REASSESSING BIBLE COLLEGE DISTINCTIVES By Robert W. Ferris and Ralph E. Enlow, Jr. Columbia Biblical Seminary & Graduate School of Missions Few would challenge the assertion that the Bible college movement has been a bastion of biblical vitality within American evangelicalism for decades. A large percentage of the evangelical clergy and missionary force are Bible college or Bible institute graduates. Evangelical churches are blessed with biblically competent, committed, earnest, and faithful Bible college graduates who serve as laypersons to anchor and augment the work of the church. By the 1970s, Bible colleges, lightly esteemed by more mainstream higher educational institutions, began to find their place within the higher education community. The American Association of Bible Colleges (AABC) won full recognition and participation in the new Council on Postsecondary Accreditation. It seemed that Bible colleges were beginning to achieve respectability and credibility. If the 1970s brought respectability (or at least acceptance) within the world of higher education, however, the 1980s did not yield the growth and advancement that decade portended. Just when it seemed Bible colleges were on the threshold of a new wave of influence and service to the evangelical church, the dream began to unravel. In fact, from 1979-1986, aggregate enrollment in a group of long term AABC-accredited Bible colleges experienced a 15 percent decline (Kallgren, 1991, p. 28). During the 1980s numerous Bible colleges closed, others became Christian liberal arts colleges by transition or merger, and a significant number of surviving Bible colleges experienced enrollment-driven financial difficulty. While the early 1990s have seen some resurgence, this has been limited to a relatively small number of institutions. As a whole, the Bible college movement continues to lack vitality and dynamic impact upon or engagement with the evangelical mainstream. Market research conducted in 1993 by Consultants for Educational Resources and Research on behalf of Columbia Bible College found that Bible college environments and educational programs were neither accurately perceived nor considered desirable higher education options by the vast majority of committed Christian college prospects, their parents, or their pastors. Perhaps most telling of all is the finding that evangelical pastors and parents who themselves graduated from Bible colleges appear to esteem lightly the academic credibility, spiritual relevance, and vocational viability of a Bible college education. Most view Bible college as only a second or third best option for Christian young people seeking higher education. In general, Bible college education is perceived--even by those who should know us well--as intellectually and academically inferior and culturally and vocationally eccentric, if not irrelevant. It seems that as Bible colleges have approached the educational mainstream, they are in acute danger of being relegated to the evangelical margins. The above developments have produced a collective angst among Bible college leaders. Even those institutions free from worry about survival, if they are honest, must consider the issue of significance. As leaders, we dare not be satisfied merely to exist while the most committed and gifted Christian students and their families bypass us in large numbers. Neither dare we dismiss the current state of affairs as merely symptomatic of an anemic church and an infected culture. Since the late 1980s AABC member institutions have been engaged in a protracted, impassioned dialogue concerning the scope and substance of Bible college education. Some have strongly advocated an accommodating posture, especially in terms of expanding curricular scope and program options, reducing core Bible and theology course requirements, and relaxing practical Christian service requirements. Others have insisted such requirements comprise the essence and distinctiveness of Bible college education. To permit accommodation in such matters, they argue, would dissipate the effectiveness of Bible colleges and perilously blur the distinctions between Bible colleges and Christian liberal arts colleges. Such discussion dominated the process of drafting and adopting new AABC Criteria for Accreditation in 1988-90, as well as numerous proposed Criteria and policy revisions since that time. We admit the import and consequence of these issues, but we submit that wrangling over curricular boundaries and core requirements fails to acknowledge several more fundamental ways in which Bible colleges must consider how, more adequately and biblically, to address our constituency and our culture. The Bible college movement grew out of the Bible institute movement. Many, if not most, of today's Bible colleges began as Bible institutes. The first Bible institutes represented a conservative response to the forfeiture of mainline seminaries to theological liberalism between 1890 and 1930. This heritage continues to shape the ethos of today's Bible colleges in perhaps more ways than we may have been inclined to acknowledge. We suggest that the following Bible college distinctives emanate from historical forces which spawned the Bible institute movement: 1. Commitment to undergraduate preparation for vocational Christian service, historically in training for pastoral ministry, evangelism, missions, and music. 