E.C. Dargan, a professor at Southern Seminary authored Kingdom, Society, and Church (1907) in which he wrote about the church: “The very essence of her life is that she is the divinely appointed means of re-establishing right relations between a holy and offended God, and sinful and guilty man. Christians cannot afford to recede from this position. Whenever the churches leave out of consideration this first and holiest part of their mission to mankind they will cut the nerve of their own activities and surrender the highest purpose for which they have been formed. In his irreligion—his failure and fault toward God, man needs the helping hand of the church” (6).

Our discussion has clearly moved from the difference between the church and the parachurch to, in light of these differences, whether the church should assume the ministries of the parachurch. First, thank God for Cru and IVF who are committed to sharing the Gospel on campuses throughout the world. Still, I think Dargan is right: the Church is the “divinely appointed means” of bringing reconciliation between man and God. This is no slight on these ministries whatsoever. It is, however, to say that they have carved out a mission that gets to the heart of one of the church’s divinely appointed tasks: bringing the Good News that reconciles God and man. Second, notice that some parachurch ministries have missions that do not get at the heart of the church’s core calling. Consider Prison Fellowship. The justice arm of this ministry sends experts to Congress to testify on reforming the criminal justice system. Godspeed, I say. But this is not the mission of the church.

So, not every parachurch ministry is the same. Some parachurch ministries have missions that cut so close to the “divinely appointed task” that I think Greg is right, it would be a God-honoring thing if our our churches were healthy, vibrant, and organized enough to carry on their work under the banner of congregational life. Until that happens–and in a fallen world that may never happen–I just want to ask all those college groups at the University of Louisville, for example, “What can we do as a church to make your work easier–how can we serve you? We are thankful for the investment you are making in college students.” Other parachurch ministries have missions that don’t overlap very well with the church’s mission and, frankly, were the church to take on these ministries I think the church would be distracted from her divinely appointed work.

Christine Leigh Heyrman, surveying Baptist practices in the late eighteenth, early nineteenth centuries wrote, “While they excelled at producing young preachers, the Baptists never instituted any system for distributing them to full advantage” (Southern Cross, 111).  Is it just me, or does anyone else feel this statement rings true today?