Editorial
January/February 1993
Volume 28, Number 1
Theological education and the training of ministers are important issues in the church today. Although the influence of ministers has waned somewhat due to frequently changing pastorates, the nature of the education and the training which those ministers receive, has a tremendous effect on the belief and practice of the local congregations.
Many believe that the kind and quality of education our Brethren ministers have received over the years has led to the decline in standards, membership, and spirituality of the Church of the Brethren. When students are taught a human-centered, non-supernatural theology in their seminary classes, that belief is eventually transmitted to the average person in the pew. When ministers no longer believe the Bible to be true, their listeners either follow that line of thinking or go elsewhere to hear the plain teaching of God’s Word.
At one time, quality theological scholarship was thought to be almost entirely liberal or modernistic in slant. More recently, however, conservative scholars have become prominent. Gleason Archer, F. F. Bruce, Carl F. H. Henry, Harold Lindsell, and J. I. Packer are names that quickly come to mind in this regard. These men have done much to restore high-level scholarship to the conservative wing of the church, and have promoted belief in the absolute trustworthiness of the Scriptures.
Unfortunately, our seminary and college students receive scant exposure to the works of these or other conservative scholars, and hence learn little of the arguments for the historicity and veracity of the Bible and orthodox theology. Perhaps some educators have been caught up in the “ideology” of higher criticism (as Eta Linnemann was) and have never seriously considered anything other than the liberal teachings they espouse.
It is time that our educational institutions uphold the Word of God, cast off the leaven of the historicalcritical method of Bible interpretation, and teach the soul-saving truths of orthodox, Scriptural Christianity.
BRF Involvement in Training Ministers
By Harold S. Martin
BRF staff persons are often being asked whether progress is being experienced in our concerns related to the biblical training of ministers. It has long been known that the more conservative people at the grassroots level in our congregations are not too happy with the theological slant evidenced by ministers coming out of Bethany Seminary. (That is one of the reasons for the financial crisis at Bethany; the general dissatisfaction is being voted with the pocketbook.) This essay will respond to questions related to the training of ministers.
It is imperative that more intentional effort be put into training church leaders who will be able to function well with just one or two years of good solid Bibleschool-level instruction. Many of our smaller congregations have no need for pastors with four years of college followed by three years of seminary work. The current Bethany Seminary plan to establish a Susquehanna Valley Satellite (seminary and academy) is a deliberate endeavor to make the graduate program (Master of Divinity) more readily available to a wider group of students, and also to provide a less sophisticated level of training for ministers who will limit their training to one or two years of academic study.
Because the courses offered at Bethany during the past several decades have focused on the thinking of noted theologians (Bultmann, Bonhoeffer, Barth, Niebuhr, etc.) more than on a simple study of biblical truth; and because the biblical studies which are presented are taught from the historical-critical point of view; and because there is a tendency to get caught up with the latest fads in theology (women’s spiritualities and Native American spiritual ities)–BRF has called together a number of pastors and concerned church leaders to discuss the matter of how Brethren can best prepare ministers who will be sound in the evangelical faith and in the Anabaptist/Pietist distinctives–and at the same time will learn basic skills necessary to pastor a local congregation.
Before we discuss what is happening right now in the area of ministry training projections, it will be helpful to look at two recent attempts at Bible institute training.
1) In 1974, BRF launched a summer Bible Institute (known as BBI), with classes held on rented facilities from Elizabethtown College. It was hoped in the 1970s that this would eventually become an institution for the training of pastors and church leaders-but over the years it has instead become a one week period of intensive and systematic Bible study for a wide range of people-including persons still in high school, families who come as a family unit, and ministers who come to enrich their experience with God and increase their knowledge of His Word. In 1992, nearly 100 persons from eight Church of the Brethren districts attended the one-week BBI on the campus of Elizabethtown College.
2) In the early 1980s, Wilbur (Wip) Martin became the pastor of the Church of the Brethren in Ft. Myers, Florida, and in consultation with others, he launched a Bible Institute (also known as BBI, but not connected with Brethren Revival Fellowship). His goal was to provide Bible courses on week-day mornings; to offer courses in carpentering, plumbing, home economics, etc. on Saturdays-and he hoped that potential church leaders would move to Florida, take courses on a part-time basis, and find part-time jobs in the area to financially pay for the training. Over the years only a relatively few students ever accepted that challenge, and today the Florida Brethren Biblical Institute off ers only a few correspondence courses.
