[Biblemat] Turner on Bible Colleges - V

[Dan Gatlin]

THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH-SCHOOL TIES
   
  By Robert F. Turner (Preceptor, September 1962)
   
      Throughout the history of Bible Colleges much attention has been given to the undesirable aspects of church-school ties.  The restoration of New Testament Christianity logically demands faith in the all-sufficiency of God’s plan — the all-sufficiency of the Lord’s church to perform her divinely appointed work.  Campbell deplored a church fractured by missionary, Bible or educational societies; and school officials, from Campbell and Fanning down to the present spokesmen, have assured us of their opposition to church-schools ties.  But such ties exist.
      As early as 1852, “at a state meeting of the churches” it was voted to reopen Bacon College, but “to amend the charter so that the school would belong to the Christians in the state of Kentucky.”  (Emphasis mine, rft., See Search for Ancient Order, Vol. 1, P. 273-f.)  Practically all Bible colleges (or “Christian Colleges” as they are now called) operated by brethren since that time have been widely considered as “our” schools; and I suspect the “quote marks” are now preserved through opposition to denominational terminology more than by opposition to the idea expressed.  Is this massive contradiction of theory and practice simply a prolonged, inadvertent abuse; or is some basic error involved?  The importance of the subject justifies our careful and objective consideration.
      On what basis may we say that “Christian Colleges” are church-related institutions?  Since churches of Christ do not acknowledge an organizational structure larger than a local church, it is obviously impossible to relate the colleges to a non-existing headquarters.  But this alone does not solve our problem.  We may tolerate something we would not acknowledge.  Nor have we dealt fairly with the situation when we claim the schools are parallel to a store or farm, where Christians—pursuing their individual occupations—may teach the Bible.  Can you honestly imagine a store or farm in the position currently occupied by “our” schools?
      In the absence of direct organizational ties, other cords may produce the type of church-school bonds we are here considering.  Indirect ownership, doctrinal ties, and support may bind the churches to a human institution for many years before direct organizational ties are established.  Church history bears repeated witness to this fact; a fact so clearly proven that it seems only the willfully blind could fail to see it.  Now, do such ties bind the churches and schools?
      A few small schools have been directly owned by single congregations, but this is certainly the exception rather than the rule.  If the universal church has no organizational entity, who does own “our” colleges?  About ten years ago Rex A. Turner wrote an excellent article on this subject for the Firm Foundation.  (It was republished in the Gospel Guardian, Jan. 29, 1953.)  He defined the schools as “Charitable Trusts” and cited legal definitions for ownership of such trusts.  Put briefly, the schools belong to the Purpose for which they are established, and indirectly to the donors who support the Purpose.  Trustees could sell the schools, but the proceeds would have to be used cy pres. i.e., for “the nearest thing to” the purpose set forth in the original charter.  All of which seems to argue against church-school ties via ownership.  But there are practical considerations which greatly nullify the legal consideration.
      Early schools established by our brethren (Bacon, Bethany, Franklin, and Burritt Colleges) were secular institutions.  In their early years a studied effort was made to avoid the teaching of “peculiar and distinctive” doctrines.  (See Article II, May 1962)  But changing brotherhood conceptions brought about changes in the schools, and in later years restrictive deeds and clauses, written into the charters of the schools, gave the schools a “purpose” peculiarly related to the churches of Christ.  As an example, the charter of Gunter Bible College (19036-28) stipulated that the school “. . . .shall be managed and controlled as hereinafter set forth by a Board of Directors, each of whom shall be members of a congregation of the church of Christ, which takes the New Testament as its only sufficient rule of faith, worship, and practice, and reject from its faith, worship, and practice everything not required by either precept or example, and which does not introduce in the
 faith, worship, and practice, as a part of the same or as adjunct thereto, any supplemental organization or anything else not clearly and directly authorized in the New Testament either by precept or example.”
      The Harding College charter (1934) required that each member of the Board of Trustees shall be “. . . .a member of the Church of Christ in good standing, who believes in and adheres to a strict construction of the Bible and who opposed all innovations in the work and worship of the Church, such as instruments of music, missionary societies, Christian endeavor societies, all other human inventions not authorized by the Word of God;. . . .”  These charters clearly demonstrate the doctrinal ties that binds the churches and schools.  Further, as the churches change, the schools also change.  For example, let’s see someone oust a Harding College trustee today for being a member of a liberal church.  Such an effort would convince us that restrictive deeds, etc., are usually a locking of the barn after the horse is stolen.  They serve admirably with reference to a current issue, already solved by those making the deed; but they do little to guarantee doctrinal purity, or
