CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

This term is being used more and more in the Churches of Christ press, and perhaps elsewhere, in a manner that borders on confusion. This journal issues an invitation for a definition of the term. We shall be happy to run the definition in these columns. We recently sent a request to the president of a Church of Christ college, who often uses the term “Christian Education” in his writings, for an explanation of just what he means when he uses the term. We suggested that he give us his definition in the Firm Foundation since it is there that he so often uses the term, but we would be glad to pass it along to the readers of Restoration Review.

We wonder if by “Christian Education” is meant “Church of Christ Education” or some similar parochial concept. Was there any “Christian Education” before all these Christian schools and colleges came into existence? When the church is at work teaching and preaching the Word of God, is that “Christian Education”? When parents conduct studies for their children in the home, is that “Christian Education”? How about the teaching of the Word through the printed page, radio, TV, newspapers, telephone, radio, or by word of mouth? Is this “Christian Education”?

An instance of the use of this term is a recent issue of Firm Foundation in which a news item appears that tells of a meeting of eight presidents of Christian colleges. The group gathers annually “to discuss mutual concerns and to encourage each Other in the great cause of Christian Education.” All the presidents were from institutions that we would think of more precisely as Church of Christ schools.

Just what is meant by “the great cause of Christian education”? What would “Christian Education” mean when thought of in connection with the primitive ecclesia? Does it mean something else now? Were Peter and Paul engaged in “the great cause of Christian education”?

Let us think of a gathering of presidents from other colleges, even within the same disciple tradition --- such as TCU, Bethany, Milligan, and ask if they too are in “the great cause of Christian education.” Or take a school like Wheaton College, which is so strict in its Christian commitment that faculty and students alike refrain from smoking, movies, makeup, is it a Christian college? Or take the many schools around the world that have been started by dedicated missionaries, are we to say that only those who report to the Firm Foundation are involved in “the great cause of Christian education”?

Let our brethren tell us plainly, if they will be so kind, if they mean Church of Christ education when they say Christian Education. The implication is that only Church of Christ folk have Christian colleges and only Churches of Christ are engaged in “the great cause of Christian education.”

It hardly makes sense to say that a course in sociology or English is “secular” in a state college and “Christian” in a Christian college even when taught by the same instructor. Cannot Christian teachers in state or independent schools be as much involved in “the great cause of Christian education” as those in church schools. Is a course of study Christian just because it is part of the curriculum of a church school?

All this illustrates once again the point that much of our confusion stems from semantics. Our thinking is cloudy because our terminology is confused. Sectarian institutions usually create a vocabulary of their own, and such is what we have done with such terms as the truth, the church, the Lord’s people, and Christian education. When we become big enough in our thinking to realize that “the church” involves far more than what we call the Church of Christ, then we may see also that “Christian Education” will not die with us. It would be a truly unhappy situation if the only Christian education there is in the world would be limited to our own activities. We might even come to see that many others do a better job of educating men and women for work in the kingdom of God than we do ourselves.

VOICE OF PROPHECY

Perhaps you have heard the radio program known as Voice of Prophecy, a worldwide broadcast that is presented in several languages. It is Seventh-Day Adventist, and the featured speaker is H. M. S. Richards. When I was visiting in Palestine in the summer of 1963 I came upon Mr. Richards and his party at a most unlikely place, the caves of Qumran in the Judean desert near the Dead Sea. Afterwards we dined together at the YMCA in Jerusalem Jordan, and we have since been corresponding. He speaks of me as “my friend of the Caves,” which admittedly has an ominous ring to it.

I found him to be a delightful person, gracious and gentle. So it was with all his party. There is an openness and transparency about Mr. Richards that more of us need. Though he appears to have a quiet assurance, he is not dogmatic or arbitrary. An instance of this is a paragraph from his recent letter:

“I do not know that I can answer your questions satisfactorily, for there are a lot of them I have myself. I think one of the biggest victories, at least it is with me, is to be able to face questions whether we can answer them or not. It is my firm belief that if there is a God, and if He is a good God, He will reveal Himself to man.”

HOW ABOUT THE PASTOR?

The pastor system, a term that is in constant need or definition, has been an issue among disciples since the days of Alexander Campbell. It was Campbell’s conviction that a restoration of the ancient order, which to him included a recovery of the priesthood of all believers, necessitated an end of the pastor system in the churches. It was this fight against the professional clergy that brought so much opposition to his labors. The result was that a mutual or reciprocal ministry evolved in the disciple churches. So characteristic was this that outsiders described our people as having “an unpaid clergy” and as opposing the support of preachers, which was not quite accurate. Since Campbell himself never received money for his labors, the support of preachers became a delicate issue.

Since Campbell’s time the problem of the professional minister has emerged repeatedly, especially among those of us that take seriously the intention to restore the ancient order. It is not unlikely, therefore, that questions along this line would arise among the Independent Christian Churches, a large group within discipledom that does indeed take a very conservative view of restoration.

In The Sentinel, published by Central Christian College of the Bible, “a dear brother and faithful supporter” (as he is described by the president of the college) wrote as follows: “Having studied and given a great deal of thought to our present system of ‘located minister’ or ‘pastor’ or clergy and laity, I have reached the decision that it is completely foreign to the Bible. Please inform me about the roles you are preparing your students to occupy. Having seen the present system throughout my lifetime and seeing its failure to get the job done, it seems a change is in order.”

