[Biblemat] Turner on Bible Colleges - III

[Dan Gatlin]

THE SCHOOLS, AND DENOMINATIONALISM
   
  By Robert F. Turner (Preceptor, June 1962)
   
    (This is article III of a series on the history of Educational Institutions Among Brethren.  The first two articles are in previous issues of The Preceptor.)
   
      Schools operated by brethren in the “Pioneer Period” of our study were regarded by the educators as secular institutions.  Their right to be “preacher-training” or “indoctrination” centers was denied; and definite limitations were placed upon the extent to which the Bible could be presented.  (See Article II)  The Bible was to be used as a text-book for moral science, not to instruct in matters peculiar to the church of Christ.  But what does one mean by “matters peculiar to the church of Christ”??  Peculiar to plainly taught doctrines of the New Testament, or peculiar to the widely accepted tenets of a party of people called the Church of Christ???  A certain ambiguity which attaches itself to this statement today, was likewise felt in earlier days; and was responsible for one of the first church-school conflicts among brethren.
      Educators of the early days seemed to have developed a fairly definite theory of education—a principle by which they thought they could justify their work.  But this work required the support of the brethren—brethren who (1) had no clear and unified conception of the operation and benefits to be expected of such schools; (2) took an early and sectarian pride in “our” institutions; and (3) were subject to the same sort of changes we observe among brethren today.  Looking back upon the earlier educational problems, Franklin and Headington wrote:
      “When the Disciples gave of their money to found and endow colleges, they did so with the idea that the influences of those colleges would be given to the extension of the principles of the Reformation.  In that sense they were expected to be denominational.  But whether that influence was to be exerted by having these principles regularly taught, or only through the personal influence and example of teachers, was a question which people had not well considered.  But that all the faculty should be Christians, and identified with the Reformation, was as well settled and anything in the public mind.” (Biography of Benjamin Franklin; pp. 397; Publ. 1879)
      As early as 1845 there is evidence that “the brethren” expected more of the colleges than “a secular education in a Christian environment.”  Bacon College was in financial straits, and many brethren were dissatisfied with the administration of Pres. James Shannon.  Carol Kendrick, editor of the Ecclesiastical Reformer in Kentucky “took up the battle, and for several months he and Shannon debated the issue before the brethren of the state.  Kendrick charged that the brethren of Kentucky were refusing to support the school because Bacon College was not serving its cause.”*** (Note the “cause” brethren thought the school should serve. rft)
      “Shannon declared that their charter, which was borrowed from Centre College at Danville, had stipulated that the peculiar doctrines of no sect should be preached.  Shannon defended the school by insisting they were teaching the Bible, but that they had consistently refused to teach peculiar doctrines of the churches of Christ.  For the first time, in all probability, many brethren learned that they belonged to a ‘sect’, according to Shannon.  It is not at all unlikely that Kendrick had struck at the basic trouble with the College, although there were many who agreed with Shannon in his viewpoint.” (See Search for Ancient Order, Vol. I, p. 273).
      This early conflict between the desire of the brethren and the policies of the schools is but preliminary to the Kentucky University battle, of which we shall presently study.  Let us note here, however, that although schools do influence the thinking of the brotherhood, we should not completely discount the influence of the brotherhood on the schools.  As long as the schools are dependant upon the approval of the brethren, their policies are usually adjusted to majority pressures, whether right or wrong.  This schools change according to the changes taking place among brethren . . . and brethren do change.  What happens when the schools is well enough endowed to be self-sufficient??  And what happens when the school is powerful enough to ignore the thinking of even a large portion of the brotherhood, or to exert pressures to change this thinking???  Bacon College, Harrodsburg, Ky., closed in 1850 due to lack of funds.  But the spirit of “brotherhood organizations”
 was growing.  (American Christian Missionary Society, organized 1849.)  “In 1852 at a state meeting of the churches (emphasis mine, rtf) it was voted to reopen the College, but to amend the charter so that the school would belong to the “Christians in the State of Kentucky.”  (Private enterprise?? rft)  There was no immediate action, however.  Then, at a meeting of the brethren held at Harrodsburg on Oct. 22, 1855, John B. Bowman proposed that a university be established upon the ruins of Bacon College.  Within a few years $150,000 was raised, and by September, 1859, the school began operation under the new name, Kentucky University.  The new charter called for “a self-perpetuating board of thirty curators, two-thirds of whom were to be members of the church in Kentucky.”  (For thought-provoking comments and history of this period, see Search for the Ancient Order, by Earl West; Vol. I p. 273-f. Vol. II, p. 113-127)