2. Commitment to the priority of biblical formation-- both mastery of the Bible and mastery by the Bible-- expressed as a requirement that all students major in Bible. 3. Commitment to spiritual and ministry development through requirements to engage in practical ministry during training. 4. Emphasis on Christian character development through setting and enforcing standards. 5. Emphasis on indoctrination in orthodoxy as a safeguard to doctrinal purity. 6. Emphasis on teaching practical ministry techniques. 7. Emphasis on a view of leadership which stresses the intrinsic authority which accompanies divine appointment and guidance. In many ways the conditions which gave birth and impetus to the Bible college movement no longer exist. Liberal mainline seminaries have their solidly evangelical counterparts. Many who would have been Bible college students in an earlier decade are making career decisions at the end of college and turning to seminaries for basic ministry training. Evangelical clergy and laity who a generation ago were wary of the deleterious effects of college and seminary characteristically have attained high levels of education themselves. They demand levels of intellectual and educational sophistication which they perceive many Bible colleges are disinclined or ill-equipped to deliver. Churches--especially megachurches--are increasingly disenchanted with the effectiveness of the traditional content and format of theological education found in many seminaries and Bible colleges. American culture, once replete with residual biblical morality, is hostile to biblical norms for living. Evangelical churches no longer reflect an ethical consensus regarding many traditional behavioral norms. A person seeking to live an authentically Christian life is assaulted with bewildering moral choices not covered by the standards historically institutionalized in Bible colleges. A major socio-cultural shift--to the baby boomers and busters--is changing the way in which evangelical Christian leaders and institutions must function (Anderson 1990, 1992; Barna 1990). It is time for a new Bible college mandate. Those in leadership must articulate a philosophy and develop a model of Christian higher education which effectively addresses shortcomings of Bible college education and meaningfully engages perceptions (including misperceptions) of the evangelical mainstream concerning Bible college education. It is our conviction that meaningful Bible college renewal will not occur as long as the dimensions of renewal are confined to redefining Christian service or to renegotiating Bible and theology course requirements. Rather, together we must revisit each of the seven historic Bible college distinctives delineated above. We must candidly evaluate the ways in which each of these positively or negatively affects the function or the public perception of Bible colleges. We must search for ways to reassert elements which have enduring relevance and we must examine how to adjust in areas where our emphasis or perception is skewed. As a means of stimulating discussion, we offer our own commentary and proposals for reform in each of these seven areas. 1. Preparation for Vocational Christian Service As previously acknowledged, the debate over the meaning and scope of "Christian ministry" has generated lively discourse among Bible college leaders. Some prefer to define ministry roles in traditional terms--pastor, evangelist, missionary, church musician. Others propound the notion that ministry is not primarily a question of vocation and certainly is not limited to the few roles for which we traditionally have trained students. In general, those who prefer a broader definition of ministry have won the day in AABC. Increasingly, curricular programs available at AABC institutions include many more than those traditionally associated with church-related ministry. Is this good news or bad? It is good news if such curricular expansion stems from the realization that Bible colleges must prepare students for a different world and for a greater variety of specialized and entry-level ministry functions than previously existed. An abundance of multi-staff churches and large parachurch organizations multiplies the roles for which biblically literate, spiritually mature, professionally competent workers are needed. A glut of pastoral candidates in many denominations and independent fellowships, coupled with a growing perception that seminary education is an indispensable requisite for senior pastoral positions, also compels us to identify entry-level, pre- pastoral roles for most graduates aspiring to pastoral ministry. On the other hand, it is bad news if such curricular diffusion is grounded upon a definition of ministry which includes every honest human vocation. If we fail to distinguish between callings which support directly the Great Commission mandate ("go and make disciples . . .") and those which serve the creation mandate ("exercise dominion over . . ."), we fail to distinguish ourselves from Christian liberal arts