All of Christ's followers are the church. Right? I think the local church is wherever you are at. If I'm in Cairo, I'm in the local church. If I'm in Hendersonville,TN that's my local church. So what is Cairo when I'm in Hendersonville,TN? Is it someone else's local church or my global church, it was my local church at one time?

Your sacrifice and my sacrifice isn't just for the local church, it's also for the global church. The building up of God's Kingdom. So aren't they the same?
Humans have a habit of having to label something because it looks slightly different. Parachurch, local church, global church. All should have the same goal and are "the church". Where the "local church" has missed it is thinking that was the end result and reduced the church to a building and some people inside.

I think this is like what you are saying. You don't like labels. Me neither. Jesus didn't come to setup multiple churches. We are all to be involved in helping the poor sick and afflicted together.

Pat,

I agree. Especially when you read the NT and the interaction they had. Apostles were traveling city to city to raise up the local leader and encourage the people.

1. So were the Apostles not a part of the so-called "local" church?

2. Of course there was a local church with local Elders who basically did life together, etc.

Seems to be a good mix. Which is what I'm advocating with HELP.

This gets at the crux of ecclesiology, something we have been discussing over at Church Planting Novice. I wouldn't consider HELP a church, though certainly part of the Church. Since the Reformation, the church has been defined by certain marks including—communion (Christ-centered community), baptism (people-focused mission), church discipline (biblical governance). Do you see help as something that baptizes people into its own confessing, governed community?

Ralph Winter puts a high value on sodalities, which renew modalities (churches). Check out some of his articles on this; hwoever, he has moved into churchless Xty, which I think poses some dangers.

I am with Dodson on this one. The local church has specific roles and purposes in the building up of the body. The form of the local church may be varied, but the roles and purposes are present. So no, I don't think of HELP as the local church.

But I also wouldn't call HELP parachurch, at least in the current idea of them. To often, parachurch's have gone from something that supported the local church to competing with the local church. I love Campus Crusade, but don't try to get their students involved in your local body beyond Sunday services. The distrust that exist needs the gospel to melt it.

I have always thought of HELP as what it seems to be, a non-profit with a gospel-centered goal of ending local poverty. Not a parachurch, not a church, but an initiative of transformed Christian men and women. Each of these people should be connected to a local church body (which could be varied) for encouragement, building up and to invite others into the initiative.

What discourages me about so many leaders with initiatives is that they leave the local church and the influence they could have on the local body, while often bashing them (in love of course) for not 'getting it'. And yes, the local church needs to learn how to integrate them into the community, and to release and celebrate them.

Your not so much an advocate for the local church as advocates for Jesus, your initiative/ministry and plugged into a local confessing community.

Love ya bro. Let's get coffee/tacos soon.