Before the Reformation, there was not a Catholic Church in the Roman Catholic sense we think of today. It was just the church.
There were no denominations. There was one central authority, the pope. (Unless you count the time from 1378 to 1408 when there were two popes, and the time from 1409 to 1417 when there were three popes, but those are stories for another time.)
The Protestant Reformation, inaugurated when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany, in 1517, sent shock waves throughout Christendom.
Angie Ward
Luther and his fellow reformers shaped the church — and what eventually became known as the parachurch — in ways they may not have intended or anticipated. What can we learn from what we now commonly refer to as the parachurch? I’d like to suggest five takeaways.
The gospel always comes to people in historical robes. Christians of each period in history understand and experience their faith in different ways than believers of other eras.
The history of the parachurch is a history of response to the needs and issues of the time, using the technologies of the time. Monasticism originally was a response to the perceived secularization of the church. Universities formed out of the rise of scholasticism. Martin Luther fomented reform with the printing press. The voluntary societies of the 19th century were driven to ameliorate social ills exacerbated by increased urbanization.
The explosion of 20th-century parachurch organizations was spurred by the perception that society was turning against evangelicals. And megachurches responded to — and capitalized on — a mobile, suburban, technology-driven society to create regional ministry centers.
God can use anyone, at any time, for any purpose. Parachurch-like movements and ministries have been started throughout history by men and women, young and old, wealthy and poor, educated and uneducated. Some have been embraced by the institutional church, others resisted or even openly opposed.
Yet the truth remains: God’s Spirit blows wherever it wishes. It is not confined within the walls of the institutional church or by denominational or doctrinal differences.
Throughout history the parachurch has largely been a lay phenomenon. Regular men and women with no designs on (or sometimes opportunities for) clerical ministry within a local church have gone on to start global movements and international organizations. The laity also have served as the foundation for funding and volunteer service for these organizations.
The parachurch sector has been particularly enabling and empowering for women. Dating back to the monastic societies founded by Pachomius, the parachurch has provided space for women to teach, preach, pastor and lead when the institutional church has met them with closed doors.
Indeed, most of my own life calling to vocational ministry has been — has sometimes had to be — pursued within parachurch organizations including camps, youth ministries and higher education institutions rather than the institutional church.
Parachurch organizations can bring diverse Christians together over a shared mission or ministry. There is no doubt that nondenominationalism in the parachurch sector and in the church has brought Christians together across historically deep divides. Presbyterians can study the Bible and enjoy fellowship with Catholics in Bible Study Fellowship. Methodists and Moravians swing hammers side-by-side for Habitat for Humanity. Reformed and Arminian are equally welcome in InterVarsity.
I have heard that Southeast Christian Church, a megachurch in Louisville, Ky., has jokingly been called the biggest Lutheran, Methodist and Baptist church in the city because of its diverse membership.
Misunderstandings and outright tensions between the church and the parachurch and their respective roles in the life of the individual Christian are nothing new. Medieval monasteries competed with the established church for resources and legitimacy. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council stated that tithes to the local church took precedence over all other financial commitments. In the 14th century, John Wycliffe criticized the church for its excessive wealth and hierarchical structures. And in 1995, “the United Methodist General Board of Discipleship issued a warning that Promise Keepers was ‘not in keeping with United Methodist theology and practice.’”
The three dominant perspectives on these issues, held stridently by their proponents, have been and continue to be:
- The institutional church (primarily in its local expression) is most important and must be central.
- The institutional church is inflexible to accomplish the ministry being provided by parachurch expressions.
- People don’t even need established forms of the church; all that matters is personal piety and relationship with Christ.
We can begin to address these perspectives and try to resolve some of the church-parachurch tensions by looking for a shared understanding in answer to the key question: “What is the church?”
Angie Ward serves as director of the doctor of ministry program and associate professor of leadership and ministry at Denver Seminary. She earned a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. She is the author of Uncharted Leadership: 20 Case Studies to Help Ministry Leaders Adapt to Uncertainty and I Am a Leader: When Women Discover the Joy of Their Calling. She has 35 years of leadership experience in church, nonprofit and higher education ministry.
This article is excerpted from her new book, Beyond Church and Parachurch ©2025 and is used by permission of InterVarsity Press.