Three Models for Encouraging Collaboration Between Medicine and Ministry

The call to unite medical work and gospel ministry has deep roots in the mission of the church. The intersection of medical work and gospel ministry provides a unique opportunity to serve communities holistically, addressing both physical and spiritual needs. By combining the healing of the body with the nurturing of the soul, we follow the example of Jesus, who ministered to people’s physical and spiritual needs.

Over the years, I have explored different ways to encourage collaboration between pastors, physicians, and other church and community members. Each model has unique strengths, limitations, and opportunities for ministry.

This post outlines these three models, offering practical insights for pastors, physicians, administrators, and volunteers. I invite you to prayerfully consider how God might lead us to adopt or adapt these approaches in advancing His mission.

Model 1: The Parallel Play Model

The first model, which I call the Parallel Play Model, draws inspiration from developmental psychology. In this concept, young children engage in parallel play, where they play side-by-side but without directly interacting. This type of play reflects an early stage of social development.

This concept serves as an analogy for how pastors and physicians can work within their respective ministries while maintaining separate roles. In this model, pastors and physicians work in their respective fields—physicians in clinics and pastors in churches—carrying out their ministries independently. While there may be occasional points of interaction, such as health fairs or community events, there is no consistent, collaborative effort toward shared evangelistic goals.

This model is common in much of the United States, where physicians and pastors serve their communities in parallel but rarely in an integrated manner.

Strengths of the Parallel Play Model

1. Simplicity: This model is easy to implement as it requires no structural integration or changes to existing roles.
2. Autonomy: Physicians and pastors can focus on their respective ministries without the need to coordinate daily operations.
3. Low Risk: There are minimal logistical, legal, and financial concerns since each party operates independently.

Challenges of the Parallel Play Model

1. Missed Opportunities: Without intentional collaboration, the potential synergy of combining health and spiritual care is often unrealized.
2. Fragmentation: Physical separation between clinics and churches creates barriers to consistent interaction.
3. Limited Impact: Most cooperative efforts occur during evenings or weekends, restricting the reach and depth of the ministry.

While the Parallel Play Model is the most common approach in the United States, its limitations suggest a need for more intentional and integrated methods to fully realize the potential of holistic ministry.

Model 2: The Cooperative Play Model – “A Church with a Clinic in It”

The Cooperative Play Model builds on the foundation of the first model by fostering closer collaboration between pastors and physicians. This approach involves co-locating medical and pastoral services to create a shared space for ministry.

One example of this model is a “church with a clinic in it”—a facility where pastors and physicians work side by side to serve the community. Over the past several years, I have been involved in developing a functional, church-based clinic to explore how this model could work in practice.

Strengths of the Cooperative Play Model

1. Increased Collaboration: Sharing a physical space makes it easier for pastors and physicians to work together toward shared evangelistic goals.
2. Community Impact: A visible, integrated ministry demonstrates the church’s commitment to holistic care, often attracting individuals who may not otherwise engage with the church.
3. Scalability: Once established, the model provides a template that can be adapted and replicated in other communities.

Challenges of the Cooperative Play Model

1. Liability Concerns: Operating a medical practice within a church introduces significant legal and malpractice risks.
2. Compliance Barriers: Navigating the financial, legal, and regulatory requirements of co-housing a clinic and a church can be complex and time-consuming.
3. Resource Intensive: The model requires significant investment in terms of time, funding, and personnel to establish and sustain.

While this model has garnered interest and shown promise, the challenges associated with liability and compliance have limited its expansion. Despite these barriers, the Cooperative Play Model represents a meaningful step toward greater integration of medicine and ministry.

Model 3: The Cooperative Play Model – “A Clinic with a Church in It”

Although challenges exist in the cooperative play model, I believe the church needs data on this kind of evangelistic model. Therefore, I am proposing a third model. For pastors and physicians to work together in ministry with their day-to-day operations being part of the same evangelistic effort, this third model is, in a sense, the reverse of the second model—it is “a clinic with a church in it.” The concept is to start a clinic with multiple components to support lifestyle interventions. These components could include a gym, a commercial kitchen, a bookstore, and a small ABC (Adventist Book Center). The idea is that these activities would all be connected, likely within the same building, and would work together during the week. In essence, it would be a mini, modern-day “day program” sanitarium, if you wish to call it that.

