http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke ... y&pid=1415
Posted: 3/01/04
COMMENTARY:
Keep the government's nose out of our seminaries
By Brent Thompson
Amid all the publicity from Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ," few Christians will likely notice that the Supreme Court quietly published an opinion that may have just as much impact on the lives of churches and ministers as the movie. On Feb. 26 in the case of Locke vs. Davey, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 that the neither the establishment nor free exercise clauses of the First Amendment require states to fund religious instruction.
High-profile advocates such as Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice and Solicitor General Theodore Olsen argued that states should be required to fund religious instruction if they also fund secular instruction. The state of Washington argued that the principle of separation of church and state prohibits funding of religious studies.
If groups of churches or denominations want well-trained ministers, they should set up and fund their own seminaries, colleges and Bible schools
--Brent Thompson
Frankly, I am relieved that this case was resolved in this way. Sometimes Christians go too far in our zest for advancing religious rights in our country. This was such a time. Put another way, this case reminded me of the story about the little boy who decided to help himself to cookies in the cookie jar. He stuck his hand into the jar and grabbed a handful of cookies. When he tried to pull his hand out, it got stuck because he refused to let go of the cookies.
Men and women who are called by God into the ministry are generally facing a life of low pay and high stress. The low pay begins in college, continues through seminary and into their field of service. So does the high stress. It is rare for ministers to be paid a salary commensurate with the secular market value of their educational achievement. It is common for ministers to burn out or get discouraged from the stress of ministry. These concerns may explain why Joshua Davey left theology studies and enrolled in Harvard Law School during the course of this litigation.
So why wouldn't a theology student at a private Christian college want to get all the financial help he can? Why shouldn't a budding minister in a denominational seminary take a two-year grant like the state of Washington's Promise Scholarship which provided $1,125 the first year of school and $1,542 the second year? Why wouldn't the financial aid departments of seminaries pursue funding from the coffers of state and federal governments, especially in an era of declining alumni giving and increased overhead?
Here is why: Christians should not want state or federal regulators nosing around in our business. Or, with apologies to Tertullian, "What hath government to do with seminary?"
Consider this analogy: When a private donor contributes money to a college or graduate school, they are normally very interested in how that money is spent. If the money is for tuition scholarships, the donor sets up restrictions or qualifications to screen for the types of recipients who will benefit from the money. If the money is for a campus building, the donor is keen to see the architect's plans or where their names are displayed on the final edifice. All this is reasonable and understandable because the donated money is hard-earned and the donor wants to promote some cause with it.
The government is no different. The government rarely provides scholarships to students without strings. The state of Washington, for example, set academic, enrollment and income standards which prospective candidates had to meet before they qualified for the money. Of course, it was one of those standards - the recipient would not use the money to obtain a theology degree - that got Washington into the Locke vs. Davey lawsuit.
Governments are also interested in whether the schools that benefit from these scholarship programs are meeting certain standards of conduct. If these schools discriminated in admissions on the basis of, say, religious belief or gender, it would be understandable if the government moved to stop such discrimination.
Churches should not make their ministers-in-training rely on government largesse to finance ministerial training. If a state government wants to give money to theology students without interfering with the right of the seminary to exclude applicants based on religion, gender or age, then that would be great. The same is true if a state like Washington refuses to do so. But it is unwise for Christians to force a government to fund religious education in the name of "religious freedom."
If groups of churches or denominations want well-trained ministers, they should set up and fund their own seminaries, colleges and Bible schools, or align themselves financially with existing seminaries of similar theological persuasion. If possible, these institutes of ministerial training and their students should take as little money as possible from governments.
Our local, state and federal governments are rife with rogue mayors who issue illegal marriage licenses, spineless judges who refuse to issue restraining orders halting the practice and waffling legislators who do not want to prioritize a defense of marriage amendment. Do Christians really want the money these politicians control used to educate our ministers? Do Christians really want to give these kinds of politicians an excuse for poking around in the admissions, curriculum and placement policies of Christian colleges and seminaries? I don't.
Brent Thompson, associate director of communications at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, practiced law in Alaska and Texas for eight years before de-activating his law licenses to enroll in seminary and enter full-time ministry.