{"id":16207,"date":"2007-11-28T21:51:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-29T03:51:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/?p=16207"},"modified":"2019-11-28T22:09:04","modified_gmt":"2019-11-29T04:09:04","slug":"the-college-issue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/the-college-issue\/","title":{"rendered":"The College Issue"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t

(Six articles were published in\u00a0Preceptor<\/em> magazine by brother Robert F. Turner between April and October of 1962. They are presented here as one continuous thesis.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Educational Institutions Among the Brethren<\/h2>\nby Robert F. Turner (Preceptor, April 1962)\n

Educational projects among members of the church of Christ began in the same way any other private enterprise or social service began among brethren.\u00a0 Educators, trained in their field, and interested in the secular training of youth, became Christians.\u00a0 Immediately their interest in the whole of life was given a new dimension.\u00a0 To the extent that each was zealous to spread the cause of Christ, he sought the opportunity to promote this cause in his particular field of endeavor.\u00a0 The schools, therefore, are nothing more than private enterprises of businesses, operated on the same basis as farms or factories owned and operated by Christians.\u00a0 Their purpose is SECULAR EDUCATION.\u00a0 The Bible is taught because the individual teachers are interested in the spiritual development and eternal destinies of all who come under their influence, and use every opportunity available to promote the cause of Christ.\u00a0 PLEASE read the next paragraph!<\/p>\n

If the above explanation of educational institutions among brethren were complete\u00a0\u2014 and if the practices of my brethren were consistent with this frequently stated theory \u2014<\/strong>\u00a0the task of tracing the historical development of such institutions, and showing their influence upon the cause of Christ generally, would be both simple and pleasant.\u00a0 BUT THERE IS MORE, MUCH MORE, TO THE STORY.<\/p>\n

The statements of the first paragraph are highly commendable \u2014 as a theory.\u00a0 When brethren accept them as historical facts, however, they must be questioned.\u00a0 My brethren, in common with most of humanity, seem content to establish acceptable theories and terminology; and then ignore both the theory and the fair and obvious meaning of words in their practice.\u00a0 I am persuaded that when on objectively studies the history of educational institutions among brethren, two additional facts become apparent. (1) Almost from the beginning, there has been the feeling that these schools were something more than private enterprises \u2014\u00a0that they were actually adjuncts of the church<\/strong>.\u00a0 Despite repeated lip-service to the private enterprise theory \u2014 there have been few generations, if any, when the schools were seriously regarded as parallel to a Christian\u2019s farm or factory where he chose to teach Bible. (2) This \u201cbrotherhood institution\u201d feeling \u2014 seldom expressed, but easily traceable \u2014 has had a tremendous influence in molding a denominational concept of the church.<\/p>\n

Today the church faces anew many of her age-old problems.\u00a0 Current studies of the organizational structure and work of the church have focused attention upon everything resembling \u201cbrotherhood activity.\u201d\u00a0 This, compounded by efforts to put the schools in the local church budget, has brought on a rash of adverse criticism for all schools operated by brethren.\u00a0 I do not believe the schools are \u201csacred cows,\u201d immune from criticism; nor do I believe that they should be used as whipping posts for the critically minded.\u00a0 I am convinced that many unfounded statements are being made about the schools, and that unwarranted generalizations are being plucked from the history of these institutions. I am equally convinced, however, that we can not fairly and objectively consider the \u201cinstitutional\u201d problems of our day without recognizing the relation of schools to these problems.\u00a0 Perhaps my personal feelings about the matter are best expressed by a statement from Tolbert Fanning, as found in the September 1850 issue of Millennial Harbinger<\/em>.\u00a0 Fanning, then president of Franklin College, wrote:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe beg leave, most respectfully, to ask our brethren connected with colleges, and others who may be interested in the education of youth, if it would not be proper to \u2018hasten leisurely\u2019 in their conclusions touching the subjects of the Bible in Colleges, Professorships in Sacred History and Theological Schools?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the 1962 Lectures at Florida Christian College, an open forum discussion of colleges and their right to exist was presented.\u00a0 At the request of the college, I presented a lecture on the \u201cHistorical Development of Educational Institutions.\u201d\u00a0 The school is to be highly complimented for the willingness to provide such opportunities for her own examination; in fact, Florida Christian College is probably unique among such schools in this respect.\u00a0 But the purpose of this series of articles is neither to attack nor defend any particular school.\u00a0 Instead, I hope to make some small contribution to a better understanding<\/strong> of the schools operated by brethren and urge brethren to \u201chasten leisurely\u201d in their conclusions regarding such schools.\u00a0 We may destroy in a few years, the work of generations.\u00a0 On the other hand, through blind acceptance of the \u201cBible\u201d schools, we may harbor the Trojan horse of institutionalism.\u00a0 \u201cHasten leisurely\u201d indeed!!<\/p>\n

The history of schools operated by brethren in this country divides itself readily into three periods.\u00a0 Schools established before 1850 belong to the\u00a0Pioneer Period<\/strong>, and included Bacon College, established in 1836, and later developed into Kentucky University; Bethany College, established in 1841 by Alexander Campbell; Franklin College, established in 1845, by Tolbert Fanning; and Burritt College established in 1849.\u00a0 During the early days of these schools, theories were being formulated and patterns formed that indelibly marked the educational picture among brethren.\u00a0 We shall have occasion to note how much our present concepts differ from those formulated in the early days, but we should remember that antiquity alone proves a thing neither good nor bad.<\/p>\n

The second chronological division of our study may be called the\u00a0Medial Period<\/strong>, the period of change, between 1850 and 1930.\u00a0 From Add-Ran College, established in 1873, to Harding College, established 1922; this period embraces such schools as Freed-Hardeman College, 1885; David Lipscomb College, established in 1891 as Nashville Bible School; Potter Bible College, established in 1901; Gunter Bible College, 1903; Abilene Christian College, established in 1906 as Childers\u2019 Christian Institute; and Clebarro College, established in 1909.\u00a0 For a concise and readable history of this important period read, \u201cA History of Christian Colleges\u201d by M. Norvel Young.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Modern Period<\/strong>, after 1930, includes such schools as Pepperdine College, established in 1937; Alabama Christian College, established as Montgomery Bible College, 1942; Florida Christian College, established in 1946; and Central Christian College, established in 1949.\u00a0 Within the past ten years, a promotional \u201cfever\u201d has swept through the churches, and schools have sprung into being so rapidly it is difficult to keep the count.\u00a0 Some of these are firmly planted, no doubt, and will take their place with the \u201cregulars\u201d of school history; but others will close their doors for lack of funds, and because of regional difficulties.\u00a0 It is much too early to judge many of these schools by historical standards, and the reader is asked to assign these schools a place in the light of current information.\u00a0 The historical portion of our study will be chiefly concerned with the Pioneer and Medial periods, and the development of theories and practices that have established the generally accepted concepts of so-called \u201cChristian\u201d education today.<\/p>\n