      In 1865, following a disastrous fire, the university moved to Lexington, Ky., and absorbed Transylvania University.  Transylvania had recently negotiated with the Kentucky Legislature to provide a College of Agriculture and Mechanics, and would receive an endowment from the State to support this project.  Consequently, the “brotherhood of Kentucky” was soon involved with a State-aligned school, consisting of a “College of Bible” plus Colleges of Liberal Arts, Law, Commerce, and A & M.  Two-thirds of the board members were members of the church in Kentucky, as demanded by the charter; but by this time the “brotherhood” was restless and partially divided over the development of the missionary society, and the “new issue”—mechanical instruments in the worship.  Liberal minded board members were headed by liberal minded, powerfully wealthy John B. Bowman.  The stage was set for trouble.
      Bowman and the liberal curators claimed the school was “non-sectarian.”  This sounded like the old refrain, so in keeping with the early theory of education among brethren, and many were soothed to sleep by this familiar verbiage.   But Bowman considered the churches of Christ another sect.  His ambiguous statement only meant the school would serve no particular group.  By this time the brethren had dismissed their early reluctance to “indoctrinate” by means of the secular (?) class-room, and a sort of brotherhood orthodoxy had developed which demanded that “our” church be promoted by “our” schools.
      J. W. McGarvey, preaching in Lexington and teaching at the College of Bible, opposed the liberal trends.  He was backed by Moses E. Lard and others.  Benjamin Franklin entered the battle, and in the Sept. 1871 American Christian Review wrote concerning the school: “True, we grant, it is not to be sectarian, but is to be Christian.  It must be under the control of Christians.**** We desire to know that the University is not only nominally turned over to the brotherhood, but run in accordance with their desires.” (Private enterprise??? rft)
      The “bursting point” of this church-school feud was as spectacular—and ugly—as the repeat performance may be in our own generation.  (God help us!)  Bowman and other liberals left the church where McGarvey preached, and started a new congregation.  The Main St. church withdrew from Bowman.  In 1873 McGarvey was ousted from the school.  By now, the secular press and “brotherhood papers” were printing various versions of the battle.  In 1874 a group of brethren appealed the matter to the State Legislature.  They proposed a new Board of managers to be selected “by the church in Kentucky.”  (“Fifty congregations” in agreement could represent “the church in Kentucky.”)  A “committee of twenty-one brethren” canvassed the state for resolutions, etc., from the churches, but the measure failed to obtain a majority vote in the Senate.
      We are presented here with the ridiculous spectacle of an “unorganized brotherhood” trying to “own and control” anything.  They could cease to support the school financially, but by now the university was so well endowed that Bowman laughed at such threats.  The acceptance of State funds had given the general public a voice in the matter; and to the general public the “brotherhood” was a denomination, seeking to control a State-aligned University.  The denominational characteristics necessitated by efforts at “brotherhood ownership and control” are further seen in that when the Board of Curators sought to deal with “the brotherhood” they did so by appealing to the Kentucky Christian Educational Society, a fund-raising organization that had existed for some time among members of the church in Kentucky.
      The “brotherhood” lost Kentucky University—if it ever had the school in the first place.  An independent College of The Bible was finally established in Lexington and J. W. McGarvey, Robert Graham, I. B. Grubbs, and others served there with honor; but the effect of the K. U. fight were not easily erased.  In later articles we will discuss the effects of this battle on the theory of “Christian Education” among brethren—even until our own day.  It is foolish to ignore such valuable “hind-sights.”
      The K. U. debacle illustrates our major proposition for this article, viz., ANY PROJECT OR INSTITUTION OPERATED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHURCH AT LARGE, “THE BROTHERHOOD,” TENDS TO DENOMINATIONALIZE THAT BROTHERHOOD.  The institution itself may not be so much to blame as the “brotherhood” conceptions that produce and maintain the institution.  Party ties are made and strengthened, opinions accepted by the majority become traditions, are crystallized into party tenets; and accepted in the second or third generation as proof of orthodoxy.  When the “brotherhood” functions, there must be the acceptance of common direction and guidance; the “brotherhood voice” must be heard.  And “brotherhood schools” have paved the way for denominational organizations among members of the Lord’s church.  No amount of denying can change this obvious historical and current fact.
      In A. S. Hayden’s “History of the Disciples on the Western Reserve” - (pp. 461-f.) he pleads the cause of the missionary society, and other church combines.  He freely credits (?) the school (Eclectic Institute—later known as Hiram College) with the promotion of such “cooperations” among brethren.  He writes: “The chief glory of that institution has not been told: which was, that it created a most desirable and useful general confidence among us.  We united.  We joined hands around one good enterprise.  The purpose succeeded, and vindicated the most useful sentiment of union in action.***  This confidence is transferring itself to our missionary work.”
      Schools are secular institutions, and must remain such.  History, and common sense, urge us to “hasten leisurely” in our conclusion concerning them; but God’s Word concerning the organizational structure of the church demands that we take a firm stand against any “brotherhood institutions” or church support of any secular enterprise.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20070509/32b3b238/attachment-0001.html