In view of the recently stepped-up efforts to promote congregational support of Bible colleges, and in view of the seriousness of the consequences of s u c h an erroneous practice, I have determined to write a few articles dealing w it h this issue from an historical point of view with the hope that these articles might somehow contribute something that will assist in awakening brethren to a sufficient opposition to this practice to eliminate its possibility.

A short time before the publication recently of Batsell Baxter's tract advocating church support of colleges, which tract certainly must be considered the kick-off of the renewed drive, the editor of the FIRM FOUNDATION published from Austin, Texas wrote:

Early in these controversies, we pointed out on this page that we felt that the orphan home question' was not the real heart of the present issue. It was said here after brethren had fought the 'orphan home issue through, that later others would urge the 'college in the budget' issue and claim that it had been settled by the orphan home controversy. (Lately the air is filled with rumors of a great campaign soon to be launched by one of the colleges to put the college in the budget.') Whether these rumors are true we do not propose to say. We hope they are false. Time alone will tell.

There are, however, some significant straws in the wind. Numerous 'special occasion' speeches have advocated the idea. In some lectureship programs the panel discussions and key speeches are carefully packed with speakers who favor the college in the budget. We have heard a few of these speeches and have read the manuscripts of others. We have noted the unnatural circulation given to tracts, articles and books that advocate the idea. There is no way to disclaim the great softening up propaganda program that is under way. Coming events cast their shadows before.

We believe that thinking brethren will rebel against this liberalism. If such a campaign is launched, its launchers should be warned beforehand that their campaign would put brethren at each other's throats in almost every congregation in the land. And we have already had enough of that. It would surely be hypocritical to decry the great flood of animosity that has recently stanched the brotherhood, and at the same time be chief contributor to an even greater sea of trouble."

Brother Lemmons apparently had "inside information" on the intentions of the liberal brethren with whom he has sustained closer contact than have some of the rest of us. Many of us had been suspecting an imminent renewal of this drive, but Brother Lemmons was able to predict it almost to the day. He must, therefore, have directly known that it was coming. Well, its here now!

As brethren have discussed "pro" and "con" the orphan home issue for the last ten or so years, there have been those among the defenders of congregational support of the institutional orphan homes who steadfastly have maintained that they were strongly opposed to congregational support of colleges. The time is now upon us so that we can see if their stated opposition was merely "sales talk," or whether they are ready to make a fight to prevent churches from contributing to colleges. If these brethren are as strong in their opposition as they have lead us to believe, articles will now literally pour from their pens. Watch for them! But frankly, I am afraid they will never come.

Most of these brethren have so committed themselves to congregational support of the institutional orphan home as to render any argument from their pens on church support of colleges virtually punch less. But it would be encouraging to see them at least make the attempt to thwart the present movement. These brethren also have formed such steadfast fraternal ties with those opposing those of us who oppose the church contributing to any human institution that it appears unrealistic now to expect them strongly to oppose their cohorts. I sincerely hope, however, that my judgment in this particular is in error.

Throughout the current controversies, discerning brethren have felt that the church support of colleges was the issue, and that the orphan home controversy had been injected only to draw attention from the real issue. It now appears that this judgment was exactly correct. The real fight is going to be waged over congregational support of colleges. If you doubt this to be true, just hang around a few years and see!

Nearly as long as there have been colleges operated by the brethren, there have been some efforts made to secure funds from congregations to support them. And as long as there have been such efforts made to secure congregational support for the colleges, there have been those faithful brethren opposed to such a movement.

Thus if one wanted to give this issue a complete historical treatment, he would have to proceed well into the past century in order to begin at the commencement of the controversy. However, in this series of articles I intend to begin in more modern times.

The men who have been determined that churches shall contribute to the support of the colleges have never relented in their efforts. Temporarily, on a few occasions, because of exigencies within the brotherhood, and because brotherhood sentiment then seemed to indicate such open advocacy would be inexpedient, little has been said publicly. But these determined men, and their successors, have come back again and again to beat the same old drums. They are drumming again now!

