORM - PLATITUDES AND MEANINGLESS GENERALITIES.” Men of financial affairs want the church reorganized, no longer on ecclesiastical lines, but, according to “approved business methods.” Rationalists, tinctured with German Kultur and afflicted German scholarship, join the chorus of those who decry the old order of things and become advocates of the new adventure.

Fifth, para-church groups tend to treat all missions the same way. This is dangerous. Each missionary situation has its unique features. Some mission works are slower to begin, then rapidly grow. Others are the opposite. Some have to deal with civil persecution. Some have to deal with religious persecution. One particular area that often delays the growth of a church plant that is often overlooked, particularly in Reformed circles, is the presence of the occult and a strong demonic presence. (How many mission works are there in Japan today?) Demographic studies often cloud the reality of these problems.

Sixth, parachurch groups tend to be more prone to introducing unbiblical standards in their local appointments. Morris describes the nature and work of these para-church groups that were surfacing even at the beginning of the 20th century: “At the same time many volunteer movements and semi-secular organizations have become parasites, which flourish at the expense and life of the church...If the great apostasy comes it will probably be through such instrumentalities secularizing and lowering the standard of spiritual religion.” The danger lies in the fact that doctrines, once held dearly by the churches, are put in the background in favor of a kind of synthetic harmony. The quest for harmony has led to a quest for the lowest common denominator in doctrines. The gospel is then put in the hands of public relations specialists, not with those who have been trained in the Scriptures. It is easier in some churches to go on the mission field with less theological training.

Historians have already conceded that The Student Christian Movement from 1850-1900: The YMCA (1884), Inter-Collegiate YMCA (1877), Inter-Seminary Alliance (1880), Student Volunteer Movement (1886), and the World Student Christian Federation (1896), at best, have outlived their usefulness. At worst, did much more harm than good to the mission field.

Some have argued in favor of para-church groups because of the failure of the church in doing its job. Others have argued that God has blessed the world through para-church groups. Let us remember that while God spoke through Balaam’s donkey, but who is calling for its ordination? And isn’t the Reformed church to be Reformed in methodology as well as theology? Pragmatism must not be come king. Wasn’t pragmatism used to introduce women teachers and elders during the Industrial Revolution when men were too busy working?

Isn’t it the job of the church to take charge of the job of evangelization and directly oversee the work of her ministers? Don’t delegate your job. Maybe it is even time to reconsider the causes on the offering schedule.