In my studies of the history of educational institutions among brethren, I find two questions that never seem to get the attention they deserve.\u00a0 They are integral in many problems of the past and present, and sometimes are the basic issue of some particular \u201cbattle\u201d without ever being recognized per se<\/strong>.\u00a0 I am not certain that I can properly frame them, but perhaps the reader will be charitable and grapple with the principle involved instead of quibbling over my terminology.<\/p>\n

(1) Regarding the Distinctive and Peculiar Purpose of the Bible:<\/h3>\n

May the Word of God (the Bible) be used with divine approval for any purpose other than the salvation of the soul? (May the ultimate goal \u2014 the salvation of the soul \u2014 be dismissed; the Bible taught or studied with divine approval when the only<\/strong>\u00a0goal is temporary and earth-bound?)\u00a0 (May the Bible be used as a\u00a0secular<\/strong>\u00a0subject, or study, with divine approval?)\u00a0 (Is it wrong to consider the Bible as a text-book for secular, material, temporal purposes\u00a0only<\/strong>?)\u00a0 (Must all study and teaching of the Bible be a spiritual activity, to have divine approval?)\u00a0 This multi-framing could go on forever, apparently; but if you do not now understand the issue I have in mind, we may as well pass on to the next problem.<\/p>\n

(2) Regarding the Distinctive and Peculiar Function of the Church:<\/h3>\n

Do the scriptures teach that the dissemination of the Word of God is an exclusive function of the church?\u00a0 (Is it wrong for any organization \u2014 body of people, acting collectively, other than the church, to teach the Word of God?)\u00a0 (Does any body of people, acting collectively \u2014 a functional unit \u2014 other than the local church, have the right to teach or cause to be taught, the Word of God?)\u00a0 (Define and clarify the \u201call-sufficiency\u201d of the church with reference to the teaching of the Word of God.\u00a0 Does this mean that only<\/strong>\u00a0the church \u201cas such\u201d may teach, or cause to be taught, the Word of God?)\u00a0 Brethren, I am well aware of the double-meanings, repetitions, etc. of these questions.\u00a0 If you dislike one or more \u201cwordings\u201d you may pass to another \u2014 I have tried to cover the issue in the words of many different \u201cschools\u201d of thought.\u00a0 How do you answer your questions?<\/p>\n

And thus we introduce our study of Educational Institutions Among Brethren.\u00a0 Next issue, the Lord willing, we will present the story of the earliest theory of education among pioneer brethren in this country.<\/p>\n

Development of a Theory of Education<\/h2>\nBy Robert F. Turner (Preceptor, May 1962)\n

Alexander Campbell was an educator.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 He established Buffalo Seminary in his own home in 1818.\u00a0 As a delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention in 1829, he introduced the resolution regarding universal education.\u00a0 In fact, Clayton Morrison, former editor of the Christian Century<\/em>, thought Campbell\u2019s greatest contribution to society lay in the field of education.\u00a0 Nor was Campbell alone as an educator among pioneer preachers.\u00a0\u00a0Walter 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.<\/p>\n

These men lived and worked in an age when illiteracy was high.\u00a0 The states could not provide adequate educational facilities \u2014 in fact, some of them were still debating the advisability of providing schools for all citizens.\u00a0 Schools were a luxury on the early frontier, and school teachers were at a premium.\u00a0 A moderately well-educated man could render a valuable public service and operate a profitable business enterprise, by opening an \u201cacademy\u201d or \u201cinstitute\u201d \u2014 as they were called.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 \u201cIn 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.\u00a0 Their zeal in religion, therefore, made them zealous in the cause of education.\u201d (See \u201cLife of Benj. Franklin;\u201d Franklin and Headington; p. 389-f).<\/p>\n

During this same period, the \u201cWhole Man\u201d concept of secular education was gaining wide acceptance in educational circles.\u00a0 This was a recognition of the physical, social, and moral needs of man, in place of the earlier exclusive appeal to the intellect.\u00a0 The restoration \u201cpreacher-educators\u201d (or \u201ceducator-preachers\u201d as the case may be) readily accepted this concept of education, and proposed the Bible as the \u201ctext-book for moral science.\u201d\u00a0 The need for \u201cmoral education\u201d became the basis for the positive aspect of a theory of education developed among brethren.\u00a0 There was also a negative aspect to this theory.<\/p>\n

Restoration preachers placed great stress upon the non-denominational character of Christianity.\u00a0 They battled incessantly with the sectarianism of their day, and they saw the \u201cTheological Seminaries\u201d as breeding grounds for \u201ccreedalism\u201d and the \u201cclergy system.\u201d\u00a0 Consequently, they had a strong aversion to \u201cpreacher training\u201d schools.\u00a0 Further, they proposed the adequacy and sufficiency of Christians \u201cin their church capacity<\/strong>\u201d to do all the work divinely assigned to them.\u00a0 Alexander Campbell had written (in Christian Baptist, 1823):<\/p>\n

\u201cIn their church capacity alone they moved.\u00a0 They neither transformed themselves into any other kind of association, nor did they fracture and severe themselves into divers societies.\u00a0 The viewed the church of Jesus Christ as\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Campbell later tried to \u201csoften\u201d the application of these statements \u2014 when criticized for his part in the forming of the missionary society, and for changes in Bethany College.\u00a0 But the influence of such statements on the early theory of education among brethren is clear and unmistakable.\u00a0\u00a0The schools were not to perform the work of the church.<\/strong><\/p>\n

One may state this early theory of education as follows:\u00a0Secular education, so needful to man, includes the development of man\u2019s physical, social, intellectual and moral capacities.\u00a0 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Early schools operated by brethren were secular in their nature.\u00a0 Bacon College, established in 1836 at\u00a0Georgetown, Ky., was first proposed as \u201cCollegiate Institute and School of Civil Engineers.\u201d\u00a0 Its charter, borrowed from a school in\u00a0Danville, Ky., stipulated that no peculiar doctrines should be taught.\u00a0 Franklin College, established in 1845 at\u00a0Nashville, Tenn., by Tolbert Fanning, was an outgrowth of \u201cElm Craig Agriculture School\u201d and its charter contained nothing about religion.\u00a0 Burritt College, 1849, began as \u201ca civic enterprise, in response to demand for education\u201d at\u00a0Spencer, Tenn.\u00a0 The charter made no religious demands.<\/p>\n

Copies of some early charters and further notes on this subject may be found in \u201cA History of Christian Colleges,\u201d by M. Norvel Young.\u00a0 Concerning Franklin College, Young writes: \u201cProbably the most revealing thing about the charter was its silence on the subject of religion.\u00a0 Fanning was a preacher and fully intended to teach the Bible as a textbook in his new college, but he did not propose that his school should be considered denominational.\u00a0 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.\u201d (p. 41)<\/p>\n