Although each entity would be available separately to the general public, physicians would refer patients to these resources directly from the medical offices. For example, lifestyle patients could be referred from the clinic to the gym for an exercise program to improve their health. Physicians could also prescribe a vegetarian diet as part of disease reversal, and the patient could have this prescribed diet fulfilled through the kitchen. The kitchen would prepare meals for patients, ranging from one meal to a day’s supply, a week’s supply, or longer. Initially, the kitchen would serve the clinic exclusively but would eventually evolve into a vegetarian restaurant. This restaurant would cater to medical office referrals and serve walk-in clients with daily meal options.

Diet is often a major stumbling block for patients attempting lifestyle changes, especially those without the education or resources to implement the necessary changes themselves. In this scenario, the kitchen would serve as a vital resource for reversing disease while also functioning as an educational center. Patients could learn how to prepare the same foods they are eating, promoting both dietary and behavioral changes. The kitchen would thus be a restaurant and an educational center, teaching individuals how to replicate healthy, life-sustaining meals at home.

The Clinic Location Becomes A Church 

On designated days, the clinic would transform into a church plant. For example, on Wednesday nights, Friday nights, and Sabbaths, the facility would host church services and related activities and be set up with appropriate audio and visual equipment to serve the needs of the church plant. The clinic rooms would double as Sabbath school classrooms, the gym would be set up as a worship hall with seating, and the kitchen would become the center for church social activities after the services.

A team of full-time volunteers would augment the church planting program. Organizationally, the model would place a pastor and physician team at the center, surrounded by these volunteers, who would be an integral part of the church’s body. These volunteers would work closely with the leadership team to engage the community and involve church members in outreach and ministry. Details about the envisioned roles of these volunteers can be seen on the prototype recruitment website: www.THSvolunteer.com.

Notably, there are no ascending liability issues when the church rents space from a clinic to hold religious services. Renting space for a church plant is a common and legally viable approach, allowing the program to focus on growth without entanglement in liability concerns. This setup enables the church plant to develop and thrive in an environment that encourages collaboration and synergy between medical and spiritual efforts.

In addition to fostering local ministry, this model would demonstrate how clinics and churches can work together to advance the mission of the world church and the North American Division (NAD). It would fulfill the vision of an urban center of influence and provide a framework for evaluation, highlighting both this approach’s potential benefits and challenges. Over time, as the church plant grows and stabilizes, decisions would need to be made about its relationship with the clinic. For instance, would the church plant continue its partnership with the clinic or eventually split off into a fully independent congregation? Alternatively, would other innovative models emerge? The critical point is to advance the work and allow the church to assess its options thoughtfully.

One Conference President’s Perspective on “A Clinic with a Church-plant in It” Model

I discussed these three models with one conference president and asked which one he would like to see implemented in his conference. Of the three models, he chose the clinic-with-a-church-plant-in-it model. When asked why, he shared the following reasons:

1. Alignment with Biblical and Prophetic Guidance: This model reflects the principles of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, emphasizing the unity of medical and gospel work.
2. Recruitment Benefits: Recruiting self-sacrificing and visionary members for a stable church plant is challenging. This model offers the vision and evangelistic focus many members yearn for, making recruitment easier.
3. Financial Sustainability for Church Plants: This approach allows a church plant to survive and grow despite a startup congregation’s typically low budget and income.
4. Mission-Focused DNA: The church plant would have an outward focus embedded in its core mission, ensuring vibrancy and community impact. Instead of merely maintaining programs or filling committee positions, this church would be energized by a clear vision to practically serve and love the community.

Challenges of the Cooperative Play Model “Church with a Clinic in It” Model

To accomplish this model will require a team of dedicated providers working in concert with local pastors, young volunteers, and the broader church membership. Although the model is designed to be self-funded and requires no financial input from the conference, it will still necessitate a visionary leadership team at the conference level. This leadership must be willing to support and guide the project, manage the tithe and offerings generated by the church plant, and address any future challenges. For example, as the church plant matures, the leadership must decide how best to transition it into a self-sustaining congregation without losing its DNA and core mission. It will eventually have to guide and help determine what the church-plant partnership with the clinic will look like.

Additionally, this program will require young, visionary volunteers willing to dedicate a part of their lives to serving as catalysts for community outreach and growth. Similarly, sacrificial church members will be needed to form the core of the church plant. Together, these groups will embody the collaborative evangelistic experiment envisioned by this model.

Pray about it

At this moment in history, this proposal is still just a vision. Yet the potential for transformative impact is immense. That is why I invite you to join me in prayer, asking God to guide us and open doors for this work if it is His will. Many questions remain, and I intend to address some of them in future blog posts. I hope this post will spark discussion and inspire individuals to consider how they might contribute to this vision of united medical and gospel ministry.

The author invites you to comment on this article. Whether you agree or have a different perspective, please enter your comments in the space below.