The beginning of the church support of colleges controversy in modern times would have to be dated in 1938, now more than a quarter of a century ago. Time passes rapidly. New generations quickly arise. Some may have forgotten the details of the 1938 controversy, and others may never have heard about it. Thus this attempts to trace historically the controversy from then till now. I hope such a series of articles will awaken hundreds and thousands to the titanic struggle now before us. Faithful men must stand shoulder to shoulder if the battle is to be won.

The annual lecture program at Abilene Christian College was held in late February in 1938. On Wednesday evening, during the lectures, a report was given to those attending the program on past accomplishments of the school. Some future objectives of the school also were discussed after which forms were distributed among the audience for the use of those who wished to contribute to the college. While these forms were being distributed, G. C. Brewer, well-known gospel preacher, though now deceased, was asked to make a few extemporaneous remarks.

In the course of these remarks Brewer suggested that if all the churches in Texas would contribute to the support and endowment of the school, such requests as then were being made would be unnecessary. He also stated, though perhaps light-heartedly, that the church that did not have Abilene Christian College in its budget just had the wrong preacher!

W. W. Otey, aged gospel preacher then living at Crane, Texas heard Brewer's speech. It greatly upset him. Otey had to leave Abilene Thursday morning early, and thus had no opportunity to discuss with Brewer what he had said the night before. But as soon as he arrived home, Otey, in a letter dated February 27, 1938, wrote Brewer and told him what he had understood him to say at Abilene. Otey added that he hoped that he had misunderstood him. But on March 2nd, Brewer replied:

"As to my statement at the College, you did not misunderstand me, but you left of I a part of the statement that I think should be included. I said that I had argued for the practice of putting the colleges and orphan's homes in the congregational budgets anti I would be willing to argue for it again, if arguments were necessary."

Brewer's letter went on to argue that since the founding of Bethany College in 1840 by Alexander Campbell, some churches had contributed to colleges. He further stated that many leading brethren favored it, and that a considerable number of the leading and best churches were right then contributing to Abilene Christian College. This, Brewer said, he was prepared to prove.

This exchange of letters led to a more open controversy. Otey replied that whether many of the leading churches or all of the schools from Bethany to Abilene practiced congregational support of colleges did not prove such a practice to be scriptural, in the total absence of any scriptural authority for the practice. Otey further said that if Brewer's statement that he was willing to argue the matter again, if argument were necessary, constituted a challenge to debate the matter, Brewer could consider his challenge as accepted.

Otey added in his reply:

"The position I occupy places the matter on at least a safe basis from a scriptural point, will make for peace, disarm the few enemies of the schools, make many new friends, and in the end prove best for the schools themselves. While your position is, to say the very least, open to doubt, will arm their enemies, alienate many who are seriously questioning this matter, and mark my words, lead in the end to another rupture in the church of the Lord." (Letter to G. C. Brewer, March 5, 1938)

The passing of a quarter of a century has witnessed the fulfillment of Otey's prophetic statement.

Otey could not believe that Brewer's statement represented the thinking and desire of the men who headed the five schools then operated by members of the Churches of Christ. He, therefore, wrote to each college President asking for a clear statement regarding his position on the matter. As there has been much controversy regarding these events, and inasmuch as the originals of these letters are in my possession, I want to quote from the replies that these Presidents made.

J. N. Armstrong was not then the President of Harding College. George S. Benson, then President, was out of town when Otey's letter of inquiry came. Since Otey had not met Benson, but knew Armstrong quite well, he, therefore, addressed his letter to Armstrong. Armstrong replied:

"As you know, doubtless, Harding College has never appealed to Churches as Churches for help. This has always been my position and the position of every college over which I have presided. When we were in discussion with Brother Summer in 1906, 1 think, we stated in the discussion that if it would settle the trouble we would from then on out return any contribution sent from a Church, as a Church. We stated then that we had never solicited funds from Churches, nor would we do it, but that sometimes when we appealed for help the brethren would in congregation (s) take a special collection and send it to us, and that we had accepted such contributions. I don't think it wrong for a church to do this; else I could not in good conscience have accepted the collection. But I think that is poor business for both the Church and the College. Besides for the sake of unity among brethren I could never resort to that method to raise money for the College. I am glad to restate this all to you now." (J. N. Armstrong in a letter to Otey, June 6, 1938)