colleges. If we lose sight of this Bible college distinctive, we cannot sustain a coherent educational philosophy. Programmatic requirements for substantial Bible and theology course work and practical Christian service will inevitably erode. The question is not, for example, whether a Bible college should offer a Communication major, but why and for whom should we consider one? If the answer to those questions is that there are Great Commission ministry roles which require such training and there are gifted, godly men and women who desire to serve His Cause in such roles, then by all means we should provide a Communication major. The faculty, students, objectives, features, and outcomes of such a program, however, should be clearly distinguishable from those of Communication majors at other higher education institutions--Christian and non-Christian. Commitment to training for Great Commission vocations does not deny that some Bible college graduates may serve God as lay persons. The issue is not so much from whom Bible college graduates receive their paychecks as it is from whom they receive their orders and around which biblical mandate ("Creation" or "Great Commission") they orient their lives. If Bible colleges survive, but fail to enroll, equip, and invigorate a new generation of men and women with a Great Commission calling, urgency, and orientation, then we will have failed miserably indeed. 2. Biblical Formation No one seriously challenges the notion of the centrality of biblical studies in the Bible college curriculum--at least not directly. Nevertheless, quantitative requirements (30 semester hours) for course work in Bible and theology at AABC institutions have faced a relentless assault in recent years. The pressure to reduce prescribed course work in Bible and theology comes from several directions. Some Bible colleges offer programs specifically designed for students not considering or planning for vocational Christian ministry. The prescribed quantity of Bible and theology course work is justified, in the view of some, only for students who are preparing for vocational Christian service. In some cases, justification is acknowledged only for those who anticipate ministry roles which require a substantial degree of biblical competence. As programs and students proliferate outside the vocational Christian ministry fields, ever-expanding curricular requirements imposed by professional accrediting agencies or certification boards leave Bible college deans with excruciating choices: look for ways to reduce course work in other areas, or extend program length. What AABC member institutions conclude regarding the mission and scope of Bible college education clearly will affect the degree to which they are prepared to compromise on quantitative Bible and theology requirements. Presently, AABC leadership appears inclined to support (or at least acquiesce to) accommodation and inclusion. We, on the other hand, strongly support the retention of the "Bible major" requirement for both spiritual and philosophical reasons. In the midst of our continuing debate over appropriate minimums for Bible and theology course work, however, we can ill-afford to be distracted by the wrong question. The real issue is not how much (or, alas, how little) Bible and theology course work is sufficient. Rather, we must ask how we can ensure that our entire educational program is truly Bible-centered? If (as it now appears) we are prepared to allow our quantitative Bible and theology requirements to erode, we urgently need to identify means to ensure that Bible-centeredness the current AABC definition espouses. Perhaps more than any other single factor, faculty constitute the key to re-invigorating the conscious integration of biblical truth throughout the curricula of Bible colleges. This is true not merely for biblical studies faculty, but especially for faculty in other disciplines. If we insist on broadening our curricular options, we must exercise vigilance and restraint in screening faculty. We also must invest energy and resources in faculty development. We cannot afford to evacuate biblical thinking from our curricula or relegate it to the Bible department. It is antithetical to the nature of "Bible-centered" education to employ faculty who are ignorant of the content and the use of Scripture. Biblical thinking does not automatically accompany profession of faith. Integration is not achieved by juxtaposing Sunday School concepts with secular precepts or (worse!) sanctifying profane ideas with Scripture texts. Integration is founded on a biblical understanding of the relationship between special revelation and general revelation. Integration occurs when individuals with a significant level of biblical and theological mastery conceptualize and articulate a biblical critique of the central assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions within their discipline. What biblical competency requirements do we impose on the selection of Bible college faculty? How rigorously do we examine potential faculty with respect to biblical integration? When we must employ faculty who lack formal biblical education and/or who evidence minimal biblical competence, how much effort do we expend to impose a professional development regime and furnish resources to carry it out? We imperil our institutions, our students, our churches, indeed, a new generation of believers when for the sake of expediency we employ, retain, and promote faculty who lack the very competency we avow to be central to our identity. If we are to be Bible colleges indeed, we must spare no effort to enthrone and actively obey the Word of God in our minds and in our curricula. 