Tolbert Fanning understood and sought to apply the \u201cwhole man\u201d concept of education in the establishment of Franklin College.\u00a0 He said, \u201cEducation, in this establishment, will be divided into physical, intellectual, and Moral.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cGenuine 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<\/em>; by James Scobey; p. 17)\u00a0 Yet Fanning was beset with doubts as he saw secular limitations placed upon the Bible.<\/p>\n

The Millennial Harbinger<\/em>, Sept. 1850, contained an exchange between Fanning and A. Campbell regarding the teaching of the Bible in secular schools.\u00a0 Fanning asked, \u201cIs 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 \u2018peculiar\u2019\u2014which is not \u2018Catholic,\u2019 and which is not \u2018universally admitted\u2019?\u201d\u00a0 To this, Campbell replied: \u201cWe 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.\u00a0 Do not all these admit the Bible facts, precepts, and promised?\u00a0 And is there not enough of these for all the purposes of both religion and morality?\u201d (A more complete report of this exchange will be given in later articles. rft).<\/p>\n

Campbell accepted the \u201cwhole man\u201d 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<\/strong>.\u00a0 (And remember, he considered all schools operated by brethren as \u201csecular\u201d even though he sometimes spoke of \u201cChristian education.\u201d)\u00a0 In 1857 he said, \u201cTheories, speculations sometimes called\u00a0doctrines, faith, orthodoxy, heterodoxy<\/strong>, come not within the legitimate area of collegiate, literary, moral or Christian education.\u201d\u00a0 (See \u201cPopular Lectures and Addresses,\u201d by Campbell; p. 486)<\/p>\n

In his \u201cAddress on Colleges\u201d (Ibid., p. 303-305) he said: \u201cBut 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 question of this age is, How is this difficulty to be met and overcome?<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is but one sovereign remedy for these educational difficulties and embarrassments.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 They, therefore, are common property, and, without any factitious aid, are competent to man\u2019s redemption.\u00a0 They are \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cSince, 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Further than this, public instruction,\u00a0ex cathedra<\/strong>, in Christianity, is neither desirable nor expedient during a collegiate course of learning.\u201d (Abridged, as indicated by dots. \u2014 rft)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Needless to say, such Bible teaching in \u201cour\u201d colleges today would be most unsatisfactory, and highly criticized by all brethren involved.\u00a0 Nor were the brethren of earlier days satisfied with such teaching, as we shall see in further articles.\u00a0 In fact, here is one of the major problems of so-called \u201cChristian Colleges\u201d:\u00a0\u00a0We seek to justify the colleges with a theory that differs widely from the practice we demand of those colleges<\/strong>.\u00a0 We justify them as\u00a0secular<\/strong> institutions and criticize them for\u00a0secular<\/strong>\u00a0practices<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

But let us \u201chasten leisurely\u201d with our conclusions.\u00a0 There is much more, as we continue our study of the history of educational institutions among brethren.<\/p>\n

The Schools, and Denominationalism<\/h2>\nBy Robert F. Turner (Preceptor, June 1962)\n

Schools operated by brethren in the \u201cPioneer Period\u201d of our study were regarded by educators as secular institutions.\u00a0 Their right to be \u201cpreacher-training\u201d or \u201cindoctrination\u201d centers was denied, and definite limitations were placed upon the extent to which the Bible could be presented.\u00a0 (See Article II)\u00a0 The Bible was to be used as a text-book for moral science, not to instruct in matters peculiar to the church of Christ.\u00a0 But what does one mean by \u201cmatters peculiar to the church of Christ\u201d??\u00a0 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<\/strong>???\u00a0 A certain ambiguity that 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.<\/p>\n

Educators of the early days seemed to have developed a fairly definite theory of education\u2014a principle by which they thought they could justify their work.\u00a0 But this work required the support of the brethren\u2014brethren 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 \u201cour\u201d institutions; and (3) were subject to the same sort of changes we observe among brethren today.\u00a0 Looking back upon the earlier educational problems, Franklin and Headington wrote:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen 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.\u00a0 In that sense they were expected to be denominational.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 But that all the faculty should be Christians, and identified with the Reformation, was as well settled and anything in the public mind.\u201d (Biography of Benjamin Franklin<\/em>; pp. 397; Publ. 1879)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As early as 1845 there is evidence that \u201cthe brethren\u201d expected more of the colleges than \u201ca secular education in a Christian environment.\u201d\u00a0 Bacon College was in financial straits, and many brethren were dissatisfied with the administration of Pres. James Shannon.\u00a0 Carol Kendrick, editor of the\u00a0Ecclesiastical Reformer<\/em>\u00a0in\u00a0Kentucky\u00a0\u201ctook up the battle, and for several months he and Shannon debated the issue before the brethren of the state.\u00a0 Kendrick charged that the brethren of\u00a0Kentucky\u00a0were refusing to support the school because Bacon College was not serving its cause.\u201d*** (Note the \u201ccause\u201d brethren thought the school should serve. rft)<\/p>\n

\u201cShannon declared that their charter, which was borrowed from Centre College at Danville, had stipulated that the peculiar doctrines of no sect should be preached.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 For the first time, in all probability, many brethren learned that they belonged to a \u2018sect\u2019, according to Shannon.\u00a0 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.\u201d (See\u00a0Search for Ancient Order<\/em>, Vol. I, p. 273).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 As long as the schools are dependent upon the approval of the brethren, their policies are usually adjusted to majority pressures, whether right or wrong.\u00a0 These schools change according to the changes taking place among brethren . . . and brethren do<\/strong> change.\u00a0 What happens when the schools are well enough endowed to be self-sufficient??\u00a0 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???\u00a0 Bacon College, Harrodsburg, Ky., closed in 1850 due to a lack of funds.\u00a0 But the spirit of \u201cbrotherhood organizations\u201d was growing.\u00a0 (American Christian Missionary Society, organized 1849.)\u00a0 \u201cIn 1852 at a state meeting of the churches<\/strong> (emphasis mine, rtf) it was voted to reopen the College, but to amend the charter so that the school would belong to the \u201cChristians in the State of Kentucky.\u201d\u00a0 (Private enterprise?? rft)\u00a0 There was no immediate action, however.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Within a few years, $150,000 was raised, and by September 1859, the school began operation under the new name, Kentucky University.\u00a0 The new charter called for \u201ca self-perpetuating board of thirty curators, two-thirds of whom were to be members of the church in Kentucky.\u201d\u00a0 (For thought-provoking comments and history of this period, see\u00a0Search for the Ancient Order<\/em>, by Earl West; Vol. I p. 273-f. Vol. II, p. 113-127)<\/p>\n