If one takes the position that the church of today is to be after the likeness of the congregations of the New Testament, it is easy enough to understand anyone’s confusion on this point. Here we are, a people that claims to have restored the New Testament ecclesia --- indeed we insist that we and we alone are the New Testament church --- and yet we have a professional office in the form of “the minister” that is clearly copied from modern churches rather than the New Testament.

The brother is right when he says “it is completely foreign to the Bible,” and it is in order for him to ask for its exposure as an innovation. And we would think that there is no one better to ask than the president of an institution that trains professional preachers. This particular president, however, issues a disclaimer, insisting that his school is no clergy factory and that he too opposes the pastor system. He says also: “A restoration of elders as pastors and every Christian as a ministering priest is the crying need of the hour.”

Here is an issue that must be kept fluid, for it may well be related to problems of even greater significance, such as the unity of all believers and the effectiveness of the church in our time. You will notice that the brother who wrote the letter speaks of failure of the pastor system to get the job done. Usually this is the very argument made in its behalf! “The elders can’t do it, so somebody has to.” It could well be that the pastor system is the very thing that cripples the church in its ministry.

The point cannot be developed here, but an illustration of this would be Alcoholics Anonymous, which practices a mutual ministry that does get the job done. What would happen to its highly effective work if it adopted a system after the order of the modern church’s plan of ministry in which the congregation gathers periodically to be preached to by a professional clergyman? Anyone who knows of the AA program will readily concede that its effectiveness would be ruined. The AA’s gather for mutual upbuilding; they minister to each other. It is my impression after seeing them at work that their ministry is more like that of the New Testament churches than is any of the modern denominations. The Bible churches certainly did not gather to be lectured to by some preacher who was hired for such a purpose.

This question should be under constant review by a people who are so bold as to tell the world that they have reproduced the New Testament church in our time. They are the New Testament church in name, doctrine, faith and practice; to walk into one of their churches is to see Christianity as it was in the beginning!

Well, this brother that has been brought up in this kind of thinking has concluded that the system is completely foreign to the Bible. Is he right? Do we really want the truth --- or our own way of doing things? “And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” (Heb. 4:13)

LIBERALITY AT ABILENE

Abilene Christian College claims to be an institution of liberal education, and we hope it may well be just that. If this means anything at all, it means that through the educative process one grows freely toward his potentiality. A liberal education is the cultivation of the heart and mind through the great disciplines of the arts and sciences.

One may justly wonder how serious ACC is about this when he reads such things as Prof. J. W. Roberts’ letter to Richard Ramsey, editor of The Exhorter, which appeared in that organ recently. Brother Ramsey had applied for a McGarvey scholarship, and brother Roberts’ letter was an explanation of why he was rejected. The main reason why Ramsey was not accepted is made clear: “While we have given some scholarships to men in teaching and Bible Chairs, the committee has asked me to write you that we do not feel that it is in the best interest of the program or in keeping with its purpose to grant a scholarship to a mature man who holds views contrary to the basic point of view which we are attempting to promote.”

Ramsey is a premillennialist, Roberts observes, and a mature man who is not likely to change his position to the view held by the ACC committee. McGarvey scholarships have been tendered to other men of the premillennial persuasion, Roberts makes clear, but these were younger men “who might be open to further study.” The professor also makes mention of the open-mindedness of the committee.

The ACC committee will excuse some of us who view borh its claims for open-mindedness and open to further study with tongue in cheek. It would be a good guess to say that most any premillennialist is likely to be as open minded on the millennial question as the profs at Abilene. It is next to ludicrous to think of a committee of ACC teachers being “open to further study” on any point of doctrine contrary to its own brand of Church of Christ orthodoxy. Whom is Prof. Roberts trying to kid unless it be himself, for he well knows that the premillennial issue, like instrumental music in worship or missionary societies, is a closed issue at ACC. That there might be serious intellectual dialogue on any such topics at ACC is positively out of the question.

But this is not the most serious sin in all this. In its attitude toward Richard Ramsey the committee behaved more like the unforgiving servant in Matt. 18, who knew how to receive without knowing how to give, than like the good Samaritan, who showed love to his neighbor without inquiring into his theological position.

I know something about how ACC profs have drawn richly upon the scholarships provided by “heathen” or “secular” graduate schools across the country, who did not stop to ask if the ACC men are immature enough that they might change their theological position. ACC graduates continue to benefit from this kind of philanthropy, and it is proper that they should. But when ACC has a little scholarship money to pass out, they behave not too unlike the wicked servant. You can have a scholarship if the chances are good that we can convert you to our way of thinking! Aren’t they glad that Harvard or Chicago do nor practice this kind of open mindedness!

If Harvard can be so good as to give graciously to those who are so different from herself, then surely ACC should be able to muster enough liberality to extend a modest scholarship to one of its own brothers in the faith, however different he may remain in his views of the millennium. If a college is to be a truly liberal institution it must first rise above littleness and parochialism. To draw the line on people who want an education because of their creed or color is both unchristian and un-American. In view of ACCs blessings from others, it is a lack of grace when she does both.

“I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?” (Matt. 18:33)

TOWARD UNITY

A new item of special interest comes from Erskine E. Scates, J r. of Heights Christian Church in Albuquerque, who tells of reciprocal services being shared between the Christian Church and the Church of Christ. The Heights Church invited the Estancia Dr. Church of Christ for an evening service; the Church of Christ in turn invited the Christian Church over. Their ministers exchanged pulpits. At a later dare the groups met with representatives of four different factions of discipledom to study the topic “Our Attitude Toward Honest Brethren with Whom We Disagree.”