3. Practical Ministry Requirements A third historic distinctive of Bible college education-- emphasis upon active engagement in the practice of ministry-- often is overlooked, undervalued, and underestimated. It is perennially under funded, as well. We are heartened that recent discussions of the essentials of Bible college education have reaffirmed the distinctive of practical ministry engagement, but institutional practices and budgets rarely reflect this standard. Bible colleges must reassert this distinctive, re-conceive its place and function in the educational process, and reinvest in its excellence. Ministry practice becomes a meaningful and consequential element of the educational process only when the all-too-common passive approach, requiring students to arrange and report on ministry or community service, is replaced by an active program of supervised ministry experience. An effective emphasis on active ministry engagement should, in our view, include the following characteristics. First, it should be developmental; it should take students from where they are, in maturity and ministry experience, and expose them to a variety of new ministry settings and strategies. It should provide opportunities and means whereby students may explore, identify, and refine natural talents and spiritual gifts. Second, it should be program-related; prescribed or optional experiences should flow out of institutional and programmatic educational objectives for ministry skill development. Third, it should involve full-time faculty and qualified practitioners in regular supervision and evaluation. At Columbia, we have found there is a direct correlation between observation/assessment in field education assignments and positive student perceptions of educational effectiveness. Finally, ministry skill development should culminate in internship experiences within all professional programs. The teacher education model in which a protracted, credit internship comprises a major programmatic component can and should occur consistently in pastoral education and in other professional ministry programs. 4. Christian Character Development Bible colleges have distinguished themselves in their concern for behavior which is consistent with beliefs. We have standards and we make no apology for them. In a culture (and church!) which increasingly abandons biblical constraints and priorities, many of us are prepared to take our stand and to suffer attrition and persecution rather than to capitulate. While specific rules sometimes seem anachronistic or arcane, we are quite pleased to assert that our institutional regulations have upheld biblical standards in an era of moral erosion. While celebrating faithfulness, however, we urge attention to two potentially devastating flaws. First, our commitment to stand firm, at times, has blinded us to culturally conditioned elements in the standards we impose. In hermeneutics and Bible courses we train students to apply principles given in ancient contexts to life in the 1990s. In missions courses we emphasize the importance of contextualizing the gospel into one's culture of ministry by distinguishing between social forms and biblical norms. At the same time, we sometimes have ignored cultural shifts which have occurred within our own society. Some changes reflect abandonment of godly values and the triumph of evil, but not all. For example, why have we sometimes elevated certain styles of music, dress, and hair care to moral dimensions, even though they do not affect biblical admonitions to cleanliness, modesty, or sobriety? Have we sometimes been so obsessed with holding firm that we have failed to discriminate between the eternal and the transient? Indeed, there are socio-cultural reasons for abandoning strategies which emphasize imposition and enforcement of standards. John Naisbitt (1982) observes that the "Busters" and "Generation-X" citizens of our high-tech culture demand "high- touch" relationships. We can renew the means of student formation by exchanging our institutional-regulatory concept for a relational-community concept. Our approach to spiritual formation in the past has emphasized institutional regulation, enforcement, and discipline, along with modeling, instruction, and supervision. We must add to these heavy doses of mentoring, assessment, community, accountability, support, and counsel to reach today's students. If we accept this prescription, we must modify our institutional structures, policies, and personnel to implement the remedy. Even more fundamentally, our educational mission is not only to uphold biblical standards, but also to foster in our students the development of Christian character. We need to re-examine both the means and the ends of our student development efforts. We can require and even achieve conformity to a standard and yet fail to approach--indeed, even undermine--the higher end of principle-centered living. One compelling biblical fact requires us to rethink our approach to spiritual formation: God has provided for character transformation, and will not settle for behavior modification. We must maintain fidelity to biblical standards, but as a means to and an expression of holiness, not as the essence of holiness. Our student development programs should equip students with biblical understanding, skill, and determination to implement biblical virtues, habits, and standards not only while they are under our supervision, but in every context of life and ministry. 