What occurs in a state, secular school is not the same. First, it isn't coming at it with ecclesiastical or like ecclesiastical authority. Second, the Bible itself treats the two sides, secular versus professing Christian, radically different. 1 Corinthians 5 gives us a good example of this. Consider vv. 9-11:
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
Christians may company with unbelievers, those "of this world," but not those who are "called a brother," but are engaged as a practice in certain activities. I understand why the professing Christian is more dangerous than the secular. Our church kids go onto the state campus with a clear delineation. They know they aren't dealing with believers on the secular campus. Third, when it comes to the parachurch organization, there is a tremendous danger in validating these unscriptural alternatives to the biblically prescribed way of receiving doctrine and practice. We place our approval on them when we send our kids to one of them. They are man-made inventions, other ox-carts in contradiction to how God said to do it.
The suggestion has been made that if we sent our children to a Christian college to get their education, because of its correct worldview, it would be superior to the secular college. The idea is that they could resist the influences of some wrong doctrine more easily than they would be able to battle the all-out assault of the state college on the views of our young people. I think this suggestion is worthy of consideration. It makes sense, except for its violation of scripture. It just makes sense. It isn't scriptural. Sometimes we exalt what makes sense to us because it makes sense to us. But even if it makes sense to us, it isn't right if it conflicts with the Bible. It isn't better, even if it makes sense to us. If we send our church kids to a Christian college that disobeys our doctrine, we are sending them into fellowship with those who teach and preach another doctrine. That violates 2 Thessalonians 3 and Romans 16:17-18.
The decision between Christian college and secular college isn't binary. There is another option: Christian college, secular college, and no college. If you don't think your child can handle secular college, the only other choice isn't Christian college. You can wait until the child is ready for secular college, or have him get a job or have him involved in some vocational learning with someone you trust.
Someone commented that your children might be offered fornication. He could also be tempted with alcohol, foul language, rock concerts, pornography, and more. That could also happen at work, the neighborhood, and with family. We could cloister ourselves away from all possible bad influences with monastic-like isolation. The above 1 Corinthians 5 passage says we don't do that. Jesus in John 17 said that He wants us in the world. The way we combat those sins is by letting everyone know we're a Christian, be bold in our testimony and not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. If you take a bold stand against liquor and pornography and other worldly items, people won't keep bothering you with it. This is what I've heard from everybody that I've talked to who has attended a secular college. They don't want to be around you any more that you want to be around them. When you are preaching to people, they will run away.
We want to start college outreach on the secular campus. It is difficult to do that when you don't have students in those colleges. Our separation from those colleges has resulted in a lack of evangelism on college campuses.
When your daughters attend a secular college near home, safety is an issue, especially in an urban area, like where we live. I would suggest doing something for self-defense---mace, etc.
Our church kids should look at their church as the source of their biblical and spiritual nourishment and growth. Fundamentalists especially have inculcated to their kids that this occurs in the most prominent way with the Christian college. It just isn't true. They should regard that accountability and discipleship and ministry should happen through their church.
Church kids will be challenged in a secular environment. They'll have to take a stand. They'll have to develop discernment. They will be tested earlier in a way that everyone will be tested eventually. The tests are going to come anyway. Why not have those tests come with the help of their church? Why not get them out of the way? Why not have them learning out to act in the world at an earlier date? I believe they will mature more quickly and understand their purpose even better for their being on earth. Many men, who attended Christian college, do not really get tested until they are out in the world afterwards. Sometimes the real test doesn't occur until they reach mid-life and suffering a season of discontent. Then, for the first time in their life, they face what they could have confronted and conquered and toughened them for everything that would present itself later on, when a collapse would be cataclysmic. The test will come earlier or later, but it will come.
I earlier commented that English is English and Math is Math. Some concepts in a secular college in philosophy, history, and literature will contradict a Christian worldview. But we are expecting that, aren't we? So we have the opportunity then to prove everything and hold on to that which is good, which is a constant practice our entire life. We can develop the answers that we need to combat that in the real world. And we will do it with the help of our church and our family. Young people are segregated from those important and vital helps when they are sent off to the Christian college. That isn't a better situation for them.
