The Bible institute movement has grown rapidly since 1882 when Nyack Missionary College was founded, and 1886 when Moody Bible Institute was begun. More than 200 Bible institutes and colleges are presently in existence.
The movement has been hailed by its friends and alternately condemned and pitied by its foes.
On the asset side of the ledger an emphasis on sound doctrinal belief has been paramount. Bible schools have positively proclaimed the virgin birth and deity of Christ, man’s sinfulness, redemption through the substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection, the imminent return of Jesus Christ, and the full inspiration of the Bible. This doctrinal emphasis was a bulwark against the onslaught of nineteenth century rationalism which impatiently waved aside biblical supernaturalism.
Strong emphasis also was placed on the direct study of the English Bible. The logic of the early Bible school leaders demanded that no peripheral interest should supplant the firsthand study of Scripture, the written Word of God. Such methods as inducive Bible study and Bible synthesis have largely been popularized in Bible institutes.
Equipping the layman and laywoman with a practical knowledge of the Bible for use in teaching in Sunday Schools, supervising rescue missions, and in other areas of Christian service was the original purpose of the Moody Bible Institute. The goal of Nyack, on the other hand, was to train recruits for a practical and evangelistic ministry on the foreign mission field.
Complications soon set in because students looking forward to the pastorate began to apply in large numbers, and the pressure mounted to increase the range of subjects and to deepen the content. This type of training began to register a marked effect on some phases of the religious life of America. Many trained in liberal seminaries did not know their Bibles. In countless churches across the country, everything from politics to community welfare became the pulpit diet. The fact was ignored that the unregenerate man in the pew needs a message from God to redeem his soul and transform his life. A goodly number of Bible institute graduates had this message, and spiritually hungry people responded to their ministry. These preachers were not always scholars, but they usually had a grasp of basic Bible themes and doctrines, and an insight into practical Christian living. The layman was encouraged to study the Bible and to carry it to church. Such churches became enthusiastic Bible-teaching and evangelistic centers.
The mission field, too, felt the impact of Bible institute training. These early graduates with admittedly meager training became witnesses on the frontiers of the world, by engaging often in pioneer work. Authoritative missionary sources substantiate the fact that even today the majority of missionaries on the field have had some of their training at Bible institutes and Bible colleges. The battles won by Bible institute graduates were not won in the scholastic arena but in the pragmatic fields of the pulpit and pew, and in the primitive mission wilderness.
Then, too, the Bible institute fostered an emphasis on personal piety and devotional dedication. This warm-hearted campus atmosphere encouraged personal spiritual development.
A Look at the Liabilities
Not all of the facts, however, registered on the asset side of the ledger. There were serious shortcomings in the Bible institute movement, and some liabilities remain. Its most ardent advocates would, I think, be willing to admit this. In the early years of the movement there was an aversion to high academic principles. By way of reaction against the intellectual pride of nineteenth century rationalism, there arose a disposition to glorify a lack of formal education for faculty members. A “good working knowledge of the English Bible” was all that was required.
Sometimes easy answers to difficult problems were proposed. Oversimplification often became the rule of thumb. Armed with memorized proof texts, young graduates were supposed to be adequately equipped, mentally and spiritually, to rescue the perishing world. Stereotyped explanations of difficult texts were given more than occasionally. Not enough time was devoted to serious study of the Greek and Hebrew texts themselves. Liberal arts subjects were derided as “of the devil.” In some quarters a decided spirit of anti-intellectualism prevailed. In certain areas of theological thought even spiritually-minded men were sometimes adverse to logical procedures.
Unfortunately, the Bible was not always allowed to speak for itself even in the Bible institutes. Mimeographed notes and outlines were frequently substituted for personalized study of the Scriptures. Special “pet” interpretive points of view were given the importance of creedal belief. Of course these abuses were not all characteristic of every school, but frequently were found in the movement as a whole.
However, the Bible institute movement grew much as a baby does. Boundless newborn energy manifested itself at first in clumsy actions, and then became constructively active with disciplined coordination and, by and large, produced good results. Many of the abuses were frankly recognized, and constructive steps were taken to correct them. Serious self-appraisal by the leadership of the movement is still going on in schools that value constructive criticism.
The Rise of Accreditation
The main core of the Bible institute was and is, as the name itself suggests, the English Bible. This emphasis differentiates the Bible institute from the Christian liberal arts college. As academic standards were raised, the level of work soon became comparable with that of some Christian colleges. In some instances it was higher. Yet no accreditation for this work existed on a national level to recognize it as of collegiate level for credit transfer purposes. In 1947, representatives of the leading Bible institutes and Bible colleges met to discuss this vexing problem.
The Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges was born and was recognized by the Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in Washington. Interest multiplied in correcting the weaknesses of the movement while conserving its basic good qualities and objectives. Degree standards for instructors, more rigid requirements for libraries, standardized business and bookkeeping procedures, as well as sound administrative principles, were set up.
Many institutions added a fourth year to their three-year curriculum and granted a bachelor’s degree in Bible. The additional year usually provided more liberal arts subjects. Methods of effectively communicating the Gospel were studied as well. Even with the addition of selective courses in liberal arts, the central core of the curriculum remained a minimum of 30 to 40 hours of Bible and theology.
With accreditation came the ability to transfer credits to graduate schools and other colleges. This added to the stature and effectiveness of the Bible school graduate. Without compromising the uniqueness of its original purpose and aim, the Bible school thus markedly increased its prestige and appeal. Large institutions like Moody turn away hundreds of applicants each year. To its firsthand study of the Bible, adherence to sound doctrine, and emphasis on missions, the Bible institute has added a new measure of academic respectability.
Bible institute training is not a panacea for Christian education. Nor can one substitute a three-year Bible institute course for four years of college and three of seminary. Each has its own place and function in the Church of Christ. However, the Bible institute can and does meet a real need in the total picture of Christian education. Its fruit over the last 90 years has been good. The addition of academic status and the progressive elimination of obvious weaknesses are strengthening its approach to Christian training. Spirituality and orthodoxy are no longer associated with ignorance and anti-intellectualism. The Bible institute movement has come of age.
WESLEY A. OLSEN
Executive Vice President
Northeastern Bible Institute
Essex Fells, New Jersey