5. Critical Thinking Historically, the impetus for the Bible institute movement is grounded in the defection of major theological seminaries to liberalism in the closing decades of the 19th century and the opening decades of the 20th century. As Enlightenment rationalism, institutionalized in the German state university system, swept the intellectual communities of Europe and North America, theological orthodoxy came under severe and unrelenting attack. In this climate, biblical orthodoxy gave way in most protestant seminaries to an emphasis on a "higher criticism." The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was widely abandoned in favor of Wellhausen's "documentary hypothesis." The traditional authorship and date of almost every book of the Old and New Testaments was challenged as well. Every account of miracle, ipso facto, was assumed to reflect the superstition of a primitive people and an ignorance of natural process. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ was summarily dismissed, as was his resurrection and his promised return. If the theological climate turned hostile toward biblical faith, the secular scientific community attacked in full cry. Sigmund Freud, Aldous Huxley, and Bertrand Russell symbolize the anti-Christian brazenness of the modernist project at its height, but the movement was far broader than these individuals. A battle was pitched between "science" (not only the physical sciences, but also the full range of university scholarship) and "the Bible." It was a difficult day in which to be both intellectually disciplined and biblically Christian. An understanding of the intellectual context of the flowering of the Bible school movement is essential to any appreciation of the directions taken by the founders and faculties of the early Bible institutes and the Bible colleges which followed them. Innumerable cases appeared to indicate that scholarly discipline was a threat to Christian orthodoxy. When the apparent choice was between intellectual respectability and biblical fidelity, however, the Bible institute founders were unwavering. They could forgo the acceptance of men, but they could not compromise commitment to God, to his revelation in the Bible, or to the mission he had committed to his church. Therefore the Bible institutes focused instruction on affirmation of right doctrines and on marshalling biblical support for accepted views. Critical thinking skills and the disciplines of evidential research were shunned as unimportant, if not dangerous (Buss 1994:69). In many cases, a devotional and homiletical handling of Scripture was substituted for careful textual and exegetical study. When "Christian evidences" courses were introduced, "science" continued to be viewed as hostile to the faith. Emphasis was placed on challenging scientific conclusions, often by a selective arrangement of data drawn from the sciences being rebutted, rather than on challenging and equipping students for serious engagement with scientific data. An example of this is seen in Harry Rimmer's The Harmony of Science and Scripture, a popular textbook in Bible institutes at the time. Although such arguments won few debates with secular intellectuals, they provided a facade of credibility which bolstered the confidence of the faithful. Today, many within the evangelical mainstream have come to terms with "science." This may reflect an appreciation of the technological fruits of scientific inquiry which now are part of American life. (It is difficult to denounce "science" while enjoying its benefits!) True, many evangelicals gravitate toward the extremes. Some continue to engage in science-bashing, hurling epithets with plugged ears. Others (including numerous Christian college and seminary professors) have capitulated to syncretistic forms of naturalism covered with the merest veneer of "Bible-speak." At the same time, leading evangelical thinkers in many fields of inquiry also have become more adept at discriminating between the grounded findings of scientific research and the humanistic theories advanced by some scientists. Over the past fifty or sixty years, Bible colleges also have developed a new sophistication. Many Bible college faculty hold earned doctorates from evangelical or from non-evangelical and secular institutions. Nevertheless, our fundamentalist heritage is very much with us. Devotional and homiletic uses of Scripture still are valued more highly than serious biblical study. "Science" still is held in