Like in so many other areas of fundamentalism, there was a problem that occurred and so a solution was invented that seemed like a good way to deal with the problem. The solution became as much a problem or a bigger problem than the original problem. The solution already exists in the institutions that God created. The secular colleges attack Christian values. They do. But we're not getting our values from the state college. We're learning things that will prepare us to get a job in the world, the same world of the secular college. It is a secular world. Making tents is making tents. Doctoring is doctoring. Engineering is engineering. Physics is physics. Physical therapy is physical therapy. You will have to sort through some wrong philosophies, but you are there to get an education.
I haven't noticed that our Christian colleges are better at preparing young people to succeed in the world. You have very few Christians who are better at something that someone is doing in the secular---musicianship, science, writing, and more. The Christian colleges themselves have essentially admitted this by having their professors go to state colleges to get their advanced degrees and by looking to state accreditation. When I have edited writing, I found the state educated to be better writers than the Christian college educated. In a major way, good writing is good writing. I don't think being better at doing these things means that we are a better Christian. However, it seems we are contradicting the point of college when we leave college prepared in an inferior way. What I'm saying is that we can learn the Christian life at home and in the church, where it ought to be taught, and then prepare for earning a living or getting a job in a place that is the best equipped to do that.
More to Come.
13 comments:
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Thank you for your post. I certainly agree that there are many problems at a variety of Christian colleges.
1 Cor 5:9-11 speaks of having "company" with various wicked people. It looks to me like this refers to being with these people. Does this passage prove that we are to sit at the feet of these people for hours and hours and hours, day after day after day, year after year after year, and learn from them--that is, get an education from them? Do we have any examples in Scripture where the people of God voluntarily sought out the wicked to be educated by them?
If we are to state: "We place our approval on . . . . the parachurch organization . . . when we send our kids to one of them. They are man-made inventions, other ox-carts in contradiction to how God said to do it." and use this as an argument against a Christian college, why are we not putting our approval on the State college as a man-made invention when we send kids to it? Aren't state colleges a man-made invention? In the Bible, is education the role of the State at all?
I am thankful that you recognize that at the State college there will be an "all out assault" on Christianity and that not sending young people there "just makes sense." I would, however, suggest that it does not just make sense, but that we are indeed having "communications" that "corrupt good manners" when we choose to receive an education from pagans who are dead-set on brainwashing Christianity out of our young people.
Not only did someone offer to fornicate with me at the State college, but I was forced to read about lesbian lovers, forced to read cursing, immorality, essentially pornograpic trash, etc. 1 Cor 5 says you can be around a fornicator. It doesn't say that you let him fill your mind with filth, or that you take his pornographic books, his socialist trash, etc. and read it, review it, and get graded on it. While some among the sea of wicked students will run away from you, the professors won't.
I have outreach at secular colleges where I am not learning immorality and Marxism. I go to the colleges and pass out tracts. I have had an evangelistic Bible study with one man, conversations with lots of people, and if the colleges were closer to my local church I would do more. My wife has led a team of girls to another pagan college and had great evangelistic opportunities. Guys from a local-church run Bible college in our area go to another pagan college and preach on the street. They have had at least one saved and baptized and attending the church. None of the people involved in these outreaches had to attend the school. So why is it true that "Our separation from those colleges has resulted in a lack of evangelism on college campuses"?
I am thankful that at a Christian college one doesn't need to worry about getting raped and so need to carry mace, a taser, pepper spray, etc.
I don't believe that the alternative is either valuing the church or going to a Christian college. I have not found that people who go to a secular college, in my experience, come back with more zeal for the Lord and a greater love for the church than those who go to a good Christian college. In fact, all across our country there are thousands upon thousands of people who dropped out of church after attending a secular college, rather than growing in love for the church and being better equipped to serve there. And in terms of service in the church, are most of the people who are preachers, missionaries, sunday school teachers, etc.--leaders in the church--people who went to secular college or to Christian college? Who is doing more service in the church?
Tests will certainly come, but a believer will be in church at whatever age is he tested. It isn't either secular college + church to resist temptation versus Christian college - church. Also, exposing someone who is under the Biblical age of accountability for Israel in the wilderness--twenty--to secular college is different than having a forty year old in the workplace. Furthermore, at work they don't make you read the kind of filth and trash I had to read in secular college.
Furthermore, a good Christian college will have people in the world preaching the gospel--the Biblical way to be out there--not sitting at the feet of some of the most ungodly people on earth, who live to destroy Christianity and brainwash people into secularism and paganism.
It was affirmed:
I earlier commented that English is English and Math is Math. Some concepts in a secular college in philosophy, history, and literature will contradict a Christian worldview. But we are expecting that, aren't we? So we have the opportunity then to prove everything and hold on to that which is good, which is a constant practice our entire life. We can develop the answers that we need to combat that in the real world."
