"The Church And The College"
Under the foregoing caption, Brother Wm. E. Wallace wrote a very good article. I can agree with him almost completely. Brethren, we had as well face this issue now. Discussion of it is good, because, I think, an overwhelming majority of Christians have no special knowledge of, or conviction concerning, this question.
But there is another phase of this matter that is overlooked, I believe. It is this: in the minds of many, many Christians, the colleges ARE "church schools." In their minds, they are to the churches of Christ exactly what the Baptist college, Howard College in Birmingham, Alabama, is to the Baptist churches. Understand, I know that they are not exactly that, but in my judgment, they are considered such by a majority of Christians. We need some education on this point, not only for the good of the churches, but for the colleges as well.
I firmly believe that if other brethren and I want to establish a college in which the Bible is a required subject, we have the right under Christ's teaching. But let us very carefully keep it a private institution. That colleges may deviate from this concept, and that churches and Christians may also talk and act as if they are church schools, doesn't make this proposition unsound.
Another thing which I think no one informed will deny is that "Bible colleges" wield too much power and influence over churches and Christians. We do not have to have a written creed, or a national association with a centralized headquarter, in order to destroy the autonomy of the congregations. There is no power as effective as popular opinion, or institutions or concepts which can to a great degree make or almost blacklist those who dissent. It is lawful for one to be a Republican in Alabama, for example, but just try being vocal and aggressive about it, and see where you get in a hundred different businesses and vocations.
I did not attend one of "our colleges." Especially when I was young, I was often asked, "What Bible school did you attend?" It was then actually embarrassing to me to say that I did not obtain my education in a Bible school. I felt the weight of the pressure, and I think my popularity among the brethren suffered on that account. Will anyone deny that this is true?
Brother Wallace says: "The setting up of colleges which include Bible instruction in their curriculum is not parallel to establishing a missionary society unless the college is to be supported by the church." I think that's true. But I have often suggested that since preaching and teaching the gospel to lost souls is the greatest and primary work of the church, as well as the most important consideration that ever engaged the attention of people, that we set up a group of trustees, with president, vice presidents, treasurer and secretary, exactly like those of the orphan homes, to carry out this important work of the church? Why not? If we can have that "more efficient" set-up to care for orphans and others in need, why isn't it scriptural to have EXACTLY THE SAME SET-UP to preach and teach the gospel. Show me an example, or instruction, to teach and preach to the lost through the church, and I will produce from God's word the same for caring for the needy. But the best argument against extra, separate organizations for doing either work is for the churches to get busy and do the work. I believe if any congregation has faith in God's promises, and will act on that faith with what they HAVE, God will make them sufficient for every good work. It is an insult to the wisdom and goodness of God to say that He failed to give us the organization or means to accomplish His work on earth. We need to study Ephesians three very carefully, honestly, and thoroughly, again and again; then follow its teaching, as those who accepted Jesus Christ as Lord.