In 1865, following a disastrous fire, the university moved to\u00a0Lexington, Ky., and absorbed Transylvania University.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Consequently, the \u201cbrotherhood of Kentucky\u201d was soon involved with a State-aligned school, consisting of a \u201cCollege of Bible\u201d plus Colleges of Liberal Arts, Law, Commerce, and A & M.\u00a0 Two-thirds of the board members were members of the church in\u00a0Kentucky, as demanded by the charter; but by this time the \u201cbrotherhood\u201d was restless and partially divided over the development of the missionary society, and the \u201cnew issue\u201d \u2014 mechanical instruments in the worship.\u00a0 Liberal minded board members were headed by liberal-minded, powerfully wealthy John B. Bowman.\u00a0 The stage was set for trouble.<\/p>\n

Bowman and the liberal curators claimed the school was \u201cnon-sectarian.\u201d\u00a0 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.\u00a0\u00a0 But Bowman considered the churches of Christ another sect.\u00a0 His ambiguous statement only meant the school would serve no particular group.\u00a0 By this time the brethren had dismissed their early reluctance to \u201cindoctrinate\u201d by means of the secular (?) class-room, and a sort of brotherhood orthodoxy had developed which demanded that \u201cour\u201d church be promoted by \u201cour\u201d schools.<\/p>\n

J. W. McGarvey, preaching in\u00a0Lexington\u00a0and teaching at the College of Bible, opposed the liberal trends.\u00a0 He was backed by Moses E. Lard and others.\u00a0\u00a0Benjamin Franklin entered the battle, and in the Sept. 1871 American Christian Review<\/em>\u00a0wrote concerning the school: \u201cTrue, we grant, it is not to be\u00a0sectarian<\/strong>, but is to be\u00a0Christian<\/strong>.\u00a0 It must be under the control of\u00a0Christians<\/strong>.**** We desire to know that the University is not only\u00a0nominally<\/strong>\u00a0turned over to the brotherhood, but run in accordance with their desires.\u201d (Private enterprise??? rft)<\/p>\n

The \u201cbursting point\u201d of this church-school feud was as spectacular \u2014 and ugly \u2014 as the repeat performance may be in our own generation.\u00a0 (God help us!)\u00a0 Bowman and other liberals left the church where McGarvey preached and started a new congregation.\u00a0 The Main St. church withdrew from Bowman.\u00a0 In 1873 McGarvey was ousted from the school.\u00a0 By now, the secular press and \u201cbrotherhood papers\u201d were printing various versions of the battle.\u00a0 In 1874 a group of brethren appealed the matter to the State Legislature. They proposed a new Board of managers to be selected \u201cby the church in Kentucky.\u201d\u00a0 (\u201cFifty congregations\u201d in agreement could represent \u201cthe church in\u00a0Kentucky.\u201d)\u00a0 A \u201ccommittee of twenty-one brethren\u201d canvassed the state for resolutions, etc., from the churches, but the measure failed to obtain a majority vote in the Senate.<\/p>\n

We are presented here with the ridiculous spectacle of an \u201cunorganized brotherhood\u201d trying to \u201cown and control\u201d anything.<\/strong> They could cease to support the school financially, but by now the university was so well endowed that Bowman laughed at such threats.\u00a0 The acceptance of State funds had given the general public a voice in the matter; and to the general public, the \u201cbrotherhood\u201d was a denomination, seeking to control a State-aligned University.\u00a0 The denominational characteristics necessitated by efforts at \u201cbrotherhood ownership and control\u201d are further seen in that when the Board of Curators sought to deal with \u201cthe brotherhood\u201d they did so by appealing to the\u00a0Kentucky<\/em>\u00a0Christian Educational Society<\/em>, a fund-raising organization that had existed for some time among members of the church in\u00a0Kentucky.<\/p>\n

The \u201cbrotherhood\u201d lost Kentucky University\u2014if it ever\u00a0had<\/strong>\u00a0the school in the first place.\u00a0 An independent College of The Bible was finally established in\u00a0Lexington and J. W. McGarvey, Robert Graham, I. B. Grubbs, and others served there with honor; but the effect of the K. U. fight was not easily erased.\u00a0 In later articles, we will discuss the effects of this battle on the theory of \u201cChristian Education\u201d among brethren\u2014even until our own day.\u00a0 It is foolish to ignore such valuable \u201chindsight.\u201d<\/p>\n

The K. U. debacle illustrates our major proposition for this article, viz.,\u00a0any project or institution operated by or for the benefit of the church at large, “the brotherhood,” tends to denominationalize that brotherhood<\/strong>.\u00a0 The institution itself may not be so much to blame as the \u201cbrotherhood\u201d conceptions that produce and maintain the institution.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 When the \u201cbrotherhood\u201d functions, there must be the acceptance of common direction and guidance; the \u201cbrotherhood voice\u201d must be heard.\u00a0 And \u201cbrotherhood schools\u201d have paved the way for denominational organizations among members of the Lord\u2019s church.\u00a0 No amount of denying can change this obvious historical and current fact.<\/p>\n

In A. S. Hayden\u2019s \u201cHistory of the Disciples on the Western Reserve\u201d – (pp. 461-f.) he pleads the cause of the missionary society, and other church combines.\u00a0 He freely credits (?) the school (Eclectic Institute\u2014later known as Hiram College) with the promotion of such \u201ccooperations\u201d among brethren.\u00a0 He writes: \u201cThe chief glory of that institution has not been told: which was, that it created a most desirable and useful general confidence among us.\u00a0 We united.\u00a0 We joined hands around one good enterprise.\u00a0 The purpose succeeded, and vindicated the most useful sentiment of union in action.***\u00a0 This confidence is transferring itself to our missionary work.\u201d<\/p>\n

Schools are secular institutions and must remain such.\u00a0 History and common sense urge us to \u201chasten leisurely\u201d in our conclusion concerning them, but God\u2019s Word concerning the organizational structure of the church demands that we take a firm stand against any \u201cbrotherhood institutions\u201d or church support of any secular enterprise.<\/p>\n

“Bible Schools” Become a Brotherhood Issue<\/h2>\nBy Robert F. Turner\n

In previous articles, we have traced the development of a theory of education among brethren of an earlier day.\u00a0 We have seen schools begin as secular<\/strong>\u00a0institutions,\u00a0privately<\/strong>\u00a0owned, and thought to have no right as \u201cindoctrination centers;\u201d become \u201cChristian<\/strong>\u201d schools, considered as brotherhood institutions, and\u00a0expected<\/strong>\u00a0to promote \u201cpeculiar and distinctive\u201d doctrines.\u00a0 (Our articles have been necessarily limited in this historical development, but the story of Kentucky University, with accompanying citations, amply sustains the above statement).<\/p>\n

The K. U. debacle, discussed in Article III, focused attention upon the schools as \u201cbrotherhood\u201d institutions\u2014and productive of a \u201cbrotherhood problem\u201d that has continued to this day.\u00a0 It set in motion a reactionary feeling which greatly shaped the popular attitude toward \u201cBible Schools\u201d from ca. 1890 to ca. 1930, until now.\u00a0 The Missionary Society and the Instrumental Music issue divided the brethren into so-called \u201cProgressives\u201d and \u201cConservatives;\u201d but a few years later the school problem presented its own divisive power.\u00a0 Some of the conservative (or \u201cAnti\u2019s\u201d as they were called by the \u201cmusic and society\u201d brethren) felt that the schools were right in principle, but that they must guard against\u00a0abuses<\/strong>\u00a0of this principle.\u00a0 Others concluded that the whole principle of\u00a0secular Bible<\/strong>\u00a0schools was contradictory and wrong.\u00a0 We shall study examples of each view, and their effect upon the history of the church.<\/p>\n