At a secular college you don't have time to develop good answers to all the lies from hell that are being thrust at you. You have to spend all your time reading, writing essays about, etc. the lies. You don't get to read the works on Christian apologetics where the answers are. You just have to read the anti-Christian arguments and try to get enough sleep. Maybe you can get a tiny bit of a real education on the side after you are done wasting your time for hours and hours. People in a Christian college who are out preaching the gospel and are trained properly will know better how to deal with the world than someone who has to read thousands and thousands of pages of lies and worthless garbage and who gets his grade docked if he doesn't agree with the lies taught at a secular college. Going to secular college did not help me develop a Christian worldview and respond to anti-Christian lies in the manner that a Christian college did. Rather, I was affected negatively, despite fighting it all tooth and nail. I didn't realize how much I was affected until I got out of that environment and into a Christian college.
In relation to the argument that State colleges do a better job educating, I do not agree. First, I would point out that c. 1% or less of the population goes to a Christian college. So if there are more non-Christians who are intelligent than Christians when the non-Christian population is 100times larger, the comparison isn't exactly equal. When one makes a fair comparison, such as SAT scores, etc. the Christian colleges come out way ahead of the State colleges, just like the Christian grade schools come out way ahead of the public schools. The disaster called "public education" does not cease being a disaster once high school stops and college starts. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has documented that graduates of secular colleges are incredibly ignorant when they graduate--but they are better leftists (which is the point, anyway). Are some Christian colleges short of the top of the line? Yes, and so are many secular colleges. There is a reason some heathen go to Harvard and some heathen go to community college. Not every secular or Christian college is for the intelligensia, but this does not prove that the average secular college does a better job educating--not at all.
By the way, please count me out from the examples of people who got a better ability to write at a secular college. I learned much of my ability to write through independent tutorials. In actual secular college instruction, we didn't learn to write well. I have found that graduates from secular college--like graduates from public school--generally have a much lower level of ability to write than Christian college graduates--and Christian school graduates. Some of my weaknesses in writing, though, do indeed come from my secular college background--although UC Berkeley was the #1 English department, and I was a major in English, we never learned any grammar, and the first sentence I had to diagram in my entire life was in 2nd year Greek at Fairhaven Baptist College.
My wife--who was offered a position teaching some English courses at a church-run Christian college recently, although she couldn't do it because of her responsibilities teaching in the high school at Mukwonago Baptist Academy--would do a better job teaching English at a college level than the people at Berkeley's "#1" English department. People from our little Christian academy win national essay contests--ones not limited to Christians. They get flown to other parts of the country as prizes for winning the contests. Because of the dominance of Marxist and pagan colleges in education, some of the best writers are barely even in print--the more Biblical their worldview, the more they are rejected, even if they are incredible writers. The days of the public grade school's teaching the Day of Doom by Wigglesworth, of "A is for Adam, in whose fall we fell all," and of the public college teaching Edward Taylor's poetry, etc. is over. You can graduate from a public college in the USA and never read the Constitution or know a hill of beans about western civilization--but try graduating without Marxist indoctrination and it will be a big, big challenge.
There are enough people who believe and practice like Bethel Baptist Church in El Sobrante, CA in the USA that a good, church run Christian college could be either located that already exists or started if it doesn't exist. If we just have everyone go to secular college, will it happen? I, at least, would look all across the USA, Britain, Australia, etc. before I would want my kids to go to UC Berkeley like I did. I also think that a kid who was not called to the ministry but wanted to be a lawyer would get a better undergraduate education at a Bob Jones University than at Berkeley, although Berkeley is the tops for the California State colleges.
I also think that if I were at a BJU, I would never skip church to go to their "service" on Sunday morning. I would rather get expelled than skip church to go to a place like that. And I would go to a good church that believed and practiced the truth.
I also think that a church run college with right belief and practice is far, far better than a parachurch institution.
Thomas,
I appreciate your concerns. A lot of what you write is worthy of strong consideration here. You give what is probably the best criticism of what I'm writing. I'm sure that fundamentalists would eat up what you are writing---be very, very happy about it. A lot of what you are saying, like fundamentalism, has obvious contradictions. I'm not going to deal right this moment with all of what you commented, but I will at least two things right away.
