EDITOR, THE MINISTRY
In a recent issue of THE MINISTRY you refer to the great dearth of Bible teachers, and give as one cause the attacks to which our men in this line of work are exposed in matters of doctrine.
As you mention, this charge is almost without exception based upon interpretations in secondary and relatively minor fields of thought. But you might be surprised to know how prevalent is this type of sniping. Generally the critic sets up as the standard of orthodoxy those beliefs which he has firmly held for years. Any deeper, broader meaning, any better explanation, is "new," and ipso facto, questionable. He even overlooks the peculiar circumstance that what in some cases is labeled "new" is older than the so-called "old" idea that he propounds.
But there are other factors that make the profession of Bible teaching less attractive than it should be to many a promising student. Financially speaking, the Bible teacher, at least until recently, has suffered in comparison with those of his brethren who are engaged in very similar work outside the educational sphere. Whereas the district worker, the pastors, and the departmental men all get a yearly depreciation rate on their automobiles, the Bible teacher has had to get along without this help, or with considerably less.
No one can deny, for obvious reasons, that our workers generally drive their cars many miles each year in the interests of the Lord's work. Nor should it be forgotten that these men carry the brunt of the work in building and maintaining the basic structure of the denomination. Nevertheless, the Bible teacher is engaged fundamentally in the same type of activity. He is active in all church relations, assists at camp meetings, aids in field plans, and does a great deal of promotional work. In spite of this, the financial help given him has been relatively low. My point is not that he expects to get as much as his noninstitutional brethren, but that he is tempted to feel that since either field of endeavor is the Lord's work, and both types of activity require a car, he might as well be engaged in the field ministry. Students coming up along the line, and having that car hunger that is peculiar to Americans, are inclined to decide against the occupation in which the advantages in this category are less.
Next, take the matter of the work load. The student who is contemplating entering either the ministry or the teaching profession sees that the Bible teacher is busy seven days a week. Since he is expected to be a pillar of the school church, and one of the mainstays of the Sabbath school, his Sabbath responsibilities almost equal those of week days. Again, he has a fixed load of hours to teach, a program which holds him to a set schedule month in and month out. There are practically no days off, for he works Sundays too. The vacations that come in the course of the school year hardly compensate for the constant overload that is so much a part of the pattern.
The conference worker, on the other hand, has a more flexible program. Seldom do you find one who is not able to take off a few days here and a few days there. Some are actually able to manage a day off a week. There is, in short, no rigid accounting for time, as must be the case with the teacher who meets a fixed and unvarying schedule. Therefore the student often feels drawn to the freer, more independent type of service.
If the prospective worker is somewhat ambitious for position—and unfortunately many are —he needs to reflect but little before choosing the ministry in preference to teaching. He sees that membership on conference committees and institutional boards and "promotion" to important executive positions are far more likely to be attained as the rewards for successful administrative work in pastoral or district work, than as a recognition of successful teaching experience, and rightly so. He sees that the teacher is usually not included in the important policy-making and money-voting groups. Personal and selfish ambition often furnishes the basic motivating force in the careers of young people who make their own decisions as to their future, and leave nothing for the Lord to indicate.
Again, as to qualifications. The theological student sees that a bachelor of theology degree will usually carry him as far as he aspires to go in the denominational organization after graduation. Common sense, an attractive personality, leadership, executive ability, a good "business head"—all mellowed and seasoned by experience—these are the Open Sesames. But the Bible teacher, on the other hand, must go on to higher levels of study in order to speak with comparable authority. And here he faces a dilemma. In order to be of full value in an accreditation sense, he needs advanced work, generally his doctorate in philosophy.
Church history, archaeology, and Biblical languages offer relatively safe fields of activity. But even though his interests do not lie in these directions primarily, a degree is necessary, if only for window dressing. So to avoid the taint of heresy, he must earn his degree in a relatively unrelated field. Then the greater the distance from his central subject—Seventh-day Adventist theology—the safer he is, and the more likely .to be passed by his examiners, who might look askance at anyone naive and unobjective enough to accept and practice primitive Christian ethics. Whatever might be argued in connection with this point, it must be conceded that even minimum requirements in this direction take time and effort and money. The young minister travels a short cut by comparison—not for him is the journey through this labyrinth, with all of its attendant risks and dangers.
Another dilemma arises from the attitude of his brethren. If he takes advanced work bearing definitely on theology in undenominational institutions, this, naturally, makes him rather "suspect." If, on the other hand, he attends our own seminary, he fails, according to many, to meet what is considered the ideal desired by accrediting associations.
Furthermore, the idea persists in some quarters that Bible teaching is a type of work that anyone can do. If there is no one to carry this department, the subjects are farmed out among the rest of the staff. Bible is easy to teach ! If one has been in the truth a few years and has gone to one of our colleges, he is automatically qualified to present the most important part of the school's curriculum ! But just because our teachers have all spoken English from childhood, we do not feel justified in having any of them carry our English classes, except in emergency.
First cousin to the foregoing is the idea that Bible teaching is a line of work to be engaged in only when there is nothing else to do. That is to say, men should spend the best years of their lives in the ministry or in evangelism, and then, when age or ill health slows down their progress, they should then enter the field of teaching. The impression is gained that no ambitious young man, no promising student, should give first consideration to this profession. This is wrong. It cannot be stated often enough that the best is none too good for this responsible service.
This dearth of Bible teachers, it seems to me, lays us open to serious criticism as to our whole system of education. That a people dedicated first, last, and always to the Bible; that a people whose only reason for existence is the carrying of the Advent message to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people; that a people who expect to be tested and measured, individually and collectively, by the doctrines and practices they derive from this Book—that such a people should today be without an adequate force of men trained in the teaching of the Book, is one of the gravest indictments of negligence and spiritual myopia that can possibly be brought against us.
What would the messenger of the Lord say if she were alive today? Can we wonder that young people have shown so little interest in this field when we as a denomination have failed so miserably in recognizing its high importance, and come so far short in meeting its paramount claims? It is time that our own sense of urgency should impel us to give to the whole matter of Bible teaching the same attention that accreditation has forced us to pay to educational matters in general. If we had always acted in accord with our professed aims, we should not today be a people robbed of a portion of our birthright.
We need a master plan for the training of first-class Bible teachers, a plan that will attract some of the finest young people in the denomination. We need college textbooks in denominational history and doctrinal courses. Teachers could write these, but they would need sabbatical leave to handle the assignment acceptably. Some of the energy now being dissipated in earning degrees of doubtful value might be more profitably spent in producing such books for our educational system. Not many of the Bible textbooks we now use could be handed, without embarrassment, to any critical accreditation committee.
Administrators at large ought to see how greatly the success of the whole work is dependent on an immediate improvement in this field. More able Bible teachers will help to train more able ministers. Fewer and poorer Bible teachers will produce fewer and poorer ministers. It is almost that simple.
My discourse has been largely negative in character, since it seeks to point out, rather amateurishly, what to my mind are some of the factors which have hurt the profession to which I have, for one, dedicated my life. It is hardly necessary to state that there are wonderful compensations and a deep satisfaction for the man who feels He has been called to serve in this capacity. Certainly no man who is influenced by the negative phases pointed out should ever enter this portion of the vineyard. The shortage is acute, and will continue to be so for some years. It is imperative that we explore the situation thoroughly and suggest long-range remedial measures.
CHARLES E. WITTSCHIEBE. [Instructor in Bible, Southern Missionary College.]