Benjamin Franklin, the editor of the then powerful American Christian Review<\/em>, is a fine example of a truly great man who \u201cchanged\u201d from a promoter and supporter of schools operated by brethren, to an opponent of such institutions.\u00a0 The following statements, by which Franklin tells his own story, were originally written in the \u201cReview,\u201d and are quoted from \u201cThe Life and Times of\u00a0Benjamin Franklin\u201d by Franklin and Headington; Pages 396-399.\u00a0 In 1873 Franklin wrote:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe 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 \u2014 that all was safe.\u00a0 But look at the state of thing now.\u00a0 Leading men in this factious movement are now talking about the churches taking action in the matter indignantly, and inquiring: \u2018What business have the churches with it?\u2019\u00a0 This is a little cool.\u00a0 The brethren of the State make up the churches, and the charter of the University recognizes\u00a0them<\/strong>\u00a0as the owners of the University, and as having the right to control it.\u00a0 The appeal was made in\u00a0their name<\/strong>.\u00a0 Under\u00a0that name<\/strong>\u00a0they poured out their munificence. It was to be\u00a0their<\/strong>\u00a0University, and they were to control it.\u00a0 It was for\u00a0the cause<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0the Bible cause<\/strong>.\u00a0 But how is it now?\u00a0 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.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now brethren of 1962 \u2014 read these statements carefully.\u00a0 Bro. Franklin thought brethren of\u00a0Kentucky\u00a0could own and control the school.\u00a0 He experienced a rude awakening.\u00a0 Three years later, when \u201cliberal\u201d views began to influence the teachers of other colleges, Franklin wrote: (Oct. 10, 1876 Review.)<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do not disguise the fact that we are not working for Bethany College.\u00a0 We are taking no interest in it.\u00a0 We worked for it all the time till Bro. Campbell died, subscribed and paid $100 to its support since his death.\u00a0 Things have been occurring all along since to cut our affections off from it till we have no sympathy with it.\u00a0 We do not believe it is doing the cause any good.\u00a0 We are now measuring every word we write, and understand the meaning of every word.\u00a0 We can give reasons for what we are saying to any extent the reader may desire.\u00a0 We shall put down a very few things briefly here:<\/p>\n

1. We have become perfectly satisfied that education, in the popular sense, is purely secular, and is not a church matter.\u00a0 The church ought to be connected with no educational enterprise.\u00a0 We are in favor of no church college.\u00a0 This is a matter that may be discussed at length, but we enter into no discussion of it now.\u00a0 Still, this would not utterly cut off our sympathy with Bethany College, other matters being equal.<\/p>\n

2. One of the main pleas Alexander Campbell made for a college under the control of Christians was, in view of the\u00a0moral teaching<\/strong>, that no man was educated in the true sense who was not cultivated\u00a0in heart<\/strong>.\u00a0 This we hold to be as true as any principle yet uttered.\u00a0 To this end there should be\u00a0sound professors<\/strong>\u00a0to train students, and there should be a\u00a0sound church<\/strong>\u00a0in the vicinity of the college, maintaining the highest order of morality, order and discipline.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Franklin and Headington summarize\u00a0Benjamin Franklin\u2019s attitude toward the schools as follows: \u201cHe became finally well-grounded in the opinion that all schools ought to be as purely secular as a bookstore, and that religious instruction should be ministered entirely through the church and Sunday-school, or by the enterprise of individuals.\u201d (p. 395).<\/p>\n

Daniel Sommer purchased the\u00a0American Christian Review<\/em>\u00a0in 1866.\u00a0 He had previously written for the paper \u2014 including some articles on \u201cEducating Preachers\u201d in which he questioned some practices of the schools \u2014 and now he became the chief opponent of the \u201cBible College\u201d in the sense we have been using the terms.\u00a0 His \u201cgloves off\u201d attitude aroused the ire of college advocates, and his sometimes illogical arguments invited scorn, but his influence was great in the mid-west.\u00a0 \u201cSommerism\u201d 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 \u201cSommerite.\u201d\u00a0 In sections where Daniel Sommer\u2019s influence was greatest, conservative brethren generally adopted the conclusion that \u201cBible Colleges\u201d (as institutions apart from the local church) and \u201cthe all-sufficiency of the church\u201d were completely incompatible.<\/p>\n

In the south, however, (where the \u201cmusic and society\u201d digression was least felt), the Bible School issue seemed not to have reached such \u201cblack and\/or white\u201d conclusions.\u00a0 Many educators of the south accepted\u00a0theories<\/strong> practically identical with those of Daniel Sommer but found means of justifying\u00a0practices<\/strong>\u00a0which Sommer declared inconsistent.\u00a0 For example, David Lipscomb seemed convinced that schools should not be \u201cpreacher factories\u201d\u2014as Sommer might call them.\u00a0 In an article in the\u00a0Gospel Advocate<\/em>, April 8, 1875, he wrote, \u201cWe think the most fatal mistake of Alexander Campbell\u2019s life, and one that has done much and we fear will do much more to undo his life\u2019s work, was the establishment of a school to train and educated young preachers.\u201d\u00a0 (For this, and remaining quotations see\u00a0Search for Ancient Order<\/em>, Vol. II, pages 368-f).\u00a0 Yet, in writing about the Nashville School, Lipscomb emphasized its roll in aiding \u201cthose who wish to devote their lives to the service of God.\u201d\u00a0 Thirty-two regularly enrolled students entered the school the first year, and twenty-four of these were preparing to be preachers.\u00a0 The second year, thirty-four students enrolled, \u201call save two or three preparing to spend their lives in teaching the lost the way of life.\u201d\u00a0 These young men preached in and about Nashville, and by March 1893, the Advocate reported that forty-two persons obeyed the gospel \u201cunder their ministry.\u201d\u00a0 Theory notwithstanding, the practical result and advertised emphasis was \u201cpreacher training.\u201d<\/p>\n

The schools must not \u201cdo the work of the church,\u201d everyone seemed to agree.\u00a0 But a careful definition of the \u201cwork of the church\u201d \u2014 and what is meant by the \u201call-sufficiency\u201d of the church in this field \u2014 seems not, to this good day, to be established.\u00a0 In 1891, in written controversy with a missionary society advocate, Lipscomb stated: \u201cAnd 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. . . . .\u201d<\/p>\n

