The Bible School Controversy -- No. 3
We closed our last article with the statement that the work of preparing young men to preach the gospel is an individual work, and not the work of the church. This is true because the church, as such, cannot do this work. The preacher's task is to preach the gospel to the world and to teach and admonish the church; it is no more sensible to contend that the students are to train and prepare the teacher. Where is the gospel preacher with years of experience who has not, at some time or other, done special work of this kind by way of preparing young men to go out and preach the gospel to the lost?
This work may have been done by him in his own private home, in training classes, or here and there as he was doing evangelistic work. In such endeavors he has drawn young men to him, taught them, warned them, and prepared them for the conflicts and responsibilities of preaching the gospel. If then a gospel preacher or an individual can do this work in such circumstances, why can he not, if he has the opportunity, do the same thing in the school room where he teaches daily?
Again, objection is made to the Bible college upon the claim or charge that they through their teachers and student preachers are dominating the churches and exercising too much authority over them. In this point it must be remembered that the religious papers have probably done more to mold the thinking and set the pattern of movements within the brotherhood than have the Bible colleges. This is no doubt true because the elders and other influential leaders of the churches are the ones who read the papers; they keep abreast of the times, and are in touch through the papers with what is going on. The religious paper covers the nation and makes a weekly visit to the homes of members all over the brotherhood. The influence of the Bible college is hardly felt or known outside the particular section where it is located. In the United States we find listed about sixteen colleges and high schools where the Bible is taught; and I suppose the entire enrollment would not exceed eight or ten thousand. And that would include everything from the kindergarten through the graduate schools. I am sure that most any of our older publications will have a subscription list that will far surpass that number. Furthermore, let it be remembered that there has never been a departure from simple Bible teaching in the brotherhood that has made any progress unless it was pushed and promoted by some religious paper. Any charge made against the schools on grounds of exercising undue influence over the churches could with perhaps more justice be made against the periodicals.
Others have contended that Bible colleges are a threat and an evil because, as they say, they are preparing young men to go out and become "pastors" of the churches; hence, they are building up a pastor or clerical system, and are thereby bringing about a departure from God's simple order of New Testament church work and government. There is possibly more truth in this charge than in others that we have examined. But in justice to the schools let me say that these young men are NOT trained to be "pastors" or to take over the work of the elders where they preach. The real problem here lies in the fact that there is a tendency on the part of the churches to load the preacher down with the work and tasks of an elder; they make the preacher, if possible, responsible for doing the elders' work. The young men, full of zeal and with a fervent desire to see the work of the Lord advance, sometimes allow themselves thus to be saddled with such work, and to actually do work that ought to be done (but is not being done!) by the elders.
We have now briefly set forth the charges and objections that have been waged by critics against the Bible colleges during the last century. We have made no special effort to refute these objections, but have sought simply to let the reader see what they are, and let each make up his own mind concerning the weight to be given them.
We make no claim that the Bible colleges have always done the things they should have done; neither do we expect to see them in the future always doing exactly what we think they should do. Their boards, presidents, and teachers, are all human beings. At the very best, they will make mistakes in judgment, and no doubt there are times when some of them are actually ignorant of Bible teaching on certain points. But the same can be said of any other group of people. A local church with the very best of men as elders may make mistakes and do things that should not be done, or leave undone things that should be done. The wisest men of all times have made their mistakes.
We make no effort to defend the Bible colleges in their mistakes. On the contrary, we raise our voices as loud as anybody when we see them undertaking a course which we believe contrary to God's word. But we do contend stoutly that they have a right to exist; and by that we do mean a scriptural right. We do not mean that they are authorized by the scriptures; we simply mean that they exist in opposition to no scriptural principle or teaching.
Before closing this series of articles, there are a few other things I want to mention.
It is a well known fact that the restoration movement began and did its greatest work in the northern states. Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan were particularly strong in these early days. These states were the great battleground of the pioneers; here they met and conquered entrenched denominational error; here the church had her greatest strength. Perhaps Kentucky should belong to this group; but Tennessee, Texas, and the rest of the south were hardly known in that early period. I know that societies and digression took the north — but would such not also have taken the south had there been anything to take? It was men like David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning, with others of the same conviction, who stood like heroes and held the line against that overflow of digression. These men preserved the church in the South from apostasy. Many churches were established in the great cities of the north: Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Detroit, Pittsburg, and Washington, D. C. Most of these churches went with the digression; but a few of them were saved. There were also some men in the north who stood like a stone wall against error — men like Benjamin Franklin and Jacob Creath, Jr.
The question I raise is: Why has not the church grown faster in the north? Why has not the north kept pace with the south? Why is it necessary now that strong churches in the south send men to preach in these northern areas where the cause was once strong — men trained in some of the Bible colleges of the south? Why is it that nearly all of the Bible colleges and schools are in the south? Readers of this journal know the answer without stopping to think.
And that answer is NOT that there was a Bible school in the north that dominated the churches, but rather that a religious paper, published in a northern city (Indianapolis) did dominate the churches to a great extent. And that is the paper that so long made its fight against the Bible schools.
Another question: Why has the church spread so rapidly among the southern cities? Take Birmingham, Alabama, as an example, with more than a score of churches established in less than half a century. Or take Memphis, Tennessee; Tampa, Florida; or Dallas, Texas.
Then consider those scores of faithful men who have taken their families and gone into foreign lands to preach the gospel; where have they come from? What schools did they attend? Have they gone out from the public schools, or have they come from those institutions where they were educated under the influence of Christian men and women? I close this series with a quotation from Brother Earl West's "Search For the Ancient Order." Vol. 2: page 378:
"Gradually the influence of the school (Nashville Bible School) broadened. The young preachers were encouraged to spend their summers preaching the gospel in destitute fields. Grabbing their Bibles at the close of a session these youth would head for the country school houses and brush arbors from Mississippi to Kentucky. During the summer of 1893 all the boys together baptized over five hundred people and established six congregations. The next summer the number of baptisms was over one thousand, two hundred. During the summer of 1896 it was estimated that in the five years the school had been established its young preachers had led three thousand and four hundred into the church, and had established twenty-eight congregations."