When Brother Benson returned from his trip, he also wrote Otey:

"At Harding College it has been our general practice to solicit individual contributions. We expect to continue on this same basis. I do not recall having ever asked a congregation to make a gift as a congregation from the regular church treasury. It is my conviction, however Brother Otey, that it would not be wrong for a congregation to make a gift to a Bible school from the regular treasury of the church. But as a matter of policy I consider it best to solicit individual contributions." (George S. Benson in a letter to Otey, June 7, 1938)

James F. Cox, President of Abilene Christian College, wrote:

"It is probably best that all money the college raises from now on should be through individuals. I have never, myself, raised nor have I authorized any one to raise any money through the churches. We have received some money sent by the churches directly. They prefer to do it that way. I have never felt that I should return the money to them and tell them to parcel it Out and send it individually . . . I regret that Brother Brewer mentioned the matter the other night. We asked him to say a few words to encourage the people to give to A. C. C., but we did not authorize him to make a statement about churches putting A. C. C. in their budgets." (James F. Cox in a letter to Otey, March 4, 1938)

E. H. Ijams, President of David Lipscomb College wrote:

"For your information I am glad to say that during the time that I have been connected with David Lips-comb College, and so far as I know during its entire history, its directors and faculty have never appealed to churches for financial support. Our appeal has always been addressed to individuals, not to congregations as such. In a few cases known to me, congregations have made certain donations to the school, usually for the benefit of certain needy and deserving students. Such unsolicited contributions were accepted though not solicited. It is my conception, shared, I think, by all our directors and faculty members, that the church and the Christian college are distinct institutions. The Christian college, as we conceive it, functions mainly as a supplement to the home, aiding fathers and mothers to give their children an education that harmonizes with Christian faith, not as an adjunct to the church." (E. H. Ijams in a letter to Otey, June 30, 1938)

N. B. Hardeman, President of Freed-Hardeman College, in a curt letter of only eight lines in handwriting replied:

"I am truly sorry that we can not get settled on matters relating to our schools and the churches. I certainly do not endorse Brother Brewer's statements and would oppose any congregations putting FreedHardeman College in their budget." (N. B. Hardeman in a letter to Otey, June 16, 1938)

Otey felt these college presidents at present were unwilling to join hands with Brewer in a concerted effort to worm the colleges into congregational treasuries. He felt their letters indicated this unwillingness.

Armed with these letters, Otey now felt ready to go before the brethren with some up-to-date information on the issue through the pages of the FIRM FOUNDATION. Showalter shared Otey's fears on this issue at this time, and therefore, gladly printed Otey's articles. (W. W. Otey, "Bible Colleges," FIRM FOUNDATION, Vol. LV. Nos. 31, 32 (August 2,1938), p. 1; (August 9, 1938), p. 1) These articles were given first page notice, and were also later printed in tract form by the FIRM FOUNDATION.

In the tract, Otey prefaced the articles by a statement that "we" have always been very critical of the practices of others, and had always flattered ourselves that "we" were always willing for our teaching and practices to be examined in the light of scripture. Yet, he said, in some things we are about as sensitive of criticism as our religious neighbors. "That about which we have manifested most sensitiveness is 'Bible Colleges.'" (W. W. Otey, A Tract Entitled, "Bible Colleges," p. 2.)

In this tract Otey discussed the subject of "Bible Colleges" under three headings: (1)

Their relation to the Church; (2) Their advantages; and (3) Their dangers. He began by stating:

This writer has never opposed one man or a company of men establishing what is commonly called a Bible College. He has never opposed asking any individuals to give money to build and support such an educational institution. He has never opposed teaching us much or as little of the word of God in them by their managers as they could or desired, but has rejoiced in all such teaching . . . But this writer has from the first opposed with all his power, the church as a whole or as congregations owning such institutions . . . But he has opposed, and will continue to oppose, linking such schools vitally, officially and organically connecting them with the church

These articles and their repercussions we will discuss in an article to follow.

Truth Magazine VIII: 9, pp. 2-5 June 1964