Since the time of the reformation in the 1500's the primary paradigm of ministry has been congregational. People gather in congregations and in that setting worship takes place, instruction happens, relationships are formed, young people are called to ministry, service is provided to those in the community and missionary activity is supported. Whether large or small in size, whether located in the city or the country, these congregations formed virtually all of what e knew of church for years. An extension of the local congregation is the denomination. Congregations in different geographic areas are bound together by common confession, practice, relationship and history. Some of what e knew of church was expressed through these denominational bodies. Missionary activity and service to those in need were more easily accomplished by these groups, rather than the individual, local congregations.

Throughout the years since the reformation, there has been a second paradigm of ministry. it has been there all along, but it has become more prominent since the first half of the 20th century. These ministries focused more on a specific task or target group. The Bible societies and the missionary sending agencies of the 19th century lead the way. Then ministries such as Youth for Christ, The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Young Life and Youth With a Mission sprung up. These are some of the estimated 1,000,000 "parachurch" ministries that were serving in the United States by the year 2000. These ministries became known as "parachurch" because people saw that they had a valid and valued place in the overall picture of ministry, but they were not really "church ministry". They were "an arm of the church". They were not the church, per se, but they did some church things. They were described as "walking along side the church". Hence they were called "parachurch" ministries.

Congregational (and denominational) ministries are still the predominant platform of ministry, but the "parachurch" ministries are also doing a very significant portion of the overall work.

In more recent years (I trace it back to before 1990) a third paradigm has begun to become more prominent. Promise Keepers, The March for Jesus and Pastors' Prayer Summits (as well as other events) began to help us see another form of church. Instead of defining the boundaries of church and of ministry in terms of certain doctrinal and practical distinctions (congregations and denominations) or in terms of specific tasks or targets ("parachurch" ministries) people have begun to see church ministry more in terms of geographic distinctions: the Church of an area. This concept is not new, but it has received more serious attention in the last few years. In fact, this concept has been around since the New Testament and it was the dominant paradigm of the ministry prior to the reformation.

There is great value to the unique aspects of the denominations and congregations as well as in what we have called "parachurch" ministries. But the Biblical boundaries of church are clearly not focused on doctrinal distinctions, differences in organizational structure, personalities, gifts, styles of ministry or certain groups receiving ministry. The biblical perspective of the Church is clearly the gathering of believers of a given location, regardless of their (nonessential) doctrinal or practical differences and regardless of their ages or stages of life. With one exception, whenever Scripture gives us any further description of church it is either 1) as description of possession, such as "of God" or 2) a description of place, such as a specific area.

Note these examples of...

• City locations: the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 5:11; 8:2 & 3; 11:22; 15:4 & 22), the Church at Antioch (Acts 11:26; 13:1; 15:3 & 30), the Churches in Iconium, Lystra, and Pisidian Antioch (Acts 14:21-23), the Church at Caesarea (Acts 18:22), the Church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17; I Timothy 3:5 & 15; 5:16-17), the Church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1), the Church in Corinth (I Corinthians 1:2; 11:18; 14:23; 2 Corinthians 1:1), the Church at Philippi (Philippians 1:1; 4:15), the Church at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16; Revelation 3:14), the Church at Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:1;  2 Thessalonians 1:1) the other Churches of Revelation (Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, & 18; 3:1 & 7).

• Regional locations: In Galatia (1 Corinthians 16:1, Galatians 1:2), in Asia (1 Corinthians 16:19a, Revelation 1:4) in Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8:1), in Judea (Galatians 1:22).

• House locations: at Priscilla and Aquila's house (Romans 16:5, Corinthians 16:19b) at Nympha's house (Colossians 4:15), and Philemon's house (Philemon 1:2).

Geography was the only boundary the New Testament writers allowed in the Church. When the Church of the New Testament took any steps to be identified on a foundation other than that of geography, Paul slapped them on the wrist and told them to stop it! (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-9; 12:12-26). So the New Testament knows nothing of "First Baptist Church" or "Memorial Presbyterian" or even "Maple Lane Community Church" in the way we speak of them today.

This third paradigm could be called the "Church of the city" or since we don't all live in actual cities, the "geographic Church". More and more spiritual leaders are recognizing this as a significant (if not primary) paradigm of the ministry, without giving up on or leaving their primary ministry platform.

This perspective does not see the part (either the congregation, the denomination, or the "parachurch" ministry) as the whole, but rather it sees each of these as part of the whole. It sees the individual congregation, the denomination and the "parachurch" ministry, all as vital parts of the Church of the area. We could say that each organized unit is seen as "part-a-the" Church.

When our view changes, our vocabulary changes. Instead of referring to "First Baptist Church" as a church, we would refer to it as a congregation. Instead of saying there are "350 churches in our area" we would say there is "one Church with 350 congregations" in our area. Instead of referring to "Youth for Christ" as a parachurch ministry, we would refer to it as a ministry of the Church of a particular area.

In fact, what would it be like if many leaders in the Church of an area began putting a common sub-line on their letterhead that said something like "part of the Church of Atlanta" (Boulder or Chicago)? What would it be like if a missionary were sent out from "The Church of Detroit" (Eugene or Flagstaff)? What is we saw a sign that said, "The Church of Galveston (Huntington or Ithaca) welcomes you!" followed by a list of the congregations and ministries available?

When we embrace this biblical view of the Church, we stop identifying the Church in terms of a certain organization and see it more in terms of an organism. We stop thinking of ourselves as "Presbyterian" and think of ourselves more in terms of being a "Christian who is a Presbyterian". When another congregation in town grows, we know that "our Church" is growing. When a congregation down the street is going through hard times, we know that "our Church" needs prayer. When the rescue mission in our community has a need, we know that "our Church" has a need. We acknowledge that if Jesus wrote a letter to His Church in our city, He would not address it to my congregation, or any one congregation, He would address it to the Church of my area.

Many have asked why we are not making more progress in the City Reaching movement. I would suggest that one part of the answer to this question is because we have not yet fully embraced this view and vocabulary of the Church. Because of this, we are more "worldly" than we should be and we are not ready for the "solid food" god would like to give us (1 Corinthians 3:1-4).

We have taken some good, practical steps. We have had some corporate worship and prayer meetings. We have joined hands in some effective service projects. But we have not been intentional about reforming our ecclesiology. We still see walking together in genuine unity as an optional activity rather than a biblical mandate. As long as we are satisfied to see the church in segmented parts and keep talking about it from an old paradigm, we will keep hindering the process of "the whole Church taking the whole gospel to the whole city."

There are many questions that come to mind as we ponder this third paradigm of ministry. For example "Is this really practical? How does this affect the autonomy of the local congregation? How does this impact the way we have viewed our leadership structure? How do we decide who is really part of the true Church of Jesus Christ? won't we lose our specific identity? What if we don't like the other parts of the true Church and don't want to be identified with them? and many, many more.

There are answers to some of these questions. Truth is, though ... there are a lot of questions that cannot yet be answered. But, to the degree that we seek to view His Bride in the same way Jesus does, we can be confident that He will hurry some answers our way!

Thanks to John Respold from Spokane, Washington, for research taken from his "A Brief Apologetic for the City Church". For the full text click here.

<<<Steps Toward Fulfilling the Vision  | Addendum B >>>