First, you don't even attempt to exegete 1 Cor 5:9-11, so you slaughter it, which is ironic for a discussion about the doctrine and practice of parachurch organizations. It is talking about company with certain people, but you missed, it seems purposefully but maybe ignorantly, that Paul is not saying, don't have company with the fornicators of this world, but with those who call themselves a brother and do the wicked practices those verses mention. I don't know how you miss that, but you do, which then colors everything else you write, because if you aren't going to get the passage right, it affects everything else you say, that is, it is slanted.
The assumption you make with 1 Cor 15:33 is that what I'm saying is that our kids are going to see the secular campus as the place to become chummy with unsaved kids. This is not the case, so that becomes a moot point. On the other hand, I know kids who went to Christian college, as do you, that came out with the wrong belief and practice. You know many of them, by the way---it just doesn't help your argument, so you say nothing about them. Start thinking close to your own family.
On the other hand, I'm around Christian kids at churches, that are the greatest kids in churches in America, that go to their local colleges and stay in their churches. They still operate this same way, and they are great kids that believe just like us. Just like. On the other hand, I have almost zero of my former friends from Christian college, because they have all turned in their doctrine, so that we aren't close any more and rarely are in contact. We are not in fellowship. And these are the best Christian educational places in America. The same goes with my wife's college friends.
Lastly, and I'll come back later for the rest, you don't recommend any place for college. Strange, huh? You argue for something that doesn't exist. Except for BJU, where they don't have their students going to church on Sunday mornings. I could really spend some time here, but all of this is indicative of where this philosophy will take you. I understand that you want a church somewhere to start a first rate college somewhere that will also train kids who will not be pastors, missionaries, and Christian school teachers---you have no place that exists and you suggest that it should be started. A seminary that trains only pastors or church leaders would be even simpler than that, and which one do you right now have the same doctrine and practice where you could teach? Hmmmm. So maybe my kids and others' will be 50 years old by the time that first rate college begins, but the idea of that is worth waiting.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Thank you for your comments. I am glad we can discuss this question openly and candidly, and nobody is going to come away with hurt feelings.
I don't see how I missed the point in 1 Cor 5:9-11. I agree that we aren't supposed to have company with brothers who are fornicators, etc. but we can with those who don't call themselves brothers. We can have a secular job and work with a guy who is a fornicator. I hope Christian college professors aren't fornicators, etc. and if they are we should definitely stay away from them. What I question is whether the passage is establishing is that it is fine to do a lot more than "keep company" with the ungodly--and spending years learning from them and getting graded by them is, in my view, a lot more than simply being around them in a work setting.
We should not be chummy with ungodly people, 1 Cor 15:33, I agree. The question is whether we are avoiding evil communications when we are learning, for years upon years, from professors, graduate assistants, etc. who are ungodly. Can we really say we are not having any evil communications when we are sitting at the feet of such evil professors, reading what they assign, commenting on what they command us to comment on, reading the pornographic and Marxist books they assign, etc.?
Evil communications can corrupt good manners at weak Christian colleges also. I do not doubt that.
I have not mentioned any particular Christian school (except BJU), just as we are not discussing any particular State school (other than Berkeley, where I went). A generalized argument can set forth the issues more effectively, in my opinion. I do not agree that there are no colleges in the USA that have the right doctrine and practice.
Brethren,
I can't be exactly sure about this being true here, but I know that part of the discussion among Christians about schooling has to do with the issue of work - that is, that some churches teach their young people that, if you are not going into "full time Christian service", you are carnal. If you are a Christian businessman, engineer, carpenter, medical doctor, mechanic, etc., etc., it is only because you are not fully surrendered to the Lord's will. I am not sure where that idea comes from, but it is definitely prominent in independent Baptist circles. Therefore, all their young people are encouraged to go to Bible colleges that offer them no academic training for working in the world. I do not know a local church college that offers such training. Do any of you?
Thomas, you said:
"At a secular college you don't have time to develop good answers to all the lies from hell that are being thrust at you. You have to spend all your time reading, writing essays about, etc. the lies. You don't get to read the works on Christian apologetics where the answers are. You just have to read the anti-Christian arguments and try to get enough sleep. Maybe you can get a tiny bit of a real education on the side after you are done wasting your time for hours and hours. People in a Christian college who are out preaching the gospel and are trained properly will know better how to deal with the world than someone who has to read thousands and thousands of pages of lies and worthless garbage and who gets his grade docked if he doesn't agree with the lies taught at a secular college."
