[Biblemat] Turner on Bible Colleges - II

[Dan Gatlin]

DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF EDUCATION
   
  By Robert F. Turner (Preceptor, May, 1962)
   
    (Article II of a series on history of Educational Institutions Among Brethren.)
   
      Alexander Campbell was an educator.  At sixteen years of age he assisted his father in a private academy in Ireland, and after coming to this country he engaged in educational enterprises both as a means of livelihood and as a public service.  He established Buffalo Seminary in his own home in 1818.  As a delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention in 1829 he introduced the resolution regarding universal education.  In fact, Clayton Morrison, former editor of the Christian Century, thought CampbellÂ’s greatest contribution to society lay in the field of education.  Nor was Campbell alone as an educator among pioneer preachers.  Walter Scott, P. S. Fall, Tolbert Fanning, and other stalwarts were school teachers, editors of farm magazines, and operators of academies of one kind of another.
      These men lived and worked in an age when illiteracy was high.  The states could not provide adequate educational facilities—in fact, some of them were still debating the advisability of providing schools for all citizens.  Schools were a luxury on the early frontier, and school teachers were at a premium.  A moderately well educated man could render a valuable public service, and operate a profitable business enterprise, by opening an “academy” or “institute”—as they were called.
      And early gospel preachers had even higher motives for establishing schools. In contrast to the popular doctrines of direct and mystical influence of the Holy Spirit upon the soul, these men held that the truths of religion are a revelation in the word of God; and that to enjoy their blessings, one must apply his mind to understand the Bible. Their preaching was an appeal to the understanding of man, trusting the power of truth believed to move the heart and conscience.  “In this view of religion they held that men of cultivated minds would more readily grasp religious truth, and especially that such would be more successful in communicating the knowledge of truth to others.  Their zeal in religion, therefore, made them zealous in the cause of education.” (See “Life of Benj. Franklin;” Franklin and Headington; p. 389-f).
      During this same period the “Whole Man” concept of secular education was gaining wide acceptance in educational circles.  This was a recognition of the physical, social, and moral needs of man, in place of the earlier exclusive appeal to the intellect.  The restoration “preacher-educators” (or “educator-preachers” as the case may be) readily accepted this concept of education, and proposed the Bible as the “text-book for moral science.”  The need for “moral education” became the basis for the positive aspect of a theory of education developed among brethren.  There was also a negative aspect to this theory.
      Restoration preachers placed great stress upon the non-denominational character of Christianity.  They battled incessantly with the sectarianism of their day, and they saw the “Theological Seminaries” as breeding grounds for “creedalism” and the “clergy system.”  Consequently, they had a strong aversion to “preacher training” schools.  Further, they proposed the adequacy and sufficiency of Christians “in their church capacity” to do all the work divinely assigned to them.  Alexander Campbell had written (in Christian Baptist, 1823):
     “In their church capacity alone they moved.  They neither transformed themselves into any other kind of association, nor did they fracture and severe themselves into divers societies.  The viewed the church of Jesus Christ as  the scheme of Heaven to ameliorate the world; as members of it, they considered themselves bound to do all they could for the glory of God and the good of men.  They dare not transfer to a missionary society, or Bible society, or education society, a cent or a prayer, lest in doing so they should rob the church of its glory; and exalt the inventions of men above the wisdom of God.”
      Campbell later tried to “soften” the application of these statements—when criticized for his part in the forming of the missionary society, and for changes in Bethany College.  But the influence of such statements on the early theory of education among brethren is clear and unmistakable.  The schools were not to perform the work of the church.
    One may state this early theory of education as follows: Secular education, so needful to man, includes the development of manÂ’s physical, social, intellectual and moral capacities.  The Bible, as the text-book of moral science, should be taught in secular schools; but distinctive doctrines and theology are not the province of such schools.
      Early schools operated by brethren were secular in their nature.  Bacon College, established in 1836 at Georgetown, Ky., was first proposed as “Collegiate Institute and School of Civil Engineers.”  Its charter, borrowed from a school in Danville, Ky., stipulated that no peculiar doctrines should be taught.  Franklin College, established in 1845 at Nashville, Tenn., by Tolbert Fanning, was an outgrowth of “Elm Craig Agriculture School” and its charter contained nothing about religion.  Burritt College, 1849, began as “a civic enterprise, in response to demand for education” at Spencer, Tenn.  The charter made no religious demands.
