[Biblemat] Turner on Bible Colleges - IV

[Dan Gatlin]

“BIBLE SCHOOLS’ BECOME A BROTHERHOOD ISSUE
   
  By Robert F. Turner
   
    (Article IV in a series on the History of Educational Institutions).
   
      In previous articles we have traced the development of a theory of education among brethren of an earlier day.  We have seen schools begin as secular institutions, privately owned, and thought to have no right as “indoctrination centers;” become “Christian” schools, considered as brotherhood institutions, and expected to promote “peculiar and distinctive” doctrines.  (Our articles have been necessarily limited in this historical development, but the story of Kentucky University, with accompanying citations, amply sustains the above statement).
      The K. U. debacle, discussed in Article III, focused attention upon the schools as “brotherhood” institutions—and productive of a “brotherhood problem” that has continued to this day.  It set in motion a reactionary feeling which greatly shaped the popular attitude toward “Bible Schools” from ca. 1890 to ca. 1930, until now.  The Missionary Society and the Instrumental Music issue divided the brethren into so-called “Progressives” and “Conservatives;” but a few years later the school problem presented its own divisive power.  Some of the conservative (or “Anti’s” as they were called by the “music and society” brethren) felt that the schools were right in principle, but that they must guard against abuses of this principle.  Others concluded that the whole principle of secular Bible schools was contradictory and wrong.  We shall study examples of each view, and their effect upon the history of the church.
      Benjamin Franklin, editor of the then powerful American Christian Review, is a fine example of a truly great man who “changed” from a promoter and supporter of schools operated by brethren, to an opponent of such institutions.  The following statements, by which Franklin tells his own story, were originally written in the “Review,” and are quoted from “The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin” by Franklin and Headington; Pages 396-399.  In 1873 Franklin wrote:
      “We gave it as our deliberate opinion, a year ago, that the majority party in the Board and the Regent disregarded the wishes of the donors to the University and their brethren in the State, to whom the University belongs, and who have the right to control it.*** Many well-meaning people thought no harm was meant, and that the alarm was groundless—that all was safe.  But look at the state of thing now.  Leading men in this factious movement are now talking about the churches taking action in the matter indignantly, and inquiring: ‘What business have the churches with it?’  This is a little cool.  The brethren of the State make up the churches, and the charter of the University recognizes them as the owners of the University, and as having the right to control it.  The appeal was made in their name.  Under that name they poured out their munificence. It was to be their University, and they were to control it.  It was for the cause—the Bible cause.  But how is it now? 
 It is out of their hands, and, by the dominant party in the Board, regarded as an impertinence for them to give an expression of their mind.”
      Now brethren of 1962—read these statements carefully.  Bro. Franklin thought brethren of Kentucky could own and control the school.  He experienced a rude awakening.  Three years later, when “liberal” views began to influence the teachers of other colleges, Franklin wrote: (Oct. 10, 1876 Review.)
      “We do not disguise the fact that we are not working for Bethany College.  We are taking no interest in it.  We worked for it all the time till Bro. Campbell died, subscribed and paid $100 to its support since his death.  Things have been occurring all along since to cut our affections off from it till we have no sympathy with it.  We do not believe it is doing the cause any good.  We are now measuring every word we write, and understand the meaning of every word.  We can give reasons for what we are saying to any extent the reader may desire.  We shall put down a very few things briefly here:
      1. We have become perfectly satisfied that education, in the popular sense, is purely secular, and is not a church matter.  The church ought to be connected with no educational enterprise.  We are in favor of no church college.  This is a matter that may be discussed at length, but we enter into no discussion of it now.  Still, this would not utterly cut off our sympathy with Bethany College, other matters being equal.
      2. One of the main pleas Alexander Campbell made for a college under the control of Christians was, in view of the moral teaching, that no man was educated in the true sense who was not cultivated in heart.  This we hold to be as true as any principle yet uttered.  To this end there should be sound professors to train students, and there should be a sound church in the vicinity of the college, maintaining the highest order of morality, order and discipline.”
      Franklin and Headington summarize Benjamin Franklin’s attitude toward the schools as follows: “He became finally well grounded in the opinion that all schools ought to be as purely secular as a book-store, and that religious instruction should be ministered entirely through the church and Sunday-school, or by the enterprise of individuals.” (p. 395).