From the two preceding paragraphs, the reader can see that neither BRF’s Bible Institute (summer BBI at Elizabethtown College), nor Wilbur (Wip) Martin’s Biblical Institute (BBI at Ft. Myers, Florida)–ever accomplished much by way of training preaching ministers in the Church of the Brethren. Yet there is a tremendous need for pastors-men of ability, grounded in the truth, and established in the faith!! We should not have to continually be going outside the Brotherhood to find potential leaders for Brethren congregations.
BETHANY SEMINARY PREVIOUSLY HAS FAILED
In the minds of many, Bethany Seminary is failing to prepare good Bible preachers because it has for many years taught a liberal theology. In more recent times, Bethany leaders have been talking about “a new Bethany”–not only referring to a new location (in connection with the Earlham School of Theology at Richmond, Indiana), and a new flexibility (offering satellite classes at a seminary and an academy level)–but also referring to a new “theological mix” (including liberation theology, feminist theology, environmentalist theology, evangelical theology, neo-orthodox theology, Pietist beliefs, etc.). I can without reservation say that Bethany has been teaching a liberal theology (and also that the new theological mix is being tried)–because I was asked to teach a course on Evangelical Theology at the Bethany campus in September, 1992. It was a joy to teach the course. Students and faculty alike seemed to express positive feelings about the course. One student, however, when evaluating the Evangelical Theology course (on the last day of the class) wrote on the evaluation form that the class was 11 well done,” but that Bethany should not offer the course again because “it was so far removed from what the Seminary tries to teach in their New Testament and Old Testament classes … and (was) in direct contradiction to the Seminary’s other Bible and theology classes.” That honest evaluation of my Evangelical Theology class from a sincere student says what many of us have been saying for many years.
BRF believes that Bethany Seminary has failed to continue teaching the fundamental Bible beliefs upheld by its founders. The Brethren Encyclopedia says that “the concept of a training school for Church of the Brethren leaders originated with A. C. Wieand” (Volume 1, page 125). V. F. Schwalm says that A. C. Wieand held firmly to the fundamental doctrines of evangelical Protestantism, and that “he accepted and held to the distinctive doctrines and practices of the Church of the Brethren. As to Brethren beliefs and practices, his attitude was that of a conservative” (Albert Cassel Wieand, page 128). Later, Schwalm speaks of Wieand’s contact with other “evangelical Christians,” and says that Wieand “felt that our earliest leaders such as Alexander Mack had been that kind of a Christian” (page 132). Schwalm says further that when the Seminary was in its earliest stages, “Brethren were not afraid of Bible study, but they were afraid of ‘speculative theology.’ Bethany stressed studying the Bible itself; and its curriculum took the student directly to the Bible in many of its courses. The devotion of … Hoff and Wieand to the Word was unquestioned … these Brethren had committed themselves theologically and practically to the conservative position held by the Brethren” (page 62).
And so Bethany Seminary from its very beginning was an institution that taught the Bible from a conservative evangelical point of view. We contend that Bethany has departed from its earlier stance.
BRF’s PREVIOUS EFFORTS HAVE FAILED
The Scriptures speak about the values of education. God does not place a premium on ignorance, for indeed ignorance can be a handicap. the Apostle Paul grieved over his fellow Jews when he said, “They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2). In Jeremiah 4:22, God complained that His people behaved like “stupid children” who had “no understanding.” Hosea said that his people were destroyed “for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). We read in Proverbs 1:22 that “only tools hate knowledge.” The Apostle Paul prayed that the Christians at Philippi would “overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight” (Philippians 1:9), and that the Christians at Colosse would “grow in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:10). Providing true Christian education is an important function of the church.
