GOD AND MAMMON AND HIGHER EDUCATION
NORMAN L PARKS

It would not be difficult to conclude how the founder of the Nashville Bible School, now David Lipscomb College, would react to a recent newspaper story announcing that more than $2,000,000 in federal funds had been earmarked for the Nashville institution.

In his Civil Government David Lipscomb took a purely Augustinian view that human government was rooted in rebellion against God and that all strife and conflict “have been the result of man’s effort to govern himself and the world.” Since civil government is the domain of Satan, there is inevitable conflict between it and God’s kingdom. Any state support of religion is “an adulterous union” that can only work against the mission of Christ to restore men to the government of God.

Government, says Lipscomb, rests on power-the dominion of man over man. The principles that govern Christ’s kingdom “are diverse from and antagonistic to the principles that have obtained and must ever obtain in all human governments. No human government can possibly be maintained and conducted on these principles …” No religious thinker in America ever surpassed Lipscomb in calling for a complete and absolute separation of church and state. It is inconceivable that Lipscomb could endorse the use of governmental funds to finance even indirectly the teaching of the Bible.

Yet there has emerged a new orthodoxy in Church of Christ colleges on church-state relations. It is possible to serve both God and Mammon, it seems, and the rush is on for federal funds, even from that stronghold of private enterprise and paragon of resistance to governmental intervention in affairs economic and social, Harding College. Like the queen of Austria, who in the partition of Poland “wept … but kept on taking,” Harding denounces the growth of government with one hand but extends the other for federal money.

The author was fascinated by an exposition of the new orthodoxy by Dr. Carroll Ellis, Lipscomb professor, at the annual meeting of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. He had been preceded by a Texas Baptist editor, who cited 152 cases of breaches in the wall of separation of church and state and made an impassioned plea for religionists dedicated to freedom to man the ramparts.

Dr. Ellis explained that his role at the meeting would have to be that of a man who once heard David Lipscomb preach and endorsed the preacher from time to time with loud “amens,” to the evident satisfaction of the audience. Later when Lipscomb made some points with which he disagreed, the man sounded a firm “God forbid.” Whereupon the leaders wanted to eject him from the meeting, but were restrained by Lipscomb. He would give a firm “amen” to the principle of separation of church and state, Ellis explained, but a loud “God forbid” to the proposal to close the breaches through which federal money was pouring into the treasury of his college.

Times have changed, he continued. The government in its bounty has been only benevolent, thus erasing any fear of dominion or control. Moreover, such aid is essential to church-related colleges since they must be subsidized, either by government or private supporr. Following the Catholic line of argument for public aid, Ellis said that Lipscomb had subsidized the education of GI’s, and had lifted part of the burden of higher education from the state. Hence it would only be fair for government to compensate the college in return by grants and loans To those who express fear of controls he would point out that a college may benefit from some outside control, as Lipscomb clearly did from the intervention of the Southern Association in behalf of higher salaries.

Dr. Ellis was, of course, talking with the knowledge that Lipscomb had already received more than $1,600,000 in grants and loans under the Higher Education Act of 1963 and had in the mill a request for $500,000 for dormitory construction and a sizeable sum for teaching equipment. Those familiar with Church of Christ history know that no teacher in one of its colleges can oppose an official orthodoxy, and the speaker was toeing the line. This new orthodoxy on church-state relations, so clearly in conflict with the doctrinal position of the college founder, provides a first-hand case study of how the orthodoxy of this religious group, which is proclaimed as the same yesterday, today, and forever, does in fact change with the tides and times.

The means by which new or old orthodoxies are enforced in the Church of Christ are the means used by human government—the means of power. Lipscomb college itself is one of the most authoritarian power structures to be found, far exceeding state owned colleges. Neither academic nor faith freedom would last as long as a June frost at Lipscomb. Augustine and Lipscomb agreed that the rule of man over man is contrary to God’s will that Christ himself said, “It shall not be so among you.” Lipscomb teachers must agree to be bound by the creed prescribed by the board of directors. Any violator of the official orthodoxy not only stands to lose his position but also suffer proscription wherever he goes.

Dr. Ellis appeared to feel that the only danger in “the adulterous union” of church and state is in control by the state. He overlooks the fact that there is as great danger in what the church may do to the state. The Higher Education Act is a clear example. Under the pressure of the Catholic church mainly and the avarice of not a few Protestants, the United States has been led to tax all America to build a science building to teach a special brand of biology at Lipscomb College. Now we know that Christ was wrong — the image and superscription on the tax coin is not just Caesar’s! It carries on the other side the image of the Lipscomb president! Now Christians and non-Christians alike are forced to support Lipscomb College. The Baptists, who reject state aid, seem to be made of sterner stuff!

The bareness and austerity of principle makes a poor rallying ground against a bounteous, self-filling formula for serving both God and Mammon. The formula can fill churches and build impressive plants for “church-related” colleges. By such means the denomination which calls itself Church of Christ is fast working out its modus vivendi with the world, proving, as the Brothers Karamazoff affirms, that Christ missed the boat in the Wilderness temptation.

Norman Parks (Ph.D., Vanderbilt) is Professor of Political Science at Middle Tennessee State University. He was Dean of David Lipscomb College for eight years and taught at both Freed-Hardeman and Oklahoma Christian

POSTSCRIPT

Unless American taxpayers are saved by a forthcoming Supreme Court decision, it is almost certain that they will gradually be compelled to support a vast array of denominational school systems. The National Council of Churches has already surrendered the separation principle by accepting the “child benefit” theory under which elementary and secondary c h u r c h schools are now being aided. Some Methodist leaders are advocating a system of Methodist schools. 1. R. Wilson, editor of a magazine ostensibly devoted to the separation principle, has denounced “Godless” public schools and called for a system of Church of Christ schools “from kindergarten through university” with the aid of federal funds. Only Adventist and Baptist denominations are still resisting, and the latter is threatened by a breach between its conventions and its college officials. The peril to the American system of public education is great. And right in the forefront of the big denominational grab are the Church of Christ colleges. Such, we repeat, is the power of mammon!

Since writing the above, I have seen a recent announcement that David Lipscomb College has had another 2.4 million dollars cleared from the federal government, this time as “loans” for a high-rise dormitory and a student center. Thus the federal government has been called on for more money in 15 months than was invested in the college from all sources in the first 60 years! “Uncle Dave” gives way to “Uncle Sam.”