Review Editor Suggests Close Ties to Church Promote Health of Colleges
Memorial Church, Harvard University
Is the secret of Seventh-day Adventist higher education’s relative success owed to its close ties to its parent church?
That question was posed by Bill Knott, editor of the Adventist Review, at the end of an hour-long presentation on Saturday, February 9. Knott spoke at the Southwestern Chapter meeting of the Association of Adventist Forums, meeting in Wharton Auditorium on the campus of Southwestern Adventist University in Keene, Texas.
Following the theme, “Denominational Colleges: Some Cautionary Tales,” Knott compared the history of three similar colleges, each founded in the 1800s by similar denominations, and each college with the initials “A.U.”
Knott noted that most colleges and universities in the United States started off as religious institutions. Founded in 1636, Harvard University was established and known for the first two hundred years of its existence as primarily a training school for Congregationalist ministers. Knott noted that the route taken by the now-decidedly secular university was followed by many others.
Aurora University was founded in Illinois by the Advent Christian Church. Like Seventh-day Adventists, Advent Christians were an expression of the Millerite movement, according to Knott. In the mid-1800s, Advent Christians were better known than Seventh-day Adventists. Aurora University was founded in 1893 by Advent Christians to train teachers and Bible workers.
However, Aurora University suffered theological setbacks in the 1920s common to many other Christian schools at that time. Aurora was not viewed as conservative enough in comparison to some other schools, and gradually the pool of conservative Christian students available to Aurora began to dry up. In the 1930s, the school became accredited, and gradually became more of a liberal arts college. In 1971, the school officially severed all links to the Advent Christian Church.
Knott stated that the Advent Christian Church has not grown in members since the 1800s. Today there are about fifty thousand Advent Christians in the world, with 40 percent of them in the United States. No longer associated with the Advent Christian Church, and with no reference to religion, God, or Christianity in its mission statement, Aurora University is a liberal arts school of about two thousand students, with only a few Advent Christians attending as students.
Alfred University was founded in upstate New York by Seventh-day Baptists, first as an academy, then as a college. It has the distinction of being one of the first colleges in America to accept women, African-Americans, and Native Americans as students. Knott noted that Seventh-day Baptists had an early influence on Sabbatarian Adventists. There was so much cross-pollination in the 1800s, according to Knott, that the Review used to publish articles from Seventh-day Baptists.
At the founding of their college in 1836, the Seventh-day Baptist Church had six thousand members, compared to thirty-five hundred Seventh-day Adventists. But between 1882 and 1910, the Seventh-day Adventist Church went from one senior college to twenty.
By the 1920s, Alfred University was looking for other sources for students, as there were not enough Seventh-day Baptists to fill the school each year. Although it is still loosely affiliated with its church, today Alfred University is another private, liberal arts college.
According to Knott, Alfred Center, New York, still has some shops that close on Saturday in honor of the school’s founders. One Seventh-day Baptist still teaches on the faculty and one or two Seventh-day Baptist students still attend.
If one goes back to the founding of Battle Creek College in 1874, Andrews University is recognized as the oldest college in the Seventh-day Adventist school system. This and many other colleges grew out of the educational vision of the early pioneers and Ellen G. White in the 1870s. Despite constant friction between denominational leaders and the school administration, Andrews University has continually maintained a close connection with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In fact, today it is officially recognized as a General Conference institution.
“Despite the friction it has suffered over the past 135 years, it has weathered the decades much more intact than Alfred University or Aurora University,” said Knott. “It continues to serve and recruit Seventh-day Adventist students from its constituent base, and continues to search for and employ Seventh-day Adventists on its faculty.”
Knott presented a couple of theories for the differences in success of the three institutions. First, the success could be tied to a unique mix of theological ideas in the parent churches. Second, the close ties to their churches could have impacted the schools.
Knott chose the second theory as most viable, and pointed out that the mission statement for Andrews University clearly spelled out its Christian mission and the fact that it was a Seventh-day Adventist school. Knott added that Andrews’ mission statement was not unique in that regard, but that most other Adventist college and university mission statements say essentially the same thing.
Knott ended his presentation by asking: Is the secret of Adventist education’s relative success owed to its close ties to its parent church?
“Some suggest, ‘If we loosen our ties of affiliation we would still be promoting Christianity, but will be able to appeal to a broader student base,’” said Knott. “My response is that those who want to sever ties had best be prepared to deal with the dead. Every Adventist college grew to where it is today based on the sacrifice, passion, and prayers of its pioneers. What will you say to them?”
Glen Robinson is a professor in the Communication Department at Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas.