      Daniel Sommer purchased the American Christian Review in 1866.  He had previously written for the paper—including some articles on “Educating Preachers” in which he questioned some practices of the schools—and now he became the chief opponent of the “Bible College” in the sense we have been using the terms.  His “gloves off” attitude aroused the ire of college advocates, and his sometimes illogical arguments invited scorn, but his influence was great in the mid-west.  “Sommerism” became synonymous with opposition to the colleges, and to this day some brethren feel they have adequately disposed of a critic of the schools when they call him a “Sommerite.”  In sections where Daniel Sommer’s influence was greatest, conservative brethren generally adopted the conclusion that “Bible Colleges” (as institutions apart from the local church) and “the all-sufficiency of the church” were completely incompatible.
      In the south, however, (where the “music and society” digression was least felt), the Bible School issue seemed not to have reached such “black and/or white” conclusions.  Many educators of the south accepted theories practically identical with those of Daniel Sommer, but found means of justifying practices which Sommer declared inconsistent.  For example, David Lipscomb seemed convinced that schools should not be “preacher factories”—as Sommer might call them.  In an article in the Gospel Advocate, April 8, 1875, he wrote, “We think the most fatal mistake of Alexander Campbell’s life, and one that has done much and we fear will do much more to undo his life’s work, was the establishment of a school to train and educated young preachers.”  (For this, and remaining quotations see Search for Ancient Order, Vol. II, pages 368-f).  Yet, in writing about the Nashville School, Lipscomb emphasized its roll in aiding “those who wish to devote their lives to the service of
 God.”  Thirty-two regularly enrolled students entered the school the first year, and twenty-four of these were preparing to be preachers.  The second year thirty-four students enrolled, “all save two or three preparing to spend their lives in teaching the lost the way of life.”  These young men preached in and about Nashville, and by March, 1893, the Advocate reported that forty-two persons obeyed the gospel “under their ministry.”  Theory notwithstanding, the practical result and advertised emphasis was “preacher training.”
      The schools must not “do the work of the church,” everyone seemed to agree.  But a careful definition of the “work of the church”—and what is meant by the “all-sufficiency” of the church in this field—seems not, to this good day, to be established.  In 1891, in written controversy with a missionary society advocate, Lipscomb stated: “And whenever you will convince me that the school is usurping any function of the church of God, takes out of its hands or the hands of individual Christians, what God has committed to it, I henceforth will oppose all schools. ****I have never found where the Bible committed to the church or to anybody but parents, the work of educating their children for making a living. . . . .”
      When J. M. McCaleb wrote to James Harding, asking the difference between the Bible School and the society in principle, Harding replied: (G. A., Oct. 10, 1895).
      “The day the Bible School becomes an organized society for preaching the gospel, teaching the scriptures, or for any other purpose, that day I leave it.  The Bible School is a school, that is all . . .***May the richest blessings of God ever rest upon this work, and may He forbid that it should ever become a Society organized for the purpose of doing what He has committed to His church.”  Harding, as well as Lipscomb, seemed to feel that unless the school avowed a certain “purpose” it could not be held accountable for actually doing that particular thing.
      Yet, if one seeks an avowed purpose that conflicts with the divine purpose of the church, it seems to be available.  In the original subscription drive for the building of Nashville Bible School, is the following clause: (SAO, V. II, p. 381)  “The supreme purpose of the school shall be to teach the Bible as the revealed will of God to man and as the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice, and to train those who attend in a pure Bible Christianity, excluding fro the faith all opinions and philosophies of men, and from the work and worship of the church of God all human inventions and devices.  Such other branches of learning may be added as will aid in the understanding and teaching of the Scriptures and will promote usefulness and good citizenship among men.”
      Opposition to “Bible Schools” from Daniel Sommer, and others, had a marked effect upon the schools of the south; but it seems to have changed terminology more than it changed practices.  The history of Bible Colleges is a mass of contradictions — one can almost “prove anything he wishes” by searching the records.  Now this is not to say that Lipscomb, Harding, et al., were a bunch of hypocrites, or dolts—far from it.  But it is obvious that such contradiction, however explained, have given fuel to those who oppose the schools, and provide embarrassment for those who would defend the schools.
      The most serious error in this field today is made by those who refuse to acknowledge that Bible Schools, as now operated, ARE A BROTHERHOOD ISSUE—AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.  Certain basic questions regarding (1) the work of the church; (2) what is meant by “all-sufficiency” of the church (as an organization) with respect to teaching the gospel; (3) Bible as a secular subject; and perhaps other equally important matter must be faced.
      But we must “hasten leisurely” lest we create new and greater problems.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20070509/008b8e30/attachment-0001.html