[Biblemat] "Schools Among Brethren"

[Don Martin]

Don Martin with an article from the archives of www.bibletruths.net


                                Schools Among Brethren
                                        By Don Martin


     Schools among brethren have been a troubling issue, but one not often
and carefully studied. I shall not attempt to explore all the nuances of the
school issue, but rather I shall focus primarily on the Church of Christ
Seminary image inevitably involved with the Bible Department so often
associated with the different schools.

     During the years of 1871 through 1875, many brethren began for the
first time to really consider the college among brethren issue. The
prompting cause of this focus was twofold. One source involved the problems
experienced by Kentucky University where Robert Milligan was made President
and J. W. McGarvey accepted the responsibility as "Teacher of the Bible"
(1865). The other prompting circumstance was occasioned by the controversy
over the Missionary Society organization, which resulted in many brethren
examining all concepts pertaining to organizations in addition to but
"associated" with the local church or brethren in general.

     As intimated, there have been and are many issues relative to colleges
run and operated by brethren. Many of the schools have given in to financial
pressures and have accepted monies from local churches, one of the issues.
One area of concern has been the seminary image or the Bible Department and
associated degrees characteristic of many of the schools. Some have viewed
the college as a major source for producing preachers and effecting
soundness in local churches. Hear President James Cope in a letter he wrote
to Yater Tant, April 20, 1949 (on March 4, 1997 Florida College's present
President Caldwell read Cope's letter to the faculty of Florida College. I
understand a request was made by a faculty member to adopt a resolution of
present support for the goals and principles stated in Cope's letter. The
faculty reportedly responded unanimously):

"Dear Bro. Tant,

     As you know I am to assume my responsibilities in connection with
Florida Christian College, Florida, July 1. ...Occasionally you will be
asked your opinion concerning the school; hence, this letter is for your own
information and brethren who may be asking. ... (6) Preacher training. While
we expect to have academic work accepted as readily by other educational
institutions as that of any of our sister institutions, we make no apology
to anybody for placing emphasis on the teaching of young men desiring to
teach the gospel and others desirous of doing religious work. We believe
that the safety, security and soundness of the church depend upon the kind
and amount of preaching and teaching done. Those who take the lead in this
matter are elders and preachers, and unless they are thoroughly grounded in
the faith innovations, errors, and inertia will abound; hence, we expect to
have a Bible department second to none. Our students will be taught the
issues and how to meet them...."

     Concerned reader, David Lipscomb was an educator who during a certain
portion of his life zealously promoted colleges among brethren (Gospel
Advocate, Vol. 19, No. 32, Aug. 16, 1877, pg. 505). However, even Lipscomb
opposed colleges "to train and educate young preachers" (Gospel Advocate,
vol. 17, No 15, April 8, 1875, pg. 345). A number of the preachers who were
considered "anti college" did not totally oppose the existence of colleges
among brethren. They opposed matters such as church support, replacing the
church, doing the work assigned to the local church, and serving as preacher
training institutions and offering degrees in the Bible.


     When colleges are discussed, inevitably the name Daniel Sommer is
injected. If you oppose a "Church of Christ Seminary" image, some will label
you as a terrible Sommerite. Daniel Sommer began an intense war against
colleges among brethren in about 1902. In some respects, Sommer is an
enigma. Some of the challenge lies, I think, in the way Sommer defined a
Bible College. Historians sometimes draw attention to Sommer's statement in
the Octographic Review that he was opposed to churches "establishing
schools...with money which should be placed in the treasury of the
church..." (Vol. 48, no. 30, July 25, 1905, pg. 6). In response to Sommer's
declaration, James Harding (an arch opponent of Sommer) stated, "I am amazed
to think how successfully he kept me in the dark about his true position in
all these years..." (Octographic Review, Vol. 48, No. 34, August 22, 1905,
pg. 8).

     The years between 1871 and 1906 were especially a time of controversy
among brethren over the college issue. The American Christian Review, The
Apostolic Review, the Advocate, and the Octographic Review carried a number
of exchanges and articles on the college issue. Potter Bible School,
Kentucky University, the Nashville Bible School, and Bethany College were
the sources and references of many discussions. As a matter of fact, there
were not that many disputants who contended the Bible absolutely could not
be taught in a college. Hear even Daniel Sommer:

     "But from the first response to what I have written on the subject to
the last (reference to the college issue, dm) that I recollect having seen,
I have been charged with teaching that it is 'wrong' to teach the Bible in
connection with secular things....In regard to the charge just quoted, I
state that it is utterly destitute of truth..." ("A Plain Statement and
Challenge," Octographic Review, Vol. 46, No. 31, Aug. 4, 1903, Pg. 1).

