On Reaching Students 6: Excellent Parachurch

I recently discovered this article by Jonathan Carswell (youth pastor at Hamilton Road Baptist Church, Bangor). His belief is that "student-led ministry appears to be under threat ... from well-meaning gospel churches" although in reality, his is basically a many-layered objection to local churches who directly take the gospel to university campuses.

If you look at the subject which is set out in the first few paragraphs - the push for student-led ministry based on the belief that churches do not have student leadership - it is easily countered by this:

"Hello, my name is Luke. I'm a third year, full-time student at the University of Sheffield and for the last two years I have led my local church's work among students. The other day my co-worker and I passed onto the next generation of leaders, all currently students, and we ourselves received the work from students who were leading."

There. The objection based on the assumption that church-based student ministry is led by ordained people is shown to be a generalisation not worthy of blanket application; my experience of student leadership in a church is replicated all over the country.

But in reality, Jonathan Carswell's article is not so much a defence of student-led ministry as it is the usual arguments one encounters in the church/parachurch/CU debate. Constructing the issue so that it centres around the issue of student leadership is a clever move because the issue is close to students' hearts. He has here created a false dichotomy based on the assumption that CUs are always student led, and that church ministries are always not. This is simply not true. Here was a great opportunity to make a robust point about student leadership without alienating those in church-based student work. And it wasn't taken.

On these grounds one could be forgiven for not reading the rest of the article: the sweeping generalisations about CUs and church work that come out of this false assumption can potentially be discarded.

However there are a number of other assumptions he makes which I feel are worthy of attention.

First let me say this: I sense a clash of paradigms here. There are some amazing parachurch ministries out there with humble hearts and who are ready to serve, and many within the CU movement itself take that excellent attitude in my experience. But when it comes to preserving a CU, or any other man-made institution (those without a God-given right to survive, including any local church) for its own sake, I feel we move away from Biblical precedents and more into personal preferences.

Furthermore, I believe that mission is the domain of local churches, led and administered as defined by scripture. There are various helpful mechanisms around, which help the missional aims of local churches. The Mission Aviation Fellowship gets the church into places it could not otherwise impact. Wycliffe Bible Translators provide scripture in local languages. In a similar vein, CUs provide a mechanism for the church of God in any given city to gain access on campus which they would not otherwise have. So CUs, when recognising the local churches' (plural) primacy in mission to a city, can be very helpful to aid that mission.

So, to get to these underlying assumptions. Firstly, the article somehow turns the excellent precedents for parachurch ministry (e.g. the serving attitude described above) on their head and assumes that churches wanting a campus presence should be "assisting the CU", not the other way around.

How absurd, when their fellow parachurch organisations such as Wycliffe don't require churches to "assist" them, nor do the Mission Aviation Fellowship or Freedom In Christ Ministries. They prefer the language of 'serving' rather than requiring assistance. I have to wonder what Jonathan Carswell thinks CUs really are, that local churches have nothing more to offer student ministry in his view than to "assist"/provide "caring, pastoral Bible teaching that only a church can provide". Carswell may not actually think the local CU shuld take precedence in all campus mission (I certainly hope he doesn't!) but it's how the article comes across.

The language of 'assistance' betrays status in student mission as Carswell sees it. For example, take two people. One is a businessman and one is his assistant. I can't imagine very many situations in which it would be appropriate for the assistant to himself ask his boss for assistance! We must remember which way round these things biblically are and not deviate from it. Excellent parachurch recognises its role as nothing less than assisting in the work of the local churches. This is a high calling indeed! If we turn it upside-down let me humbly suggest we risk missing out on God's best in mission.

No, it is the primary responsibility of the local churches in a town to decide how best to reach campuses, schools and workplaces. The effectiveness of those churches depends to an extent (probably more than I'd like to admit) on the servant attitude of relevant parachurch organisations. But if we disempower the local churches for mission by setting up alternative models of evangelism which no one else dare penetrate, I believe we stray from the Biblical pattern for mission and again let me say, we risk missing out.