 adherence to original purpose, in the future.  Harding’s charter could be changed by a two-thirds vote of board members.  (For other school charters, see Appendix, “History of Colleges” by M. Norval Young.)
      An example of church-school ties brought about through money considerations is found in the history of Burritt College.  (1849-1939)  In 1877, Dr. T. W. Brents, a prominent preacher and former physician, was employed by Burritt College to sell school stock on a 2 1/2% commission basis.  Norval Young (History of Colleges, page 60) says, “This stock was sold to members of the church with the understanding on the bond that it should be represented by the subscriber during his life, and at his death, by the church to which he left it.  In this way the college was tied more closely than ever before to the Churches of Christ.”
      In the Gospel Advocate of Aug. 4, 1892 (S.A.O., Vol. 11, p. 377), James Harding wrote concerning Nashville Bible School (now David Lipscomb College): “It is a fact that many young men who want to attend the school cannot pay tuition and board.  In some cases congregations send and sustain them; in others, individuals have done it; some have worked their way through . . . . . We would like to hear from individuals and churches who will take part in this good work.”  I believe Harding correctly distinguished between support of the school and purchase of service; but I am at a loss to reconcile the above statement with his assignment of secular education as a parental—not a congregational—responsibility.  In any event such matters strengthened the church-school ties, and today those who advocate the direct support of colleges by the congregations claim Harding and Lipscomb for precedent.
      Historical record indicate a fluctuating pattern of church-school ties.  From early days, when no tie existed, the bond grew rapidly (with growing brotherhood organizational plans) until about 1870.  At this time even the conservative Benjamin Franklin wrote of “our schools” “owned and controlled” by the brotherhood.  Then came the Kentucky University debacle.  (See Art. III, June ‘62)  This terrifying blow, coupled with growing opposition to the missionary society, gave church-school ties a great set-back.  Brethren became cautious—wary.  Sound preachers pounded strongly on the “all-sufficiency” of the church.  Later, the Sommer opposition to Bible Colleges had its effect.  But with Kentucky University almost forgotten, and the Sommer opposition largely overcome, church-school ties once more began to grow.  In the 1930’s several prominent preachers publicly advocated church support of the colleges (those were hard times, remember?) but the conservative element of the
 church was too strong at that time for such a move to succeed.  Then, following World War II, the brotherhood organizers began to gain power; and with these developments, church-school ties were also promoted.  Today the church-school ties is more prominent than it has been since the days of the Kentucky University blowup.  Brethren, re-read this paragraph, and think!!
      Harding College announced her 1960 Lectures by writing, “The theme of the lectureship is ‘Christian Education,’ approached from the viewpoint of the educational program of the local church, the Christian College, and individual or corporate projects.” (emp. Mine, rft)  In a special issue of the Gospel Advocate (Apr. 21, ‘60) on Christian Education, A. C. Pullias, president of D. L. C., writes repeatedly of “church-related colleges”; and Willard Collins cites D. Lipscomb and James Harding as believing “that the Christian school should be in close relationship with the church.”
      In December of 1960 representatives of twenty-two schools and colleges operated by brethren met at Henderson, Tenn., and heard President A. C. Pullias speak.  I will not attempt to “quote” Pres. Pullias, but present a few of the notes taken by one who heard him, and verified by another likewise present.  The gist of his speech was that colleges and schools should have Bible for the basis of their educational program, and that churches can support such schools and colleges.  He contended that D. Lipscomb believed churches could support colleges and schools.  He further said that many had gone out on the plains of Ono and compromised with Daniel Sommer in saying that such schools were “secular” and  that the churches “as such” could not support them.  He said that bringing up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord was a matter of Faith—and the “how” was a matter of judgment.  He said the Christian school was one of the “hows” and that until a better way was
 shown for doing this job, he would urge brethren to support the colleges and schools.  Can there be any doubt that church-school ties are growing, and that church support of the schools is being actively pressed?
      There is no organic tie between congregations and the schools—nor is such a thing likely for many many generations.  But there are many alarming aspects in the church-school ties that do exist, and that threaten to increase.  Perhaps these historic studies but review the symptoms of a more deep-seated problem.  Is it possible for brethren to function collectively in the teaching of the Word of God, in some relationship other than that of the local congregation, and not infringe upon the all-sufficiency of the Lord’s church?  Or, do we need to re-examine our definition of “all-sufficiency”?  You won’t answer these questions by “blowing your top.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20070509/e47cc208/attachment-0001.html