suspicion in some quarters, "evolution" is a common topic of discussion and concern, and certain understandings of "creationism" (in the tradition of Harry Rimmer) are more vigorously championed on Bible college campuses than in the broader evangelical population. Throughout the years of defensive response to humanistic scientism, a few within the Bible colleges argued for a more reasoned consideration of evidence from nature. Recognizing that the God of the Bible also is the God of creation, they noted that his two arenas of revelation, rightly understood, cannot contradict. Robertson McQuilkin, the third president of Columbia Bible College, articulates this conviction. Addressing apparent conflicts between scientific theories and biblical texts, McQuilkin notes that the Bible is not a textbook on science and that not every scientific theory has been proved. He then concludes: In summary, scientific fact and biblical fact will not be in conflict, for God is the God of all truth, and both the "book of nature" and "the Book of divine revelation" are from Him. When they appear to be in conflict, either the facts of nature are misunderstood, or the interpretation of Scripture is in error. (McQuilkin 1983, 211.) Such recognitions reopen the door to critical inquiry within the Bible college. By reasserting this aspect of our tradition, Bible colleges must direct new energies toward equipping students with rational means of discovering and testing truth in both of God's "books," without fear of compromising orthodoxy. What students hold is important, but if "God is the God of all truth," then we need not choose between intellectual rigor and biblical orthodoxy. Bible colleges have persisted too long in pronouncing orthodox formulas and raising defenses against secular attacks. The time has come for faculty and students to take up a fearless, rigorous application of biblically anchored rational and critical processes to all Bible college disciplines. 6. Ministry Instruction The early Bible institutes were marked by a sense of urgency. On the one hand, there was the urgency of the gospel. Like biblical Christians of all ages, the founders and faculties of Bible institutes and Bible colleges were--and are--keenly aware of the lostness of men and women apart from Jesus Christ. Given the eternal peril of lostness and the uncertainty of life, missions and evangelism call for urgency. Premillennialism also contributes to that sense of urgency. Following "the great disappointment" of the Millerite expectations in 1843 and 1844, millennial excitement waned for a generation. By the closing decades of the 19th century, however, premillennialism again was on the rise. Popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909, premillennial--and, particularly, pretribulational--expectations attracted attention in prophecy conferences and Bible schools throughout the first half of the 20th century. Brereton captures the effect on Christian thought and life. "That blessed hope," as the second coming was often called, transformed the way believers lived their lives. Thus, like sanctification, it was at its most intense a "practical" experience. Above all, the belief lent urgency to the cause of missions. Believers who were convinced that only a little time remained before the Lord's coming understood it as their duty to prepare his way by proclaiming the gospel around the world. (Brereton 1990, 11) This sense of evangelistic and eschatological urgency contributed significantly to the emphasis on "practical training" in Bible institutes and colleges. If millions daily are going to a Christless eternity, if the Lord's return is imminent, then training for God's army must be practical. In terms of the theory-practice dialectic that perpetually vexes ministry education, Bible colleges (and Bible institutes before them) come down firmly on the side of practice. In a context of urgency, theory may be a luxury, whereas practical methods and techniques assume absolute priority. This is reflected everywhere in the curricula and the classrooms of our Bible institutes and colleges. Preaching students are drilled on the construction of sermons, while classes on Sunday school "teaching methods" learn to use chalk drawings, flannel- graph and, more recently, to make overhead transparencies. Evangelism and discipleship courses typically focus on mastery of one or more "methods," as well. Bible and theology courses are given emphasis, but only as "content" and not as the theoretical framework for the practice of ministry. While this sense of urgency has not diminished, the rate of technological and social change has quickened, exposing the weakness of training that emphasizes techniques to the exclusion of sound theoretical foundations. Ministers who lack the training needed to apply theory in concrete contexts have little to offer the church. On the other hand, ministers without the skills or resources needed to generate new models of ministry soon become painfully obsolete. With more of the general public pursuing higher education and with corporate leaders framing "mission statements," furthermore, Christians demand ministers who can articulate a philosophy of ministry, who can justify the