Search
- Michael on Survivalist Eschatology
- Tom Zwemer on Survivalist Eschatology
- Johnny A. Ramirez on Survivalist Eschatology
- Zane on Survivalist Eschatology
- Dalmatian on Cosmic Crises
- Nic Samojluk on Seventh-day Adventists United Against the Wall Street Bailout
- Nic Samojluk on A Review of Marvin Moore’s Challenges to the Remnant
- orthodoxymoron on Survivalist Eschatology
- Stephanie on Survivalist Eschatology
- Rich Hannon on Survivalist Eschatology
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Glen,
Great post- I agree! And locally!
I do think there was a time when congregations were as invested in the health of their union's college as they are with local academies today.
Which isn't saying much because many academies fail to create ties with newer congregations. This is seen not only in contributions but more importantly the makeup of boards of academies- the key being the sense of ownership individual congregations have for their academy.
For a variety of reasons many congregations are not active in Adventist education in their district. Stretching from ideological (progressive or conservative) or ethnic (i.e. newer Hispanic congregations not being embraced by white schools) churches can become disengaged from Adventist education. Some of our congregations even have non-Adventist schools on their church grounds.
So when we look at Atlantic Union College for example the relationship that matters isn't that with the Atlantic Union but rather the tithe-paying and student-producing constituent congregations. Like the academy board, this type of relationship requires personal attention and constant maintenance.
I see it as a gradual degradation. If the Pastor, church board and local leadership is not invested in the success of Adventist education at the local level how do we expect them to promote Adventist higher education?
"Is the secret of Adventist education’s relative success owed to its close ties to its parent church?"
There should be quotation marks around "relative success," as several of the colleges are struggling to stay afloat for lack of support and sufficient students.
The three GC institutions: Andrews, Oakwood and LLU (is that correct?) do not have to go it alone as do the other union colleges. Also, what about the "feeder" conference academies (both day and boarding)? How are they faring? Without a good supply of students from the boarding academies, it will surely affect college enrollments. Also, with competition from Christian, non-denominational academies in most every city, parents now have a choice other than the public schools. The city where I live once had a thriving 12-grade academy for 50+ years, but it has gradually dwindled to a ghost of its former self.
Is the picture he presents a little too rosy?
Glen
Great story. I believe that there is strength in a close association with the parent church. The problem within Seventh-day Adventism occurred at Glacier View. Jack Provonsha
was the first to publically put the case before the Church in Consultation I and II. It was nonsense for Administrators to overrule scholars and for scholars to back down because of fear of lost of retirement et al.
With few exceptions, Administrators have minimal education compared with the scholars. If there is a tie it should be like a marriage with equal partners. The recent review of QOD
was conducted under the warning of the President of the General Conference. That was not free debate--that was gamesmanship. It is O.K. for administrators and Scholars to play games but not at the expense of students and the "flock". One of two things will happen, SDA colleges will either go the way of Weimar or Harvard. Tom
Tom, you are right (again)! There is too tight control by administrators on the academics taught. They should be responsive to the financial and business managing but they have too long wreaked havoc with the faculty of professional teachers, treating them as disobedient children. I'll take gambling in Vegas to gambling with my livelihood teaching at an SDA school. Unless, of course, like my late brother-in-law, chairman of Art Dept. at Walla for 30+ years. He said the GC and Union administrators never bothered him because they knew nothing about art in the first place! That would apply to the other departments, particularly the religion department which administrators are not qualified to understand (One wonders if they understand good business management. How many have MBAs are graduate education in finance, etc.?) It's the Peter Principle applied.
I'm sorry, but I am not sure that there is "constant friction" between the church leaders and Andrews University. I'm not sure where that idea came from.
Secondly, although I am in favor of giving faculty the freedom to think for themselves, I do not think it is inappropriate for the church to insist that the faculty stay within the boundaries of biblical and uniquely Adventist thought. Yes, there is room for "further light," but none that directly contradicts what has already been established.
Why must we always insist that Glacier View was some terrible turn for the worse?? Perhaps I'm just uninformed.
Glacier View
Was an open power play between top administrators of the church and scholars. The scholars blinked and now deal with only peripheral issues. No one dares to touch the third rail of Dan 8:14 nor any of its apologists. No substantial work has been done since. Even Ron Numbers fell and Fred Veltmann was isolated. The high water mark was the dialogue between Seminarians and Barnhouse and Martin. It would be impossible to have such an interchange today. Even the recent conference opened with a warning from Elder Paulsen--a scholar turned administrator.
We live, work, and worship with an 19th century mind set in the 21st century. So we play at gamesmanship--move the line an inch or two a generation about 25 years behind the rest of the world.
Tom
I'm sorry Tom, with all due respect, I think you're employing a bit of revisionist history. Just because the church didn't do away with Daniel 8:14 and the Investigative Judgment - as many would have liked - doesn't mean the "scholars blinked" and the administrators had their way. There are plenty of "scholars" (a word that needs to be qualified, I suppose) who fully support(ed) these Adventist doctrines.
