In evangelical circles it is always a cause of great lament that those early colleges and universities which were definitely Christian in their origin are now lost to the cause. That such is the case one cannot deny, but too seldom do evangelicals, who grimly remind themselves of this fact, seek for the reasons behind the all-too-frequent departures of Christian colleges from the historic faith. These should cause evangelicals great concern, and should encourage thorough investigation. Why have so few, if any, of the schools founded in the colonial period and early days of the Republic remained true to the Scriptures and to the purposes for which they were started?
Certainly this is a question we must frankly face and frankly answer before we set out to establish new schools, for these might swiftly follow the same path unless adequate steps are taken to guard against it. Without soul-searching on the part of evangelicals it will be very difficult to justify the expenditure of vast sums of money for new colleges and universities to replace those already lost to the faith.
No one factor can explain the situation which brought about the shift of control in these colleges from the Christian Church to secular groups. Their early history reveals the fact that various forces were at work. But usually one or more of the following causes can be traced.
LOOSE CHURCH CONTROL
Weaknesses in the ecclesiastical polity of the founding church were in many cases directly responsible. This is particularly true of those schools which owed their origin to churches using the Congregational or Baptist form of government. When the Puritans of Massachusetts consciously rejected the Presbyterian form in their Cambridge Platform they chose a kind of polity that would ultimately render it difficult for them to retain any semblance of control over Harvard College, and to maintain in that institution a doctrinal orthodoxy should the college choose to follow another course. In the same way, the decentralized Baptist churches of the North have found it almost impossible to maintain sufficient authority over most of their schools to insure doctrinal soundness.
It should be noted that these weaknesses in polity do not in themselves cause the colleges to proclaim their theological independence of the founding church. They only make departures from the faith possible. It can be argued that Congregational polity would, under the most favorable conditions, eventually result in the loss of some schools, but it can hardly explain the wholesale desertion of their colleges from the Christian faith.
THEOLOGICAL WEAKNESSES
Inherent theological weaknesses have been a second factor in the drift of Christian colleges to secularism. A profoundly biblical theology must lie at the heart of a sound educational philosophy. The less biblical a theology, the more easily and readily does it succumb to the enticements of heresy. It is a matter of common knowledge that those churches which adopted Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism have become the easy and even willing prey of liberalism, and have suffered the greatest inroads of unbelief. Such theological positions are themselves conscious accommodations to humanism and unbelief to the extent to which they deny the sovereignty of God and the depravity of the race after the Fall. At these important points Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism are sub-biblical theologies, and fail to provide the necessary theological foundation for a Christian philosophy of education. Many colleges were founded in this country by churches professing to hold to the Arminian system, and this theological weakness has been the Achilles heel of much evangelical educational effort in this country.
The importance of a sound philosophy for educational endeavor cannot be overemphasized. This can be found only in a sound theology which in turn supports a Christian world and life view. Many churches which were historically evangelical in outlook have singularly failed in their educational activities simply because their theology did not provide the necessary foundation for a philosophy of education that would bring the teachings of the Scriptures sharply to focus on the educational program. They started colleges which were Christian in purpose and evangelical in tone, but lacking in their theological outlook. These schools, professing a real loyalty to the evangelical cause on the one hand, soon began to accept philosophies of education culled from humanism and other prevailing philosophies of the day. Thus, their Christian testimony was largely confined to the worship services held in chapel, to the missionary rallies, and to the courses in Bible. But the rest of the college program slowly came under the influence of those who were unprepared to examine the problems of culture and scholarship in terms of the Scriptures. The philosophy which came to prevail in the sciences, psychology, sociology, literature, history, and other departments, was frankly humanistic, or naturalistic, to such an extent that the Gospel preached in the chapel was overwhelmed by the paganism of the class rooms and the colleges could no longer claim to be Christian in fact.
SHUNNING INTELLECTUAL ISSUES
This whole transition, in many cases, was possible for the simple reason that the theological position of the colleges did not afford clear and convincing answers to the great intellectual issues that must constantly arise in educational circles. Where the whole counsel of God is not presented in its grandeur and fullness, Christianity often appears in an adverse light in its continuing conflicts with other systems of thought.
In many evangelical circles the result has been the rise of an anti-intellectualism which, in turn, accentuates the very departure from the faith which they fear. On the part of many pietistic groups there has been an obvious tendency to flee from learning as a dangerous activity. This, in turn, has given rise to the conviction that scholarship is a dangerous enemy to the Christian faith. Thus, all too often in the past, as well as now, many evangelical colleges have been forced to find adequately-trained faculty members outside the historic Christian faith in order to meet accreditation requirements. More than one college has been lost to the faith by such a process. Faced with the necessity of maintaining high academic standards, they have taken competent scholars without too much regard for their doctrinal standards on the assumption that they would not endanger the faith of the students or the purpose of the college so long as they did not teach courses in Bible or theology.
At this point the churches must share the blame with the colleges. The finest educational philosophy must remain ineffective unless it becomes the guiding principle for competent scholars who are, at the same time, thoroughly grounded in the Scriptures and committed to the historic Christian faith.
CONFORMITY TO ENVIRONMENT
But a fourth factor remains to be considered, and this one has assumed a far greater importance than is generally realized. It is the desire of the Christian colleges to accommodate their own programs to the cultural milieu of the day. In recent years this has taken the form of conforming to the demands of the American way of life and the democratic philosophy. It is this factor which has played a dominant role in the departure of many colleges from the evangelical cause. A weak polity on the one hand and a deficient theology on the other made their task simpler, but the desire to conform to non-Christian cultural norms furnished the stimulus for their defection. This attempt to bridge to a philosophy of life which is dominantly pagan must be fatal to any Christian educational effort which is not thoroughly grounded in the historic faith, for only this historic faith brings out, in sharp contrast, the basic differences between contemporary non-Christian philosophies and the plain teachings of the Scriptures in regard to God and man, sin and salvation, and the meaning of the human drama itself. Many schools, sound in doctrine and polity, have sought to escape what they felt were the fetters of orthodoxy so that they might gain a worldly intellectual respectability. This has been the case with Presbyterian colleges which have been conscious of the cleavage between their Calvinistic heritage and democratic environment. The answer to this dilemma is the realization that Christianity is exclusively true, that it transcends all human systems of thought, and must therefore be sovereign over the minds of men.
God Forbid
Galatians 6:14
God forbid that I should boast—
Weak thing of clay and loathsome dross—
May it not be that I should boast,
Save in the glory of Thy Cross.
God forbid that I exult
In fleshly compact, pledge or tryst;
May it not be that I exult
Save in Thy plighted Word, O Christ.
God forbid that I depend
On what man’s limit doth afford;
May it not be that I depend,
Save on Thy Grace, my Sovereign Lord.
PAUL T. HOLLIDAY
Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.