ministry practices they employ, who can critique new or alternative methods, and who can generate contemporary--yet biblically grounded--models for ministry. In such a context, Bible college priority on methods over theoretical grounding may contribute to a shift in preference from Bible college graduates to more highly educated seminary graduates for pastoral positions in evangelical churches. Bible college faculties need to re-assess their approach to ministry instruction. Without diminishing their communication of urgency or their insistence on practicality, instructors should give new attention to theoretical (and theological!) foundations for ministry and to skills required to assess and generate new models. To some extent, this already is happening. For example, Christian education courses today are much more likely to include discussion of developmental psychology, rather than merely the age-graded trait lists which were common a generation ago (Soderholm 1955-56). Nevertheless, substantial underpinning of ministry instruction with a theory and theology of practice still is weak in many Bible colleges. Faculties need to model ministries which are practical and creative, contextually appropriate yet theologically sound, and to bring these qualities of ministry into the center of Bible college instruction (Guinness 1994). 7. Leadership Model The founders and leaders of the early Bible institutes were men of immense personal and spiritual stature. A.B. Simpson, D.L. Moody, and A.J. Gordon formed the front rank, with men like R.A. Torrey, James M. Gray, and C.I. Scofield close behind. Most Bible institute leaders (including all of those mentioned) were widely recognized preachers, evangelists, and Bible teachers before launching their Bible institute ministries (Eagen 1981, 44). A spirit of triumphalism ruled America in the 19th and early- 20th centuries, from the beginning of the Westward expansion to America's entanglement in Viet Nam. Given the Bible's use of the metaphor of battle, therefore, it is not amazing that Bible institute and college leaders found it easy to portray themselves as "training God's army." (Moody Bible Institute was known as "the West Point of Fundamentalism.") The military metaphor fit well the attitudes of urgency, commitment, and discipline which characterize training for the task of world evangelization. (It still does!) It also fit well the sense of divine appointment and guidance with which heads of Bible institutes and colleges exercised their leadership. Strong leaders easily find support in Scripture to justify their leadership style (cf. Tit 2:15-3:2; Heb 13:17; 1 Pt 5:5; as well as many models from the Old Testament). On the other hand, the Scripture's balancing themes of mutual submission (Eph 5:21), and the leadership metaphors of shepherding (1 Pt 5:1-4), servanthood (Mt 20:25-28), and stewardship (Lk 12:42) only recently have been rediscovered. From these we learn that biblical leadership must not be elitist or self-serving, but humble, caring, and open to correction as much as to approval. Submission to natural, political, and spiritual leaders is commanded in Scripture; a believer's submission to human authority is an expression of submission to Divine authority. Nevertheless, the Scriptures are equally clear that leaders, themselves, are under authority; they serve both the Lord and those committed to their care. The model of a prophetic leader who retreats to seek the mind of the Lord, then emerges to announce God's will for His people, is not a New Testament pattern. (Note the use of plural nouns and pronouns with respect to decision making in Acts.) Authority within the church resides in the Lord and His Word, not in a human leader or hierarchy. Leadership should be eager, service-oriented, and exemplary, but never domineering (1 Pt 5:2-3). A recent and instructive illustration comes from our own institution. In 1992, when Columbia International University administrators addressed the task of identifying our core institutional values, "Servant Leadership" was named, with the following definition: SERVANT LEADERSHIP -- We seek to model and teach submission to the Word of God and the lordship of Christ in relating to those in authority and in being ready to sacrifice personal preferences, comforts and freedoms in deference to others. We seek through individual behavior and corporate policy and practice, to promote meekness in attitudes toward our status, gifts, possessions and accomplishments, as well as those of others. Only later did we recognize the incongruity of this statement, and revise our list to include two core values in place of the one. The first definition was retained, but retitled "Mutual Submission," and "Servant Leadership" was redefined as follows: SERVANT LEADERSHIP -- We seek to demonstrate and teach a model for Christian leadership which is self-giving rather than self seeking, which is sensitive and compassionate to those under our care rather than harsh or coercive, which is motivated by service rather than by duty, greed, or power, which leads by example rather than by manipulative design or dictatorial fiat. We believe the difference is significant, both biblically and culturally. The TV