To say that "no substantial work has been done since" would be to imply that anyone who agrees with the aforementioned belief is not a scholar, or has not engaged in any theological study of the issue since then.
I can agree with you on Paulsen's attitude toward the recent QOD conference, though.
Shawn, are you aware that a "Daniel Committee" was formed by the G.C. that met for quite a few years, with no report ever acknowledged or accepted? Have you ever heard of Raymond Cottrell, former Advenist theologian and editor of Adventist publications? I would suggest that you "Google" his name to understand why this was a watershed (or nadir) in Adventism.
Anyone who has ever questioned the official position of Daniel 8:14 (KJV only), has touched the "sacred cow" of Adventism and considered a heretic. Does the name Des Ford mean anything to you?
Shawn
The very fact that the scholars asked for Consultation 1 and 2
is proof that they knew they blew it at Glacier View.
I recall a story my father used to tell. The Illinois Conference had a constituency meeting. Members of the West Side Church had a burden on a certain agenda item. Their delegation had been instructed when that item came up they were to call for discussion.
The chair asked for a vote to accept the report of the targeted committee. Everyone voted to accept. The Chair moved on to another item. A delegate sitting next to my father asked: "When do we get to discuss the issue?" My father said before you accepted the report of the committee!
Acceptance means agreement! Case closed.
The entire Glacier View thing smelled like the Florida Recount fiasco-and eight years of Shrub. It is problematical if either the Church or the nation will recover from either attempt to escape from the truth.
"Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide!"
That moment was Glacier View and Neal Wilson decided and all others stood aside.
Thank God one is not saved by label.
Des Ford presented a position paper at a Seventh-day Adventist Forum meeting--The rest is history. That is what I mean by the chilling of scholarship--Who wants to share their studies of any theological substance before colleagues now?
The next Forum meeting we could have the topic. Is hell in one or more of the Black Holes we find in the Universe? Nothing can escape and it is hot as hell! What salvational value is in such speculation? Tom
Tom and Elaine:
Here is your basic premise: the church didn't agree with Des Ford; therefore, they are closed-minded and guilty of suffocating the so-called "scholars" in the church.
A second premise of yours is that if someone agrees with the Investigative Judgment/1844 then they are not a scholar and we should not listen to them. If they do not agree with it, then they are a scholar and smarter than everyone else who believes in it.
I know I'm caricaturing your arguments, but that's what is coming through to me. I'm all for open discussion, etc., and I'm very aware of the fact that church administration doesn't always go about things the best, but why must we pass over the same theological ground when the church - as a whole - has already realized that these concepts are very biblical?
In my mind, what it simply comes down to is that Des Ford was/is wrong! Let's move on.
I kind of subscribe to Elaine's earlier thought on what constitutes "realtive success". I work at one of the "other" institutions, and we are not directly supported by the General Conference as maybe Oakwood, Andrews and LLU (Side question: why DOESN'T GC support the other institutions?)
However, our success is largely because of our appeal to the wider community as a private institution (respectfully earned not by being exclusive) and offering programs that are sorely needed vocationally speaking.
Essentially, I agree with the author that we should remain as close to our adventist/christian beliefs and church mission as close as possible, but not to make decisions that would affect the health of the organization itself. Bad business is not recommended witnessing, either :)
i also agree with Tom that many of our church school administrators have theolgy degrees rather than educational administration degrees...would you hire someone with a fine arts degee to be an architect? Yes, leadership is an acquired skill not necessarily learned, but the value of education itself is brushed aside for a retired pastor...think about it. really! We wonder why our institutions are not considered academically competitive, yet we make our own rules.
Shawn,
You have constructed two strawmen. While you say it is a caricature, you obviously reveal your sentiments.
You ask: "but why must we pass over the same theological ground when the church - as a whole - has already realized that these concepts are very biblical?" My answer: for the very same reason that "the church" is not the final arbiter (despite the belief that in G.C. session it speaks for God), and especially when it WAS NOT in agreement at Glacier View. The administration refused to read or accept the questionable assumptions of the IJ. Ignoring it does not, and will not make it go away.
How can you speak for the church when you say:
"when the church - as a whole - has already realized that these concepts are very biblical."
Pray tell, how do you quantify the church "as a whole"? Numbers, please. Does fairness mean nothing to you? When the majority of theologians, NOT administrators, did not agree with the conclusions reached, where was the unanimity?
If you believe that Des Ford was right, and say, "Let's move on," it has meant for hundreds, even thousands, to "let's move out." The SDA church is much to doctrinally constricted (constipated?).
Have you read this report by Raymond Cottrell?
http://www.truthorfables.com/Cottrell_IJ_Recollection.htm
Eric
Certainly the close association with the church is reflected in the moral standards. However, I think the dedication and high academic qualifications of the professors are also decisive:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/01/priming-pump.html
Post new comment