News And Views
Notes —
Credit goes to Bill Crews, Orange, Texas, for the good article, "Are You Entertained By Sin?", which was carried in this column June 1. Sorry that his name was omitted at the time the article appeared .... Ferrell Jenkins, Irvin Himmel, Grover Stevens, and Arvid McGuire are working together in publishing a new paper. The paper is named THINK. The first issue is very attractive and filled with good material. It is a monthly and the subscription price is $1.00 per year. The address is P. O. Box 5803, St. Louis 35, Missouri.
The Church And The College
Questions and problems frequently recur concerning the church and schools operated by brethren, and what relation, if any, properly exists between them. A disparity is often noticeable between theory and practice on the subject. Generally, brethren disavow any belief in any legitimate connection or relationship as obtaining between the two, and yet there are those who are agreeable to the churches (congregations) contributing from their treasuries to the support of these educational bodies. It is inconceivable that such can be justified apart from first establishing a lawful connection and affinity between the church and them. On the assumption that such does obtain, then one may logically defend church support of them. However, the only conceivable relation that can be advanced as existing is on the claimed premise that they (the schools) are doing the work, or a work, of the church. If this is true, then we are faced with this sort of justification for their existence in such a realm and the support of them. But to assume they are doing the work of the churches calls for authority from the Word of God for this assumption of function by them.
Do men have a right to found, establish and operate any human institution — it being human simply because of its human origin and control — to engage in a work for which the church was ordained? Such a contention is an impeachment of the church as thus built by the Lord and hence a reflection on its sufficiency and the Lord's wisdom in building it to accomplish a work which it wouldn't be competent to perform. If the church can do what God intended it to do, then no justification can be established for man creating his own instrumentality and agent to perform this work. The fact of doing so is within itself a denial of one's faith in the competency of the Divine Arrangement as identified with the church. But if the church as the Lord made it is capable of doing what He wants it to do, then no reason under heaven can exist for the church to support another institution to do its work for it. Will the Lord be pleased in the church delegating to another body the doing of its work as ordained by the Lord? If so, where is the evidence to such an effect?
Many brethren are avowedly opposed to church support of colleges or any sort of school, yet support is being extended in some quarters. The editor of the Firm Foundation has been voicing an alarm over the issue, and thus far is on record as opposing all such support. He is to be commended for this course he has editorially taken. It is to be hoped he vigorously presses his opposition thereto.
On what basis does the contention really rest for such a practice? It is the thought that the schools are engaged in a work that is essentially identified as a work of the church. But are those schools which disavow all approval of church support, and suspend their appeals for support on an individual basis free of this conception? Are there appeals made to individuals which in reality have the idea either expressly stated or by implication suggested that the school bears an essential and worthy position in relation to the work and prosperity of the church? It is possible that many individuals give to schools with the thought and intent of aiding the Cause of Christ as they do in giving to the church. If such be true it is a misconception.
The only basis justifying the support of a college conducted by brethren is that of parents giving to afford a suitable and desired education of their children, or as the friends of parents and their children. It is true that parents are obligated to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and within this general obligation it can well be deemed wise and proper to establish schools and maintain their support. That is, the school can only be defended in relation to parental obligation, and never in relation to church obligation. Hence, to give to a school with the thought of doing one's duty to the Lord and His Cause is a mistaken idea. It is true that parents and the church have the obligation to teach the Word of God; the church to the whole of responsible society, and the parents to their children. The parents sustain a relation to their children which is peculiarly theirs, and with which this responsibility is to be identified. And the responsibility of the church in teaching is one which the church collectively, and the members individually, sustain to all men. There should be no confounding of the two.
Therefore, the only defensibility which I regard that attaches to the schools and their support is humanitarian in character as distinguished from the spiritual relation of Christians to one another and to the world. Much money is being expended in the operation of schools conducted by members of the church. There has arisen a veritable swarm of schools for local purposes in cities to supplant the state operated system of schools. While questioning the wisdom of such, yet the right to do so is unquestioned, provided they are wholly divorced from the church in every respect, in thought as well as in fact.
