THE DIRECTOR'S PERSPECTIVE A. AN INDEX OF SOME PRELIMINARY PROS AND CONS By C. Emanuel Carlson* During the recent years of debate on whether or not church-related colleges should be given public funds in one form of "aid" or another, many arguments have been presented. In order to conserve the time of the conference participants the Director of the Baptist Joint Committee has listed those arguments most frequently used. He has also put down the answer most frequently heard. He has not assumed that a count of the arguments will have any significance. One particular consideration may outweigh all other considerations. The list is introduced to hasten the processes of refinement, evaluation, and weighting which are necessary to opinion formation in Affairs. Churches should be free to maintain colleges in such number and with such programs as they can afford. The survival of a college is not a church problem except as it contributes to the goals of the church. In terms of church interest demise takes place when church-relatedness Dr. Carlson is the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public There is no way in which to screen the "church-related" institutions from the "public" institutions because the former vary all the way from the private institutions which have a religious background but are now independent to those that are owned and operated as an integral part of the ministry of a church. All kinds of institutions teach the same courses, are accredited by the same associations, transfer credit, and make the same contributions to society and the public interests. To accept natural law as the basis of policy for the churches is to ignore Christian revelation which is the reason for being of the Christian churches. The judgments of rational men are largely influenced by expedience. Even the best judgments reflect the thought and the experiences of those making such judgments. There must be a way of differentiating the Christian college which exists for the purposes of the church and the gospel from those that exist for the purposes of the community and/or the nation. If there are no differences, then churches must restudy their use of missionary money in the field of higher education to find criteria by which to judge the validity of their investment. Pro 6. The constitution The "no establishment" clause of the U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent the setting up of one official church or the providing of preferential treatment for one or more churches. It did not aim to prevent government from friendly interest in and support of religion as a normal part of life and education. The "wall of separation" is not in the Constitution. Con At least three times in the past 14 years the Supreme Court has said that the Constitution does not permit the government to give aid even to "all religion. Such aid, even though given to all churches, does mean an "establishment," and it also means interference with the "free exercise" of religion because "free exercise" certainly means freedom to participate or not to participate in supporting the churches in their higher educational work. II. Arguments Dealing with Practical Distinctions Between Higher Education and Education at Elementary and Secondary Levels 3. Indoctrination Pro At the elementary and secondary levels much of the training is ideological, and teaching is authoritarian. Public support for such sectarian education at the elementary and secondary levels is not to be compared with public support for a community of free scholars where students and teachers think and act as they please. This freedom of thought and the interchange of credits tends to erase the distinction between sectarian and nonsectarian education at the college level. Con College age is the most effective time for emphasis on the Christian faith and ideas. This is when students make up their own minds and make life decisions. The evaluation of college work is demonstrated by the great efforts of Protestant denominations in this field as compared with the lower levels. Furthermore, if the argument were valid it would seem to mean that churches should not use "missionary money" for purposes of higher education. In fact, denominational schools are not and cannot be as free as this argument proposes. |