Among the other assumptions this article betrays, are the following.

The existence of CUs is synonymous with a strong campus impact: "strong student ministries can unintentionally weaken the CU, and thus weaken the Christian presence on campus"

Interesting. Again, this is a statement which cannot be backed up by Bible truth. The direct link is made between strong CUs and strong campus impact. Whilst many CUs do an excellent work, because of my ecclesiology I cannot accept that if the local churches at last step up to the mark on student mission as well, that it is damaging the Christian presence on campus. Whereas we can say with confidence for example, that Paul saw fit to plant a church in a town to continue his mission to it. So we can legitimately draw the asumption that we should be planting churches as our primary method of evangelisation too. So when local churches start to take this seriously and start to meet on campus for example, is that damaging the Christian presence on campus?

CUs are not the only way. Strong local churches (I believe) are God's way, and excellent parachurch recognises that.

What is the worldview being expressed here:

"There are a growing number of CUs (including those which UCCF would class as ‘flagship’) which have found it increasingly hard because churches have competed for Christian students’ attention and commitment. Rather than assisting the CU they are detracting from it."

What is the primary concern here? It's not concern for the churches, and not even concern for mission, but more specifically, concern for the status of CUs. Is that in itself a Godly thing? The interests of a human organisation are being held over and above mission itself in my view.

The assumption here (which I find interesting) is that anyone wanting a campus impact must involve themselves with the CU or else they are damaging the Christian presence on campus. I find it odd that someone who works for a church would write such things. Wycliffe aren't staking out a claim as the only Bible translators. The Africa Inland Mission don't resist other work being done in Africa outside of their realm of control. It escapes me as to why CUs should be any different. And the shame of it is that more and more of the people I know within the CU movement wouldn't hold the 'preseve-CUs-at-all-costs' attitude which is on display here. This article is doing them an injustice.

One further assumption I'd like to comment on here before finishing off. What does the quote below tell you?

"I believe this worrying trend is neither biblically or historically God’s way."

Is the way God worked in the last century how he will work in the 21st? I don't know. But I know I wouldn't want to chance an answer that limits Him. Furthermore, I personally believe that whilst the church broadly has been in decline in our nation, towards the end of the 20th century the glow in the centre was getting brighter and brighter, and indeed still is getting brighter. There are now churches around the likes of which were not known before the 1970s. I believe we're edging closer and closer to a restored church - a church which is starting to take back on the responsibilities it has heinously neglected historically.

It's rather like our businessman falling asleep on the job. Rather than trying to wake the businessman up, the assistant helpfully starts fielding his phone calls, replying to letters: taking on the businessman's responsibilities. When the businessman begins to stir, the assistant decides he rather likes his new responsibilities and stays quiet, hoping the businessman will fall asleep again. When he doesn't, the assistant resists letting the businessman do his job again. "But I like doing those things! It's my job now! And you can't have it! It works well my way, why would you want to change it?!"

Sound familiar?

Both sides are at fault here in my view. Whose fault was it that the businessman fell asleep? But then why did the assistant decide to do it his way rather than waking the businessman up? Humbly recognising there have been mistakes allows both to then sit down and look at who should do what and why. In our situation that would involve going back to what the Bible teaches about mission.

The analogy is far from perfect, but it says something about what is happening in the church at the moment. Whilst excellent parachurch recognises this and seeks to serve and collaborate, there are those around who like it the old way - the upside-down way, clinging to the old order when in actuality I believe God is saying 'look in My Word! There is a better way!'

A new season is dawning in mission as churches everywhere are waking up to their God-given responsibilities toward the lost. This means a change in practice as the mission specialists find their field becoming crowded. It takes humility on both sides.

The good thing is I believe the shrill voices of dissent at the church 'taking over' are increasingly being replaced by the soft voice of collaboration. I hope we can see more of this collaborative spirit, with everyone involved wishing the church to be everything God would have her be. We must do, not that which makes practical sense or historical sense, but that which makes Biblical sense.