All I can say to that is that it is not the experience of our young people - though there are many, many challenges. Our young people have had time to learn those things throughout their lives in our church, & they hear preaching on those very things while they are in secular schools. In my 28 years as a pastor, I cannot think of someone who actually was a stronger Christian because they attended a Christian school. We put our kids in a "Christian" grammar & high school, but we had to constantly fight against all the worldliness & carnality they encountered there. And, when people come to our church who are the products of Christian colleges, they rarely stay. That is because the doctrine they learned from their professors & 1,000s of peers was so different from our doctrine, & "all those people could not be wrong", as compared to our insignificant church. Our young people are learning to preach & witness from their church (which is what the NT teaches), not from a "Christian college".
Dear Pastor Webb,
Thank you for your comment. If I were a pastor, and sent kids from my church to a "Christian" school where none of them were stronger as a result of being there, I would also see that as a severe problem. I would say that many, indeed, the very large majority, of the kids at our church's Christian school are stronger as a result of being there. Furthermore, I would also say that the definite majority of those who go to a church-run college promoted by our church are stronger as a result of being there. While people there are not perfect, just like I am not perfect and others in my church are not, the school is not filled with worldliness and carnality. That is in contrast with a parachurch school that used to be promoted, which had problems similar to what you mentioned, where people would go there and then leave our church.
Also, in relation to the comments above in general, I am not saying that I learned absolutely nothing in secular college, of course, although I believe a Christian one would have been better for me.
Finally, while it is true that not all young people will be in the ministry in a full-time sort of way, there are plenty of pastorless churches out there, and plenty of places to start new ones, so I would have difficulty thinking that strongly encouraging young people in that direction is a bad thing.
Thomas,
I'm going to answer everything you wrote now.
1 Cor 5:9-11 speaks of having "company" with various wicked people. It looks to me like this refers to being with these people. Does this passage prove that we are to sit at the feet of these people for hours and hours and hours, day after day after day, year after year after year, and learn from them--that is, get an education from them? Do we have any examples in Scripture where the people of God voluntarily sought out the wicked to be educated by them?
I've dealt with this now, but the passage teaches that we can and should have company with unbelievers, but not with certain believers. You won't agree to this, so I'm not going to tarry there any longer—and that it tell-tale, in my opinion. However, the education the kids are getting is like work training. My daughter has taken two semesters of Chemistry at the local jr. college and she hasn't heard anything but chemistry—nothing philosophical. They are not attending there to become a part of the campus life, but to get trained for work, like tent-making.
If we are to state: "We place our approval on . . . . the parachurch organization . . . when we send our kids to one of them. They are man-made inventions, other ox-carts in contradiction to how God said to do it." and use this as an argument against a Christian college, why are we not putting our approval on the State college as a man-made invention when we send kids to it? Aren't state colleges a man-made invention? In the Bible, is education the role of the State at all?
I would hope that you really do want an answer here. The secular college is not training in theology or in character. They are teaching something akin to pilot training. My daughter will go in physical therapy. That I know of, an instructional manual on physical therapy isn't in the Bible. The state should not rear children. We agree. But that is a different subject than something other than the church teaching the Bible. I know you get this, but I'm telling you anyway.
I am thankful that you recognize that at the State college there will be an "all out assault" on Christianity and that not sending young people there "just makes sense." I would, however, suggest that it does not just make sense, but that we are indeed having "communications" that "corrupt good manners" when we choose to receive an education from pagans who are dead-set on brainwashing Christianity out of our young people.
It's true that your position is based upon what makes sense to you and not according to a biblical conviction. Scripture forbids certain things and it doesn't forbid attending a secular college. It has more to say in that way about the Christian college. Living by faith requires obeying the Bible. The faith position rejects unscriptural practices. That's where this should all start.
1 Corinthians 15:33 in its context is talking about learning bad theology about the resurrection that would affect your Christian walk. "Communication" is a theological speech. It really backs up my contention about Christian colleges more than it does your position.
Not only did someone offer to fornicate with me at the State college, but I was forced to read about lesbian lovers, forced to read cursing, immorality, essentially pornograpic trash, etc. 1 Cor 5 says you can be around a fornicator. It doesn't say that you let him fill your mind with filth, or that you take his pornographic books, his socialist trash, etc. and read it, review it, and get graded on it. While some among the sea of wicked students will run away from you, the professors won't.