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).<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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.\u00a0 The Bible School is a\u00a0school<\/strong>, 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.\u201d\u00a0 Harding, as well as Lipscomb, seemed to feel that\u00a0unless the school avowed a certain \u201cpurpose\u201d it could not be held accountable for actually doing that particular thing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Yet, if one seeks an avowed purpose that conflicts with the divine purpose of the church, it seems to be available.\u00a0 In the original subscription drive for the building of Nashville Bible School, is the following clause: (SAO, V. II, p. 381)\u00a0 \u201cThe 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.\u00a0 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Opposition to \u201cBible Schools\u201d 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.\u00a0 The history of Bible Colleges is a mass of contradictions<\/strong> \u2014 one can almost \u201cprove anything he wishes\u201d by searching the records.\u00a0 Now, this is not to say that Lipscomb, Harding, et al., were a bunch of hypocrites, or dolts\u2014far from it.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2014AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.\u00a0 Certain basic questions regarding (1) the work of the church; (2) what is meant by \u201call-sufficiency\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

But we must \u201chasten leisurely\u201d lest we create new and greater problems.<\/p>\n

The Problem of Church – School Ties<\/h2>\nBy Robert F. Turner (Preceptor, September 1962)\n

Throughout the history of Bible Colleges, much attention has been given to the undesirable aspects of church-school ties.\u00a0 The restoration of New Testament Christianity logically demands faith in the all-sufficiency of God\u2019s plan \u2014 the all-sufficiency of the Lord\u2019s church to perform her divinely appointed work.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 But such ties exist.<\/p>\n

As early as 1852, \u201cat a state meeting of the churches<\/strong>\u201d it was voted to reopen Bacon College, but \u201cto amend the charter so that the school would belong to the Christians in the state of Kentucky<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 (Emphasis mine, rft., See\u00a0Search for the Ancient Order<\/em>, Vol. 1, P. 273-f.)\u00a0 Practically all Bible colleges (or \u201cChristian Colleges\u201d as they are now called) operated by brethren since that time have been widely considered as \u201cour\u201d schools, and I suspect the \u201cquote marks\u201d are now preserved through opposition to denominational terminology<\/strong>\u00a0more than by opposition to the idea expressed.\u00a0 Is this massive contradiction of theory and practice simply a prolonged, inadvertent abuse; or is some basic error involved?\u00a0 The importance of the subject justifies our careful and objective consideration.<\/p>\n

On what basis may we say that \u201cChristian Colleges\u201d are church-related institutions?\u00a0 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.\u00a0 But this alone does not solve our problem.\u00a0 We may tolerate something we would not acknowledge.\u00a0 Nor have we dealt fairly with the situation when we claim the schools are parallel to a store or farm, where Christians \u2014 pursuing their individual occupations \u2014 may teach the Bible.\u00a0 Can you honestly imagine a store or farm in the position currently occupied by \u201cour\u201d schools?<\/p>\n

In the absence of direct organizational ties, other cords may produce the type of church-school bonds we are here considering.\u00a0\u00a0Indirect ownership<\/strong>,\u00a0doctrinal ties<\/strong>, and\u00a0support<\/strong> may bind the churches to a human institution for many years before direct organizational ties are established.\u00a0 Church history bears repeated witness to this fact; a fact so clearly proved that it seems only the willfully blind could fail to see it.\u00a0 Now, do such ties bind the churches and schools?<\/p>\n

A few small schools have been directly owned by single congregations, but this is certainly the exception rather than the rule.\u00a0 If the universal church has no organizational entity, who does own \u201cour\u201d colleges?\u00a0 About ten years ago Rex A. Turner wrote an excellent article on this subject for the\u00a0Firm Foundation<\/em>.\u00a0 (It was republished in the\u00a0Gospel Guardian<\/em>, Jan. 29, 1953.)\u00a0 He defined the schools as \u201cCharitable Trusts\u201d and cited legal definitions for ownership of such trusts.\u00a0 Put briefly, the schools belong to the\u00a0Purpose<\/strong>\u00a0for which they are established, and indirectly to the donors who support the Purpose.\u00a0 Trustees could sell the schools, but the proceeds would have to be used\u00a0cy pres<\/em>. i.e., for \u201cthe nearest thing to\u201d the purpose set forth in the original charter.\u00a0 All of which seems to argue against church-school ties via ownership.\u00a0 But there are practical considerations that greatly nullify the legal consideration.<\/p>\n

Early schools established by our brethren (Bacon, Bethany, Franklin, and Burritt Colleges) were\u00a0secular<\/strong> institutions.\u00a0 In their early years, a studied effort was made to avoid the teaching of \u201cpeculiar and distinctive\u201d doctrines.\u00a0 (See Article II, May 1962)\u00a0 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 \u201cpurpose\u201d peculiarly related to the churches of Christ.\u00a0 As an example, the charter of Gunter Bible College (19036-28) stipulated that the school \u201c. . . .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.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Harding College charter (1934) required that each member of the Board of Trustees shall be \u201c. . . .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;. . . .\u201d\u00a0 These charters clearly demonstrate the doctrinal ties that bind the churches and schools.\u00a0 Further, as the churches change, the schools also change.\u00a0 For example, let\u2019s see someone oust a Harding College trustee today for being a member of a liberal church.\u00a0 Such an effort would convince us that restrictive deeds, etc., are usually a locking of the barn after<\/strong>\u00a0the horse is stolen.\u00a0 They serve admirably with reference to a current issue,\u00a0already solved by those making the deed<\/strong>; but they do little to guarantee doctrinal purity, or adherence to the original purpose, in the future.\u00a0 Harding\u2019s charter could be changed by a two-thirds vote of board members<\/strong>.\u00a0 (For other school charters, see Appendix, \u201cHistory of Colleges\u201d by M. Norval Young.)<\/p>\n

An example of church-school ties brought about through money considerations is found in the history of Burritt College.\u00a0 (1849-1939)\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Norval Young (History of Colleges, page 60) says, \u201cThis stock was sold to members of the church with the understanding of 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.\u00a0 In this way, the college was tied more closely than ever before to the Churches of Christ<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the\u00a0Gospel Advocate<\/em> of Aug. 4, 1892 (S.A.O., Vol. 11, p. 377), James Harding wrote concerning Nashville Bible School (now David Lipscomb College): \u201cIt is a fact that many young men who want to attend the school cannot pay tuition and board.\u00a0 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.\u201d\u00a0 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\u2014not a congregational\u2014responsibility.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