     Some of my brethren would be shocked to know that David Lipscomb
stated, "We think the most fatal mistake of Alexander Campbell's life and
one that has done much and we fear will do more to undo his life's work was
the establishment of a school to train and educate young preachers"
("Schools for Preachers," Gospel Advocate, Vol. 17, No. 15, pg. 345).


     My not uncommon personal experiences.  After I was baptized, I was
encouraged to consider full-time preaching. Out of interest, I began to ask
established preachers what they viewed as prerequisites. Out of all the
preachers I consulted, about 85 percent said you must attend Florida
College. I had a mother and sister I was supporting and I lived about 2, 000
miles from FC. In each instance, I asked why did they think I had to attend
FC. The answer I received might surprise some. The answer was not for the
academics, but for the connections I would make. "Don, if you do not attend,
you will be very limited in your preaching opportunities, at the best," was
the standard explanation.

     Forty years of preaching later, I could not begin to mention the
specific cases I have witnessed involving others and myself regarding the
Florida College Seminary image syndrome. Some view one as lacking
"authenticity" if one has not attended "our college." Also, there exists a
strong loyalty to the school, often to the ignoring and defending of
problems associated with the school. In this same vein, there is not a small
amount of politics and the party spirit associated with "our" schools
(Phili. 1: 16, to read more about the party spirit, click here). I grew up
in the Baptist religion (I also attended Baptist Seminary), and I have seen
exactly the same mentality in the Lord's church that I witnessed among the
Baptists and their schools.

     "Don, do not you realize Florida College is not always responsible for
such thinking," some would inject. I appreciate such statements because they
are true. Brethren often force Florida College into the Seminary position.
However, a school with a four year Bible Department and associated degree
has put itself in the position of being "our Seminary." I also concede that
"our" schools do a lot of good; however, accomplishing good, as such, is not
the criterion to necessarily justify their existence (Matt. 7: 21-23).
Sometimes a matter may even be a legitimate expedient in essence, but be so
characterized by associated and resulted problems that the expediency
benefit is negated (cp. I Cor. 10: 23).

     When I was repeatedly told by a number of well known preachers that I
had to attend Florida College to amount to anything in preaching, I flatly
refused to go. I continued my regimen of personal study, attending local
college, and preaching every opportunity I had (I had many). I also worked
with different preachers who were known to have developed special expertise
in certain areas (see addendum). After about four years, I found myself in
full-time preaching.

     There are currently many schools at large associated with "churches of
Christ." Freed Hardeman University, Pepperdine University, Abilene Christian
University, Oklahoma Christian University, and Florida College, to name a
few. Any amateur historian would know that the doctrinal status of some
local churches of Christ today has been largely determined and effected by
the schools.

     Much of the innovation in all religions has originated in their
seminaries. Historians point to the severe problems among Baptists Churches
as being initially introduced by their Seminaries. Alas, many of the
problems regarding non-institutional churches of Christ have been greatly
influenced by "Florida College." I am referring to the Homer Hailey matter
involving divorce and remarriage and all the unity in diversity that has
been espoused in an effort to avoid division. Hailey's association with
Florida College and the fierce loyalty on the part of some to defend the
Florida College persona has paved the way for one of the greatest apostasies
of my time. A large percentage of brethren connected with Florida College
have embraced false doctrines regarding Romans 14 and fellowship in general.
They have been forced into such positions because of their defense of Homer
Hailey, the personification of Florida College.

     Brethren, when will we learn? I am not saying that brethren do not have
the right to have a school that is funded by tuition and that attempts to
adhere to moral standards and, in addition to secular matters, presents the
Bible as a literary study. However, when brethren create a school with a
Bible Department and assume the role of providing churches with preachers
and soundness in general, we inevitably have a "Church of Christ Seminary"
and all the attendant problems!  (A must read is, "The Guardian of Truth
Foundation and Florida College".)

     Addendum: The scriptures explicitly teach how preachers are to be
produced. Hear Paul as he writes to a preacher, Timothy: "And the things
that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to
faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2: 2). When
preachers act in concert to train preachers through a school such as Florida
College, they have created an institution. It is the institution (Florida
College) that offers the Bible degrees. I recommend you click here to read
more about the Romans 14 issue. To read a good article on related matters
titled, "Neo-Institutionalism," click here.  "The 'Days' of Genesis 1 (by
Ferrell Jenkins) - a Review" and "The Party Spirit" are also a must to read.