Church, Parachurch, Neither, Both or Something Else

By Clarence Singam

12 July 2002

From time to time people ask me whether Safehaven is a church or a parachurch. For many, a group of Christians gathering together is not a church unless it has an official pastor with Sunday worship services and a regular sermon. That however is not necessarily the Biblical view of what a church is.

In reality whether Safehaven is a parachurch or a church right now is not so important. Perhaps it is a church to some and a parachurch to others. That is quite okay as long as to both we are in Christ. Part of the challenge and excitement of living in a post-modern world is that meaning is not always fixed but can differ when viewed from different perspectives. The ambiguity of the post-modern condition unsettles many Christians who need to have their life experiences within firmly fixed categories. But for those who are willing to operate in this ambiguity it provides tremendous opportunities for creative living.

The Bible while having a highly developed Biblical theology of the universal church does not have a systematic theology of the local church. Generally where the gospel was preached, people got together to worship, fellowship, learn and evangelise. The original churches were a group of friends, family and neighbours in a particular area who had become Christian and gathered regularly for worship, teaching and fellowship in various members' houses. When persecution rose, these groups met in catacombs, which is a nice word for graves.

Eventually as these groups got bigger more structured leadership was introduced; pretty much like where Safehaven is right now. Peter Wagner for instance, states that as far as the Bible was concerned wherever a group of people got together regularly in the name of Christ, that was a church. Yonggi Cho, pastor of the largest church in the world, says that he runs the biggest and the smallest church in the world because in his view, his huge church is made of little churches namely the cell groups. The Bible definitely does not have a concept of the parachurch - it is a modern concept.

It is useful to think of church and parachurch as opposite ends of one continuum. Churches compared to parachurches USUALLY:

• Have a greater diversity of people types
• Have a greater variety of ministries
• Are distinguished from each other by different theological emphases
• Tend to be less task focussed

Of course there are exceptions to all of these, for example:

• Church growth studies have shown quite clearly that churches are a lot more homogenous than they want to believe. Most churches are racially, culturally or socio-economically homogenous. Very few churches are truly heterogeneous.
• Many parachurches have wide range of ministries. For instance the Overseas Christian Fellowship in Australia while never calling itself a church carries on many church type functions such as preaching, cell groups, counselling.
  
• Many larger churches in Singapore are quite task focussed.

In short there are churches that may take on more parachurch characteristics and vice versa.

Generally there are usually two distinctions made between churches and parachurches. The first is that parachurches usually exist for a specific function rather than specific theological emphases; e.g. Graduate Christian Fellowship ("GCF") exists to support and encourage continuing Christian growth amongst people who have left tertiary institutions. The Pentecostal and Anglican churches however, have similar functions but differ on their theological emphases.

Is Safehaven a body with a specific function or a body with specific theological distinctives? We have both characteristics. While we are open (and will become more so) to straight people joining us one of our primary foci is to assist gay, lesbian and bisexual people reconcile and integrate their faith and sexuality because we are gay affirming. However, that process of reconciliation and integration means we adopt and develop a disntictive and affirmative theology. That theology is not just about the six or seven passages on homosexuality but also on:

• How gay people can develop a spirituality and Biblical viewpoint that utilises their gayness as a blessing and point of strength.
• How we can live as fully Christian, fully gay and fully human.

The second distinctive of a parachurch is that it supports/supplements the ministry of churches. Again to use the GCF example, it actively encourages its members to join and be regular in churches and conducts some ministry in partnership with churches. The function of the parachurch is to feed or supplement members who are integrated into churches or help them integrate into churches. Normally the church recognises explicitly or implicitly the supplementing role of the parachurch. We of course would be thrilled to play this role.

However, when we come to the second generic criteria of a parachurch Safehaven runs into challenges. Based on the second criteria, a parachurch, by definition, can only exist as a parachurch where there is an acknowledgement of its legitimate existence by other church(es). Otherwise there can't be a give and take relationship between the church and the so-called parachurch

Apart from one or two churches and a number church leaders who quietly support us, we do not know of many churches that are willing to acknowledge Safehaven's legitimate role in building up its gay, lesbian and bisexual members as a specialist ministry. Currently as it stands not many churches will enter into a symbiotic relationship with Safehaven.

I am often asked why I don't actively encourage Safehaven members to be more active in "church." My reasoning is simple. The answer simply put is I believe that it is pastorally, ethically and spiritually irresponsible to strongly encourage people who are not in "church" to attend "church" because generally churches here are homonegative. It is not pastorally responsible to encourage people under our pastoral care to go into that kind of environment especially if they then end up being hurt or if it requires them to hide so that their continued acceptance in church is dependent on their hiding their sexuality and leading inauthentic lives.

For instance there is a large church in Singapore currently to which many gay people seem to be flocking to. It is probably because of the emphasis on grace in its messages. My question to gay people who attend that church is, "How would the Senior Pastor there respond if you told him you were in a gay relationship right now?" The answer invariably is that it probably would not be accepted. In fact they would probably be rejected. Why would I want to encourage people to enter and become active in an environment like that? It is not pastorally, ethically or spiritually responsible.

Matters become even more challenging when the gay Christian in is a relationship. Take for example Lee and Ang who have been together for a few years now and who are one of the couples in Safehaven. Lee is active in church ministry and is in a relationship with Ang who also goes to his church. When they are in Safehaven they are a couple but when they go to church they have to behave as if they are only good friends and not a couple. That in itself places a strain on the relationship. Lee asked me what he should do. He was concerned what would happen when eventually his church found out he was in a gay relationship with another member, Ang.
To some extent, I avoided the question - because I don't want to tell him that while he is in Safehaven his relationship is something he can honour God in and be truthful about but when he steps into "church" he and Ang should live a lie or a half truth. Similarly we have a member who is increasing in leadership prominence in the conservative evangelical circles in Singapore. He is a highly regarded leader by this circle and increasingly he is saying he will have to hide his gayness; otherwise his organisation will remove him from his ministry.

We actually have members who are in "churches" and who have been open with their ministries about being gay. In each situation they came under tremendous emotional pressure and were removed from their ministries. Try picturing the stress they experience and the impact on their personal lives. What should we - we who believe that being gay is not only okay but can be a blessing from the Lord - say to them? Join a "church" but just be a pew warmer? Join a "church" but keep your gayness and your relationships a secret? No. What we say to them is let Safehaven be your spiritual home.

Having said that, one thing we must not do, however, is to discourage people who are currently serving actively in other "churches". We are always excited when our members are functioning as salt and light in their churches to bring glimmers of the Lord's light. It takes tremendous courage and we support them as best we can.

I hope this clarifies our position. When we approach this question, we don't think "church or parachurch?" It is not dominant in our thinking process in any significant way. Instead the significant question we ask ourselves is:

Where is God leading us in terms of the organisational and ministry structures that will best facilitate the spiritual growth of the gay Christians He brings to our care; and the sharing of the gospel with the non-gay Christians and the gay non-Christians he brings to us?

Quite frankly we are happy to be just called Safehaven because all we care is that people grow into fullness when they encounter us. The ambiguity about what we are is not important. It is sufficient that when we meet the Lord, he will say to us well done good and faithful servant and nothing more.