Historical records indicate a fluctuating pattern of church-school ties.\u00a0 From the early days, when no tie existed, the bond grew rapidly (with growing brotherhood organizational plans) until about 1870.\u00a0 At this time even the conservative Benjamin Franklin\u00a0wrote of \u201cour schools\u201d \u201cowned and controlled\u201d by the brotherhood.\u00a0 Then came the Kentucky University debacle.\u00a0 (See Art. III, June \u201862)\u00a0 This terrifying blow, coupled with growing opposition to the missionary society, gave church-school ties a great set-back.\u00a0 Brethren became cautious\u2014wary.\u00a0 Sound preachers pounded strongly on the \u201call-sufficiency\u201d of the church.\u00a0 Later, the Sommer opposition to Bible Colleges had its effect.\u00a0 But with Kentucky University almost forgotten, and the Sommer opposition largely overcome, church-school ties once more began to grow.\u00a0 In the 1930\u2019s 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. \u00a0 Then, following\u00a0World War II, the brotherhood organizers began to gain power; and with these developments, church-school ties were also promoted.\u00a0\u00a0Today the church-school ties are more prominent than it has been since the days of the Kentucky University blowup<\/strong>.\u00a0 Brethren, re-read this paragraph, and think!!<\/p>\n

Harding College announced her 1960 Lectures by writing, \u201cThe theme of the lectureship is \u2018Christian Education,\u2019 approached from the viewpoint of the educational program of the local church, the Christian College, and individual or\u00a0corporate<\/strong>\u00a0projects.\u201d (emp. mine, rft)\u00a0 In a special issue of the\u00a0Gospel Advocate<\/em>\u00a0(Apr. 21, \u201860) on Christian Education, A. C. Pullias, president of D. L. C., writes repeatedly of \u201cchurch-related colleges\u201d; and Willard Collins cites D. Lipscomb and James Harding as believing \u201cthat the Christian school should be in close relationship with the church.\u201d<\/p>\n

In December of 1960 representatives of twenty-two schools and colleges operated by brethren met at\u00a0Henderson, Tenn., and heard President A. C. Pullias speak.\u00a0 I will not attempt to \u201cquote\u201d Pres. Pullias, but present a few of the notes taken by one who heard him, and verified by another likewise present.\u00a0 The gist of his speech was that colleges and schools should have the Bible for the basis of their educational program and that churches can support such schools and colleges.\u00a0 He contended that D. Lipscomb believed churches could support colleges and schools.\u00a0 He further said that many had gone out on the plains of Ono and compromised with Daniel Sommer in saying that such schools were \u201csecular\u201d and that the churches \u201cas such\u201d could not support them.\u00a0 He said that bringing up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord was a matter of Faith \u2014 and the \u201chow\u201d was a matter of judgment.\u00a0 He said the Christian school was one of the \u201chows\u201d and that until a better way was shown for doing this job, he would urge brethren to support the colleges and schools.\u00a0 Can there be any doubt that church-school ties are growing, and that church support of the schools is being actively pressed?<\/p>\n

There is no organic tie between congregations and the schools \u2014 nor is such a thing likely for many many generations.\u00a0 But there are many alarming aspects in the church-school ties that\u00a0do<\/strong> exist, and that threatens to increase.\u00a0 Perhaps these historical studies but review the symptoms of a more deep-seated problem.\u00a0 Is it possible<\/strong>\u00a0for brethren to function collectively in the teaching of the Word of God, in some relationship other than that of the local congregation, and\u00a0not<\/strong>\u00a0infringe upon the all-sufficiency of the Lord\u2019s church?\u00a0 Or, do we need to re-examine our definition of \u201call-sufficiency\u201d?\u00a0 You won\u2019t answer these questions by \u201cblowing your top.\u201d<\/p>\n

A Close Look at “Our” Colleges<\/h2>\nBy Robert F. Turner (Preceptor, October 1962)\n

I \u201cgraduated\u201d from Freed-Hardeman College in 1936.\u00a0 During the next three years, as a student at the University of Illinois, I had the opportunity to compare these two types of schools.\u00a0 I have given financial support (albeit somewhat limited) to two of \u201cour\u201d schools, and have urged others to support them.\u00a0 The administrators and teachers of these schools have treated me kindly, despite our divergent views on current issues, and I have no reason to write vindictively.\u00a0 I believe I have been greatly benefited by my \u201cBible school\u201d training, and I am not unmindful of the splendid influence such schools may have had on young people.\u00a0 (I sent my own daughter to A.C.C. until she withdrew of her own accord.)\u00a0 But I can not deny a growing reluctance to encourage such institutions.\u00a0 And I am thinking of something other than the flagrant abuses prevalent in many schools today.<\/p>\n

This history of Bible teaching schools operated by brethren is a massive contradiction of theory and practice.\u00a0 Previous articles have emphasized this fact, and further proof is easily available to the serious student.\u00a0 These schools are \u201csecular\u201d institutions, that capitalize on their \u201cspiritual\u201d influence.\u00a0 They are \u201cprivate enterprises\u201d that \u201cbelong to the brotherhood.\u201d\u00a0 They dare not do \u201cthe work of the church\u201d but specialize in preachers and elder training, indoctrination, devotionals, and the sending out of \u201csoul-saving\u201d teams.\u00a0 And periodically, as public opinion permits, they ask the churches (whose work they can not do) to support them from the church treasury.\u00a0 Such indictments are of record, and few if any schools will deny them.<\/p>\n

If such contradictions occurred infrequently \u2014 perhaps only under some inadvertently poor administration, one might dismiss them as abusers to which all human institutions are subject.\u00a0 But almost from the first, these schools have operated at variance with their stated policies; and I am forced to believe there must be some basic errors or contradictions in our very conception of \u201cChristian Colleges\u201d \u2014 that something is expected of them which is contradictory in its very nature.<\/p>\n

Mind you, I said error in \u201cour\u201d conception.\u00a0 I am convinced that whatever errors may exist are not simply in the school itself, but among the brethren who foster and support the school.\u00a0 These are \u201cour\u201d schools, in a very real sense of the word, and no amount of denying can change this.<\/p>\n

Can it be that we are wedding cross-purposes when we expect a\u00a0secular<\/strong>\u00a0school to produce\u00a0spiritual<\/strong> results??\u00a0 As seen in article two, Campbell thought it neither desirable nor expedient to teach in the secular school anything other than \u201cmorals\u201d and those things common to all religious denominations.\u00a0 The \u201cbrotherhood\u201d abandoned Campbell\u2019s original theory of education when they demanded that peculiar and distinctive doctrines be taught in secular schools.<\/p>\n

Another pioneer educator, Tolbert Fanning, wrote Campbell concerning this very matter. (Mil. Harb., Sept. 1850, p. 510f)\u00a0 He asked, \u201c1. 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 that is \u2018peculiar\u2019 \u2014 which is not \u2018Catholic,\u2019 and which is not \u2018universally admitted\u2019?\u00a0 2. Are we satisfied, from any demonstration whatever, that religious Professorships in colleges, constitute the best means of teaching morality and maintaining sound government for youth?\u00a0\u00a03. To\u00a0qualify men for preaching the gospel, would it not be better to establish schools exclusively devoted to this end?\u201d\u00a0 To Campbell\u2019s discredit, it must be reported that he used ridicule, and side-stepped the last two questions.\u00a0 But Fanning\u2019s questions are most apropos.\u00a0 It seems highly possible that he sensed the contradiction in\u00a0secular Bible<\/strong>\u00a0teaching, and that in a school which\u00a0must not<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cdo the work of the church.\u201d<\/p>\n