I see this as part of your English major at Berkeley which weighed heavy on literature there. Some colleges are more liberal than others. My kids will not read what we object to their reading, even if it means a lower grade. Brother Webb and others I know report something short of what you are reporting.
I have outreach at secular colleges where I am not learning immorality and Marxism. I go to the colleges and pass out tracts. I have had an evangelistic Bible study with one man, conversations with lots of people, and if the colleges were closer to my local church I would do more. My wife has led a team of girls to another pagan college and had great evangelistic opportunities. Guys from a local-church run Bible college in our area go to another pagan college and preach on the street. They have had at least one saved and baptized and attending the church. None of the people involved in these outreaches had to attend the school. So why is it true that "Our separation from those colleges has resulted in a lack of evangelism on college campuses"?
Who is there for these colleges is campus crusade. Churches have generally forsaken the secular campuses. You know that I know that evangelism can occur there without being a student, but my statement was that the separation has resulted in a lack of evangelism. There has been a lack of evangelism there.
I am thankful that at a Christian college one doesn't need to worry about getting raped and so need to carry mace, a taser, pepper spray, etc.
I think you have carried pepper spray and a taser. This relates less to the college as it does living in the Bay Area. If she worked here, I would also have her carry these, even as I know pastor's wives who carry handguns. Anything can happen anywhere, including on the way to her job. Do all Christians move out of urban areas so that they don't have to carry a taser and pepper spray?
I don't believe that the alternative is either valuing the church or going to a Christian college. I have not found that people who go to a secular college, in my experience, come back with more zeal for the Lord and a greater love for the church than those who go to a good Christian college. In fact, all across our country there are thousands upon thousands of people who dropped out of church after attending a secular college, rather than growing in love for the church and being better equipped to serve there. And in terms of service in the church, are most of the people who are preachers, missionaries, sunday school teachers, etc.--leaders in the church--people who went to secular college or to Christian college? Who is doing more service in the church?
Ultimately this is a pragmatic or experiential argument. People should be trained in their churches. Churches are sufficient. You argue against that with your stuff about not being able to learn Greek and Hebrew in the church. The reason that churches don't teach it is because they don't either care about it or know enough about it. You are arguing for oxcarts, which in the end we know are more damaging, however we might judge them in the short term.
Your point about who is better would take awhile to deal with. We're not arguing right now for secular person versus Christian person, but Christian at secular college versus Christian at Christian college. The public schools do educate almost everyone. And they do a very poor job on average, but that, I believe, is mainly because of who they in general have to work with. However, when you get to the upper 10-20%, those generally outperform the top 10-20% of Christians on what we're talking about, which isn't theology or what the Bible teaches. Of course, Bible teaching is most important, which is why we want that taught by the church and not a Christian college. The best students on average coming out of our Christian high schools are behind the best students in the public schools. Our kids couldn't even make it into Harvard or schools like that, in general. I'm not saying I'm recommending Harvard, just that our kids couldn't make it anyway there or at Stanford.
This is a philosophy. Should our young people be able to earn a living, especially our men. Or do they go to Christian college for four years, taking college courses, and then if we find that they really can't pastor (which there are many), they also can't get a decent job to raise a family and are always struggling. And today especially, I believe we are entering an era in our country, where the church will not be able to support the pastor like us, that takes the proper positions. And if our economy falls apart, the missionary support will dry up, and the missionaries will need a tent-making ability to support a family. Are we preparing for that, or not?
When we talk about a college in America that has the right doctrine and practice, we're talking about an identical doctrine and practice to our church. Even if there is one, there are other factors than just the same belief and practice. One of them is, do you get a good education? What's the point if the standard is low. Why not just stay in the church and take classes from the pastor. And then do they teach something for those that need to get a job? I know of none like that, that I recommend. Even in the training of Christian school teachers, across the board, we have had to train those teachers how to teach, once they've arrived. We could do a better job of training school teachers to teach at our school by mentoring under present teachers and our principal.
I have not mentioned any particular Christian school (except BJU), just as we are not discussing any particular State school (other than Berkeley, where I went). A generalized argument can set forth the issues more effectively, in my opinion. I do not agree that there are no colleges in the USA that have the right doctrine and practice.
