There are two conflicting philosophies of developing or handling young preachers in training, whether still in school or out in the field. One is to thrust a continuing series of hurdles and handicaps in their pathway, making progress difficult. This tests their mettle and determination, putting them to the stretch intellectually in application and in grace. In other words,'it is the familiar process of eliminating the less hardy and unfit, the easily discouraged, and those without a profound conviction that God has called them. Under such a procedure they conquer every yard they advance.
This is the favorite and approved method with some educators, taken over from the world's theory of the survival of the fittest. The chief emphasis is upon the intellectual. The supreme test is scholarship and efficiency. Through this process the cream is skimmed from the residue. Those who survive this grueling process usually develop certain valuable qualities that will stand them in good stead in the exacting battle and march of life.
The other philosophy, or concept, is to save for service every potential preacher who can be counseled, molded, and built up for service. Not a few of our most successful soul winners and ministerial administrative leaders today were a perplexity to some of their teachers and friends in their younger days. Others were not exceptionally brilliant in certain scholastic branches. They were slow thinkers. Still others had certain drawbacks—perhaps a slight impediment of speech. But they had substantial qualities, latent talents, grit, and grace.
Some of these had a teacher, a friend, or a conference president who sensed -their inherent possibilities, who believed in them when others shook the head and said, "Let's apply the process of elimination." And their subsequent records have justified such faith and confidence. In fact, they have often surpassed those brilliant students who sprang up quickly into prominence in the classroom, but not having depth or persistence, soon fell out by the wayside—passed by the plodder with consecration and conviction and latent capacities for growth.
The first method is the academic procedure of the world. It used to be applied in schools of medicine when there was an excess of students. Its demand is intellectual achievement and a high I.Q.—and it has certain advantages.
The second is the Master's, and is the really Christian method. It places the soul and the character above all other considerations. Its goal is to train for service even the less promising whom God is calling. If this method had not been emphasized and employed in the past, our cause would have been immeasurably poorer. If Christ had not used it, many of the apostles would have been eliminated.
The latter method is harder on the teachers .and leaders who train students or interns, but it pays rich dividends in the end. Sheer intellectualism without balancing qualities is the curse of the religious bodies about us. God forbid that such a fallacious concept should ever be fastened upon us. Let us love, understand, believe in, conserve, and truly train our youth for God's service.
L. E. F.