This is not written in opposition to the right of schools to exist, of the kind mentioned, but in the interest of seeing them restricted to their proper sphere. Unfortunately it appears they just are not so restricted, and thus the recurring confusion and controversy over them. The church must be allowed to stand aloof and apart, because of its infinite superiority, from all human institutions regardless of their otherwise commendable purpose. The name "Christian" should never be prostituted to the use it is being subjected to as identifying either the name or the character of any institution. Until this ceases there will be the continuing proclamation of a claim as touching these organizations to which they have no just and scriptural right.
The transition from individual support of schools to one of congregational support has been effected because of this failure to properly distinguish between the purpose and rightful function of them and the peculiar province and work of the church. Simply because there is the overlapping of an obligation to teach the Word of God by parents and by the church doesn't warrant a blending and admixing of the two. "Christian duties" have been spread too thin and made to extend too far. A duty, any given: duty, is created by a relationship and derives both its existence and character from this given relationship. The church can be properly conceived as a relationship formed by those who constitute its members by virtue of their relation to its head, and thereby to one another. The fact that a plurality of Christians are identified together by reason of their connection with some particular body or functional organization does not make that thing "Christian."
A business may be founded and operated wherein everyone connected with it is a Christian, but such would not make it a "Christian business." Every member of a family may be a Christian, but that doesn't make the family a "Christian Home." A Christian is one who belongs to Christ, and no institution other than the church belongs to him as a result of his redemptive sacrifice. The church does. (Acts 20:28) An educational institution other than the church is not warranted in engaging in the work or making the claim of existing in order to give "Christian Education." All such claims are identified with appeals for support and patronage, and therefore contribute toward donors thinking they are actually serving the spread of the gospel and the growth of the kingdom of heaven. Not only what one does must be right but right motives must prompt the doing of it, and to think they are serving God in one sphere when in reality they are serving in another is to render questionable the acceptability of their service as so contemplated. — Bryan Vinson, Longview, Texas.
* *
Editor's Note: I urge a very careful reading of the above article. In fact, most people will need to read it more than once to really comprehend it fully. Brother Vinson is a fine scholar and an able writer. He writes in a logical way, with so much appeal to reason, that no doubt some pass by his efforts as dull and of little value. One must think to benefit from his articles, and most of us seem to want someone else to do our thinking for us. His writings are of the "weighty" sort, and not light and simple.
In this article Vinson deals with the issue of the church and the college in a fine way. I share the views he has expressed, and these are some of the things I have been trying to get over in my recent articles on this matter. In every letter of objection I have received to my articles, there was the underlying idea that the school (FCC) is an essential adjunct to the church in the accomplishment of its mission. At least, the idea prevails that such a school can benefit and serve the Cause of Christ. Hence, two or three mentioned the fact that they had done but little to help the college and seemed ashamed and consciencesmitten that such was true. In my opinion, this idea is the true and real feeling of most people, even if they are not fully aware of it. Vinson raises this question in his article: "Are there appeals made to individuals which in reality have the idea either expressly stated or by implication suggested that the school bears an essential and worthy position in relation to the work and prosperity of the church?" Who can successfully deny that such is not the case? This is one of the lingering ideas that needs to be completely uprooted in attitude as well as in practice, and until such is done there will always be the recurring problem with the schools. As Vinson says, "It is possible that many individuals give to schools with the thought and intent of aiding the Cause of Christ as they do in giving to the church." This is the misconception that needs correcting so badly. "To give to a school with the thought of doing one's duty to the Lord and His Cause is a mistaken idea."
I agree with Vinson's conclusion that "the only basis justifying the support of a college conducted by brethren is that of parents giving to afford a suitable and desirable education of their children, or as the friends of parents and children." "Our" schools can only be defended in relation to parental obligation and never in relation to church obligation. Truly the building and maintaining of such institutions is purely "humanitarian in character." These facts need to burn deeply in the minds of all.
Let this fact regarding the purpose of my "observations" on this "touchy subject," as well as the purpose of Vinson's article, be recognized by everyone: "This is not written in opposition to the right of schools to exist....but in the interest of seeing them restricted to their proper sphere."
Be sure to read carefully Vinson's remarks relative to the use of the name Christian.