Our college Bible teaching shortage has become highly critical in its proportions. Our older teachers, of a while back, have retired or died. Few of them trained any successors, and there has not been a long-range denominational provision for a constant supply of capable Bible teachers to meet our growing needs. Moreover, our college enrollment has doubled in the last decade. Consequently, we now face a disturbing shortage today.
The reasons are many. One factor, among others, is that the Bible teacher is frequently the target of constant criticism by his brethren. He is watched as few other men are. His words and teachings are dissected and analyzed. The evangelist, the pastor, and the editor, and particularly the officer and the departmental secretary, pass by a host of difficult points in their public ministry that cannot and must not be avoided by those conducting systematic studies in the college classroom. That very fullness of exposition, unfortunately, results in much criticism from both workers and laity on the side lines. Many teachers are not willing to be the object of this constant barrage of criticism. We must change our attitudes toward Bible teachers if we expect strong young men of promise to be attracted to this fundamental phase of service.
Moreover, our colleges have made tangible provision and investment in teachers of science, history, education, and other branches. But all too often they have failed to make similar provision for their Bible teachers. When in need of a Bible teacher, they have usually followed the practice of calling a qualified man from another school. The result of such failure to provide against the inevitable shortage, together with our expanding needs, has produced one of our most acute denominational problems today. There simply are not enough experienced Bible teachers to go around.
It must be admitted that such a specialized training program is not as simple as might first appear. It may be considered a relatively simple matter to get advanced training in science, mathematics, history, education, and literature, as well as in Biblical languages and archaeology. But even in general university work there is distinct peril. Where, then, will one go for comparable training in Bible teaching from those not of the Seventh-day Adventist faith? Is it to be found in the noted theological seminaries and the celebrated university divinity schools of the world? In these seminaries and divinity schools modernism has largely taken possession—modernism that is virtually infidelic in its attitude and implications, and the champion of the basic departures from the faith. The Bible is an emasculated relic of the past, according to their teachings. The principles of the social gospel, psychology, psychiatry, and ethics predominate.
These institutions form the inner heart of the Babylon of confusion and apostasy from which we are commissioned to call men to separate. Shall we then place our future Bible teachers of the everlasting gospel in such institutions to sit at the feet of men who have abandoned many of the fundamentals of the gospel ? Some of these institutions will no longer permit a fundamentalist to graduate, as they deem such to be unworthy representatives of the broad concepts and accepted standards of their institutions. They relegate prophecy to the past—or to oblivion. No, Bible-teacher training in such institutions is illogical, impractical, perilous, and unthinkable. Another course must be found.
Shall we then send our Bible teachers to fundamentalist institutions for advanced training under men who still believe in the virgin birth, the literal resurrection, the miracles, and the deity of Christ, as well as the inspiration of the Bible? They usually repudiate evolution and believe in the second advent. At first thought, it might seem safer to send our men there. But while modernists are generally more liberal toward those who differ from them, fundamentalists are becoming increasingly bitter and bigoted toward Seventh-day Adventists. The chief opposition toward us now stems from this militant group. They emphasize prophecy, but they have swung over, almost to a man, to the vagaries of futurism. Prophecy is utterly distorted in their hands. They fight us over the air. They denounce us in classroom, pulpit, and press. They oppose our public evangelism. There is no sympathy and no possible fellowship with such.
Shall we then seek to get our oncoming Bible teachers into these fundamentalist institutes to imbibe the sophisms of futurism, and the many extreme and un-Biblical positions held, which we cannot condone? They, too, are part of that bewildered Babylon that opposes bitterly the distinctive, threefold message of God for today. To plan on such a procedure in our training for the Bible teaching of this message is likewise irrational, anomalous, and impossible.
But why do we want to send our Bible teachers to either type of the world's divinity schools or seminaries? For one thing, we embarked years ago on an accrediting program that, despite assertions to the contrary, nevertheless influences our courses and affects our emphasis. Accreditation demands a certain number of doctorates on the faculty in key positions. This is imperative, and must be provided whatever the cost. This is just beginning to be felt.
For the Bible department to appear inferior in strength and attainment, creates a handicap. Bible teachers naturally feel that they should have the same standing, respect, and recognition as any other department. In fact, the Bible department should stand at the head, because of its primary importance. Therefore there is grave danger that our institutional boards shall seek someone with a doctorate to head the Bible department, rather than a giant in the Word. That policy would be catastrophic. It is a thorough, deep, loyal knowledge of the Word and the ability to impart it, and the faculty of inspiring intelligent, dynamic faith in God, His Word, and His specific movement for these last days, that is our paramount need in the Bible departments of our colleges.
What, then, is the solution? Just this: We have an institution (the S.D.A. Theological Seminary) prepared to give the one-year Master's graduate degree in theology, Biblical languages, archaeology, and church history, and soon, we hope, in practical theology. More than that, due provision has been made for granting the full two-year Bachelor of Theology degree. This provision should be strengthened, perfected, and carried into effect. Here, in Adventist environs, under Adventist teachers, and in the midst of Adventist beliefs and ideals, our Bible teachers can receive their training for the instruction of our youth in Adventism. The Seminary board is seeking to strengthen the faculty to this end, and to add experts for special courses. Let us use our own theological-training institution for its designated purpose, just as we train our physicians in our own medical college. The need is imperative. The logic cannot be gainsaid. The case is clear. Then let us proceed with this wise plan.
Our Bible emphasis does not fit into the scheme of the world's educational curriculum. Accrediting organizations recognize that our Bible departments are distinctively Adventist. They frankly advise us to train our own Bible teachers. They tell us to meet our own objectives—which we alone can do—and to develop along the line of our founding purposes. We need to heed this sane and competent counsel, which also comports with the counsels of the Spirit of prophecy. As a matter of fact, these divinity schools do not give as many actual Bible courses as our Seminary does at present.
The pathway of the years has been strewn with the wrecked faith of men who have gone to the universities for training—and a few who have gone to the divinity schools and seminaries of the world. Their viewpoints, emphasis, and fundamental objectives have been turned and warped, and in time they have left us. It is entirely possible that some who are still with us have unconsciously absorbed ideas and attitudes which, if carried to their ultimate, would emasculate the distinctiveness of this message, blunt the certainties of our faith, and cut the nerve of our evangelism. Such a course would muffle, if not nullify, distinctive adventism. That must not be. Let us hold fast our denominational integrity. Positive, not negative, adventism must prevail.
We cannot send our men to the fountain springs of apostasy and repudiation of God's message and expect them to come out untainted. By beholding we become changed. By absorbing we become altered. We cannot take fire into our bosoms without being burned, and without sometimes being seared and deadened. We cannot seek the gods of Ekron without disaster. Our pathway is clear. Let us walk therein.
This issue is more than a departmental, an institutional, or a regional matter. It is distinctively a denominational problem. The Bible teacher is more than merely a teacher. He is an ordained minister, teaching the Bible in the classroom to our future members and workers in every line. More than that, he is the trainer of our preachers-to-be. While the ministers of the church mold the life of the church, the Bible teacher is the molder of the ministers in training. He is therefore in a paramount position. The question before us is consequently broader and more comprehensive than simply a departmental one. It touches the entire movement, its welfare and its destinies. We are all involved in this vital issue.
L. E. F.