You mention something about churches needing pastors. It's true. But there is a two pronged issue here. First, not everyone can pastor. I believe that more than ever. We need more, but it is still going to be a percentage of kids growing up in our church. If our church reproduces several of them, then we've done a pretty good job. Each church should at least reproduce the pastor of its own church. That would take care of the presently existing churches, and then the more, the better. The other prong is equipping pastors to get a job, so they can work and pastor both. I think this very likely is the future of pastoring and missionaries. Paul worked. You aren't giving a suitable answer to these two prongs, and you can't.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Thank you for your responses. I appreciate the fact that we can discuss this, and I am confident that you have nothing but the glory of God and the best interests of the people of God in view.
You had written:
I've dealt with this now, but the passage teaches that we can and should have company with unbelievers, but not with certain believers. You won't agree to this, so I'm not going to tarry there any longer—and that it tell-tale, in my opinion.
I must not have been very clear, but I do agree with this. I tried to make it clear that one can have “company” with an unbeliever in a work setting, invite an unbeliever to one’s home, etc. while one would not do this for a believer under church discipline. My contention was that there is more than “company” going on when one sits at the feet of pagan educators for years.
I am glad, though I am very surprised, that there has been no evolution taught in the chemistry classes at the junior college. I would be interested in seeing what secular chemistry texts have no philosophy in them at all, that is, leave all the evolution out.
In relation to: “The secular college is not training in theology or in character,” there may be less of it in some classes than others, but it is in there. There is less theology and character in some classes at a parachurch Christian college too. So if one goes to BJU to learn physical therapy, not to learn theology or character, and one dismisses what is taught in the Bible class, just as one dismisses what is taught in the Marxist indoctrination class at the secular college, is that acceptable?
By the way, I don’t think that it is necessarily sinful in all situations to take a Chemistry class at a local secular college. Taking a full curriculum—including the core curriculum and the classes in socialist indoctrination—and believing that this is the best course for Christian young people to follow—is a different question.
I would be interested in seeing where in the lexica the word “communications” in 1 Cor 15:33 is defined as referring specifically or exclusively to theological speech. In BDAG, the word is defined as: 1. state of close association of persons, association, social intercourse, company . . . 2. engagement in talk, either as conversation . . . or as a speech or lecture to a group”
It is only found in that verse in the NT, but in the LXX it certainly isn’t always some kind of theological speech. It is used in the Christian Apologists in uses such as Trypho and Justin Martyr’s discussion in Dialogue with Trypho 137, of listening to a discourse in 2 Theoph 1, etc. I certainly would not exclude listening to theological speech from the word, but the semantic range of the word also covers listening to secular professors lecture—and their lectures are not purely “secular,” even on the invalid assumption that there really is a secular/sacred distinction.
Some of the other material I don’t think I need to comment on more. A few miscellaneous observations. I would repeat that we have specific Scriptural evidence of people leaving their own churches, at least at times, to get training for ministry (Timothy), while Scripture never states that one must get all his training for the ministry within his own church. (Obviously, it is not a sin to get training for the ministry in one’s own church, and I’m not saying that it is.)
Also, I think it is terrible if someone goes to a weak Christian college--or a pagan secular college--and has his spiritual life ruined and leaves a good church.
Also, mentoring in a church is very important. I am not arguing, and most who send kids to Christian colleges instead of pagan ones, do not argue that the college does it all and that someone fresh out of college is ready to be a senior pastor or has all the training needed to be the best of all Christian school teachers, etc.
Also, if churches can’t support their pastors in the USA in our times, one wonders how it was done for the vast majority of the church age, since an American in “poverty” and on welfare is richer than 99.9% of people who have ever lived. Paul worked because of testimony to false teachers and because at times he couldn’t get any support. The other Apostles did not. Consider 1 Cor 9:5-7: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? 7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? the “other apostles, and . . . the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas” were not working—and married at the same time, and their families were making it—so that Paul could rhetorically ask, “ Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?” So we have Paul and Barnabas working, and the vast majority of the ministers—indeed, the married ones—not working, since “the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (9:14). By the way, while I think we should be able to get a job, Paul didn’t grow up as a believer, so he doesn’t prove that the pattern is for Christian people to go to secular tentmakers to learn tentmaking—and we don’t even know that is how Paul learned to tentmake. In fact, in light of the Jewish laws that made it very difficult to work with Gentiles, Paul almost certainly learned his ability to make tents from one who was at least nationally one of God’s people—a fellow Jew. He could have learned it from his parents. Paul as a Christ-hater in his youth, learning to make tents from those who were professedly the people of God, doesn’t seem to me to be the best argument for Christian parents sending their kids to learn from the heathen.
Post a Comment