BRF believes that the concept of the Bible Institute (or a Bible Academy) is one valid channel for educating God’s people. In no way does formal academic education replace the need for instruction by parents in the home, nor does it relieve the local church of the task of effectively teaching God’s Word through the sermon, the Sunday School class, and small group Bible study sessions. But the Bible Institute does provide a setting for a more concentrated study, and it gives those who attend, an exposure to more dedicated and structured teaching.
The task of operating a full-scale formal institution of learning involves more time and more financial resources than BRF has been able to muster. Also, we believe an effective Bible institute (and/or seminary) for training leaders in the church who are sound in the faith, should have the broad support and undergirding of a wide spectrum of theologically conservative people. Thus, on May 2, 1991, BRF arranged to assemble nearly 100 church of the Brethren pastors and other interested persons (at the New Fairview Church of the Brethren near York, PA) to discuss the matter of good solid biblical training from a clear evangelical point of view in the Church of the Brethren. Those who attended the May 2, 1991 meeting came from 14 districts, 10 states, and 73 congregations. Out of that meeting came a committee known as the Brethren Evangelical Ministry Training Committee, charged with the task of “searching out the possibility of starting an Anabaptist, evangelical training school in the eastern Pennsylvania area,” and they were also asked to explore other ministry training issues raised at the meeting. BEMTC reported to another assembly of interested persons (held again at the New Fairview Church of the Brethren) on May 7, 1992. BEMTC rejected the idea of starting a new institution “from scratch.” Their report to the 1992 meeting reviewed possibilities of working in conjunction with Eastern Mennonite Seminary in Virginia, with Messiah College in Pennsylvania, and with Ashland Theological Seminary in Ohio-but all such plans would have too many difficulties to merit much further time for exploration.
The BEMTC did look with obvious favor upon the idea of working with the Evangelical School of Theology in Myerstown, Pennsylvania. The Evangelical School of Theology (EST) has an M.A.R. and a M.Div. program already accredited. EST also offers a Certificate of Ministry for those not wishing to pursue a degree program. EST is an unashamedly evangelical school with one Church of the Brethren member already on its governing board, and is open to hiring a full-time Church of the Brethren faculty member. EST is owned by the Evangelical Congregational Church. During the last several years, students from 30 denominations have been enrolled at EST. The second largest denominational group of students at Evangelical School of Theology are members of the Church of the Brethren. One-fourth of the student body are from Brethren, Mennonite, or Brethren in Christ churches, and thus there is a large Anabaptist presence at the Evangelical School of Theology in Myerstown, PA.
The BEMTC is also working with what is known as the Bethany Satellite Committee. That Committee is planning a satellite arm of Bethany Theological Seminary, with classes to be held in various locations in the eastern Pennsylvania area. The Susquehanna Valley satellite arm of Bethany Theological Seminary will have a headquarters office on the campus of Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, PA. The Bethany Satellite Committee proposal at this point (as BEMTC sees it) “is not the fullness of what we hope to see, but BEMTC is willing to work with Bethany Theological Seminary to whatever degree it feels it can.” One of the basic matters of concern is related to the faith stance of those who will be chosen by Bethany to teach the courses at the satellite school. The BEMTC believes that if Bethany is really open to change, and is serious about projecting a new image–then the Seminary will not choose professors who are groomed in the old more liberal system. The BEMTC will hardly recommend continuing to court Bethany Theological Seminary after 1993 unless there are some staff additions, and a new focus on the evangelical faith. Being truly Brethren involves more than teaching the peace stance. To promote peacemaking and then pooh-pooh those who sincerely accept the Virgin Birth, the miracles of the Bible, and the traditional authors of the Bible books-is a mark of tremendous inconsistency. For BEMTC to participate with Bethany Seminary, it expects that Anabaptist evangelicals will be more than “a voice” among many voices.
And so on May 6, 1993, God permitting, those interested in a sound, biblical, evangelical, Anabaptist-oriented training program for church leaders in the Church of the Brethren, will meet at the New Fairview Church of the Brethren, and once more will survey what might be the best direction to pursue in the realm of training people for effective ministry in the church. People who would like more information about the program being offered at EST should write to Evangelical School of Theology, 121 S. College St., Myerstown, PA 17067. Bethany Seminary will produce information about its satellite in Pennsylvania.