Perhaps both parties of this difference contain truth, and both contain error.\u00a0 Perhaps Campbell was right in saying that the secular school was not the place to teach distinctive doctrinal matters, and the brethren were right in feeling that the Word of God could not be properly taught without teaching that which was peculiarly and distinctively the truth.\u00a0 The error of both parties lay in their thinking that both secular and spiritual purposes could be blended in one institution of human origin \u2014 the inherent contradiction of secular \u2014 Christian<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

At this early date everyone concerned \u2014 Campbell, Fanning, and \u201cthe brethren\u201d \u2014 were convinced of the all-sufficiency of the church to do her God-assigned work.\u00a0 We may ask, then how could they justify the establishment of a human institution to teach the Bible?\u00a0 There are two elements involved here.\u00a0 First, they seemed to be just about as confused as we are today on this matter of the \u201call-sufficiency\u201d of the church to preach the Gospel.\u00a0 And second, they had accepted the \u201cwhole man\u201d concept of education; that training is incomplete which does not develop the \u201cmoral\u201d nature of man.\u00a0 The original purpose of the early schools was to build moral fiber as well as intellectual acuteness.\u00a0 But the fine-line distinction necessary to separate \u201cmoral training\u201d from the means of soul salvation was lost to the masses.\u00a0 I am convinced that such a distinction would be even more difficult to maintain today, with the brethren conditioned to accept \u201cbrotherhood institutions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The second inherent contradiction in our conception of \u201cChristian Colleges\u201d lies in their relation to \u201cthe brotherhood.\u201d\u00a0 The local church is the only divinely approved means for performing the work which God assigned to be done collectively.\u00a0 Or, as others have put it, the organizational structure of the church begins and ends with the single independent congregation.\u00a0 First, this principle is scriptural, and therefore right.\u00a0 Second, this has been a basic consideration throughout the restoration movement, and is a major deterrent to our becoming \u201canother denomination.\u201d<\/p>\n

But early schools were established during the very time that brethren were developing a \u201cbrotherhood\u201d consciousness, and we have shown that their growth has closely paralleled the ebb and flow of \u201cbrotherhood\u201d activity.\u00a0 We establish a teaching institution, emphasize its importance in \u201cChristian\u201d development, indoctrination, the training of preachers, etc., and call on brethren all over the country to unite in its support \u201cfor the good of the cause\u201d; \u2014 and then, we wonder why the church-school ties grow so persistently.\u00a0 How can a large number of brethren support and encourage such an institution\u00a0without<\/strong> involving action in God-assigned church work?\u00a0 And since the school and its supporters are not a single local church, how can this avoid becoming a \u201cbrotherhood\u201d activity?\u00a0 There may be a way \u2014 but our total \u201cChristian College\u201d history fails to reveal it.<\/p>\n

Benjamin Franklin concluded that the school should be \u201cas secular as a bookstore\u201d; and I\u2019m inclined to agree with him.\u00a0 The schools handle a noble product \u2014 knowledge.\u00a0 They provide an invaluable service \u2014 instruction and training.\u00a0 Our precious children need these things, and we should like to provide them at a source that respects their faith in God and maintains a surrounding conducive to their continued service to God.\u00a0 We may be able to accomplish this in our own community, through our influence as citizens, in the P.T.A., working through and with the local school board; or we may feel we should unite with other parents and establish such a school of our own\u00a0\u00a0but the school must remain a secular institution<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 secular in its aims, as well as it\u00a0nature<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

To develop and maintain this type of school, we must divorce them from the church and its work.\u00a0 We must not expect of them anything but that which belongs to secular education.\u00a0 The church or churches near such a school should make every effort to provide the spiritual guidance and training needed by the students \u2014 and that, not because they are students of the school, but because they live and worship there, and are the responsibility of the elders there.\u00a0 And finally, we must love the Lord and His church enough that when we see the school encroach upon and overshadow the Lord\u2019s own institution, we will renounce the school rather than seek to change the church so that the contradiction can be removed.\u00a0 If loving the Lord and His church more than I love the school is a crime, then I must plead guilty.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Six articles were published in\u00a0Preceptor magazine by brother Robert F. Turner between April and October of 1962. They are presented here as one continuous thesis.) Educational Institutions Among the Brethren by Robert F. Turner (Preceptor, April 1962) Educational projects among members of the church of Christ began in the same way any other private enterprise…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[27],"tags":[381,1508],"class_list":["post-16207","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-education","tag-institutionalism"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":27273,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/all-feeling-no-proof\/","url_meta":{"origin":16207,"position":0},"title":"All Feeling, No Proof","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"November 10, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"by Robert Turner via\u00a0Plain Talk, April 1970 The current rash or tongue-speaking, miracle-sanctioning, and the far more common errors concerning direct Spirit indwelling, that infects many institutional churches of Christ, was not brought to earth in the Apollo 11 moon dust. It sprang from causes within the ranks. Last month\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":80121,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/be-not-many-masters\/","url_meta":{"origin":16207,"position":1},"title":"Be Not Many Masters","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"November 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Robert F. Turner Plain Talk, March 1972 Every now and then, a preacher (usually young or inexperienced) gets the idea that he has discovered something new and wonderful in his non\u00adsectarian, undenominational concept of the church or that salvation is a gift of God through Jesus Christ rather than\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":26452,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/schools-among-brethren\/","url_meta":{"origin":16207,"position":2},"title":"Schools Among Brethren","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"October 15, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"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\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":33483,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/church-autonomy\/","url_meta":{"origin":16207,"position":3},"title":"Church Autonomy","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"March 21, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"by Robert Turner \"Autonomy\" is a compound word, composed of autos, meaning \"self,\" and nomos, meaning \"law.\" An ordinary dictionary will tell us the word means \"self-ruled,\" so that an autonomous church is \"self-governed, without outside control.\" There are those who reject the concept of God and revelation, saying ultimate\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":49122,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/chirps-or-testimony\/","url_meta":{"origin":16207,"position":4},"title":"Chirps or Testimony?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"July 1, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"by Robert Turner The current wave of ascetic utterances, \"speaking with or in tongues\", which has swept parts of the country and made inroads among some brethren, is directly related to the increase in a subjective approach to authority. External authority, exemplified in the written word and approached objectively, has\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":47184,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/how-to-differ\/","url_meta":{"origin":16207,"position":5},"title":"How to Differ!","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"April 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Robert F. Turner Plain Talk, July 1974 Brethren frequently differ with one another, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It may indicate conviction and our concern that others share our understanding of God's word. Differences spring from various degrees of learning or experience, or from opinions expressed on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/argument-man-angry-silhouette-confrontation-dispute-1583761-pxhere.com_-300x300.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16207","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16207"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16207\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16207"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16207"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16207"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}