      Copies of some early charters, and further notes on this subject, may be found in “A History of Christian Colleges,” by M. Norvel Young.  Concerning Franklin College, Young writes: “Probably the most revealing thing about the charter was its silence on the subject of religion.  Fanning was a preacher and fully intended to teach the Bible as a text book in his new college, but he did not propose that his school should be considered denominational.  Although in practice the members of the board of trustees and of the faculty were, with few exceptions, members of the churches of Christ, no such requirements were written in the charter.” (p. 41)
      Tolbert Fanning understood and sought to apply the “whole man” concept of education in the establishment of Franklin College.  He said, “Education, in this establishment, will be divided into physical, intellectual, and Moral.”  “Genuine education implies not the exercise of the mind alone, or any one of its powers, but it is the full development of the whole man—body, mind and soul. (Franklin College and its Influences; by James Scobey; p. 17)  Yet Fanning was beset with doubts as he saw secular limitations placed upon the Bible.
      The Millennial Harbinger, Sept. 1850, contained and exchange between Fanning and A. Campbell re. the teaching of the Bible in secular schools.  Fanning asked, “Is it true, that we can adopt the Bible as a text-book, (and we all do so,) in our colleges, with our lectures thereupon, and teach nothing which is ‘peculiar’—which is not ‘Catholic,’ and which is not ‘universally admitted’?”  To this, Campbell replied: “We have been doing this, in our way, ever since the foundation of Bethany College, and have now had nine years experience; and although daily, during that period, lectures have been delivered on Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian history, our text-books being the five books of Moses, with other portions of Jewish history, and the five historical books of the New Testament; and although having in attendance other Protestant denominations, almost all the while, and occasionally visited by clergymen of different denominations, we have never heard one exception
 taken against a single sentence ever uttered in those lectures, on sectarian grounds.  Do not all these admit the Bible facts, precepts, and promised?  And is there not enough of these for all the purposes of both religion and morality?” (A more complete report of this exchange will be given in later articles. rft).
      Campbell accepted the “whole man” concept of education, and used the Bible as a text-book of moral science; but felt that Bible teaching in secular schools had definite limitations.  (And remember, he considered all schools operated by brethren as “secular” even though he sometimes spoke of “Christian education.”)  In 1857 he said, “Theories, speculations sometimes called doctrines, faith, orthodoxy, heterodoxy, come not within the legitimate area of collegiate, literary, moral or Christian education.”  (See “Popular Lectures and Addresses,” by Campbell; p. 486)
      In his “Address on Colleges” (Ibid., p. 303-305) he said: “But essential as religion is, both to the school and to the state, the preternatural and unfortunate condition of Christendom is such as to inhibit the introduction of any form of Christianity into the colleges and seminaries of learning . . . The consequence is, that we must either have no college with the Bible in it as a text-book, or as many colleges as there are sects in any given state or territory . . . The questions of this age is, How is this difficulty to be met and overcome?
      “There is but one sovereign remedy for these educational difficulties and embarrassments.  We Protestants have a Bible, as well as literature; and that Bible, as well as the Greek and Roman Bible, states certain prominent Christian facts, precepts, and promises, so plainly, so perspicuously and so fully that all Christendom admits them . . . These, with the moral evidences which sustain them, are so evident that no Christian denomination doubts or denies them.  They, therefore, are common property, and, without any factitious aid, are competent to man’s redemption.  They are—1st. That Christ died for our sins; 2nd. That he was buried; and 3rd. That he rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven . . . Every man that believes that Christ died for our sins and rose again for our justification, so far as his faith is concerned, is said by the Holy Spirit to be saved.
      “Since, then these facts are admitted by every denomination of Christians, they may, with great propriety, in all their evidence and moral grandeur, be taught in every school and college in Christendom; and that, too, without any censure or exception taken by any Christian denomination, Greek, Roman or Protestant.  That this can be done, is demonstrated by actual experiment on our part, and with the consent and concurrence of every denomination in our country.  Further than this, public instruction, ex cathedra, in Christianity, is neither desirable nor expedient during a collegiate course of learning.” (Abridged, as indicated by dots.—R. F. T.)
      Needless to say, such Bible teaching in “our” colleges today would be most unsatisfactory, and highly criticized by all brethren involved.  Nor were the brethren of earlier days satisfied with such teaching, as we shall see in further articles.  In fact, here is one of the major problems of so-called “Christian Colleges”:  We seek to justify the colleges with a theory that differs widely from the practice we demand of those colleges.  We justify them as secular institutions, and criticize them for secular practices.
      But let us “hasten leisurely” with our conclusions.  There is much more, as we continue our study of the history of educational institutions among brethren.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20070509/f8981ce4/attachment-0001.html