quiz show scandals of the 1950s, America's defeat in Viet Nam in the 1960s and disgrace at Watergate in the 1970s, and more recently, the exposure and conviction of leading tele-evangelists have underlined the fallibility of human leaders. Americans--including evangelical Christians--have become much less trusting of their leaders. Preaching and teaching that emphasizes the authority of leaders and demands submission by others is less acceptable today than in the years when Bible institutes and colleges were formed. We are not advocating accommodating our message to the spirit of our times, but we are calling for a reexamination of the theory and practice of leadership in our Bible colleges. Competent, visionary, biblical leadership is needed in our churches and on our campuses, now more than ever. Submission to those in leadership is necessary, not because authority is intrinsic or absolute, but because leaders are accountable to God for those under their care (Heb 13:17). Biblical leadership need not be solitary; corporate and participative models are more appropriate to New Testament principles and examples. Biblical leadership also is not authoritarian or elitist, but humble, caring, and vulnerable. Administrators and faculty who hope to attract the respect and trust of students and their parents, and who intend to train biblical leaders for the church in North America and abroad, must model biblical leadership. Conclusion We began this essay by acknowledging the challenge facing Bible college educators today, and by calling for a new Bible college mandate. We have invited our colleagues to revisit seven historic Bible college distinctives. We have argued that Bible college programs should prepare graduates for Great Commission vocations, that faculty who integrate their faith with their discipline-fields are essential to re-invigorating the Bible-centeredness of our curricula, and that Bible colleges should give fresh priority to field education which is developmental, varied, program-related, and faculty- supervised. These three distinctives are central to our understanding of the Bible college; we are eager to see them publicly affirmed and programmatically strengthened. The four remaining distinctives represent a somewhat different order. While we have not reduced our commitment to character development, doctrinal purity, the practice of ministry, or submission to biblical leadership, cultural shifts have created dissonance between mainstream evangelical values and those institutionalized in many Bible colleges. Although we are troubled by the deteriorating moral foundations of American society, we also recognize that not all change is evil, and some even may reflect the work of God's Spirit in and through his church. Sensitive to these realities, we have argued that programs of character development on our campuses should relinquish the assumption that institutionally imposed standards automatically result in cultivation of holiness. Standards cannot be abandoned, but we believe they best can be personalized and transferred in a relational community committed to holiness. Noting the growing sophistication of mainstream evangelical Christians, we have argued that Bible colleges must give new priority to developing students' critical thinking skills and to applying those skills to God's revelation in Scripture and in nature. Given the rate of social and technological change today, we contend Bible colleges no longer can afford a short-sighted focus limited to ministry techniques. While affirming the importance of practical ministry skills, we have argued that students must be able to articulate a philosophy of ministry and to employ Biblical truth and social theory to assess and generate new models of ministry. Finally, we have argued that both biblical and cultural realities require reassessment of the authoritative leadership style modeled and taught in many Bible colleges. It is our opinion that corporate and participative leadership that emphasizes the responsibility and vulnerability of the leader, as much as the submission of those led, will serve best our Bible colleges, our graduates, and the Church of Jesus Christ. Renewal is not optional for Bible colleges. Despite periodic increases in enrollment and isolated institutions which seem immune to decline, recent trends in Bible college enrollment are sobering, to say the least. We have called for reexamination of commitments in all seven areas identified as Bible college distinctives. Foundational commitments to preparation for Great Commission vocations, to biblical mastery, and to the curricular importance of field education must be reaffirmed and strengthened. If we are correct, however, revitalization of Bible colleges will remain elusive until we rethink our approaches to Christian character development, critical thinking, ministry instruction, and leadership. Only as we close the intellectual and cultural gap which has developed between Bible colleges and the evangelical church-at-large can we expect to attract the broad based respect, support, and enrollments our institutions enjoyed in the 1940s and '50s. By responding to this challenge, Bible colleges can reassert their role as centers for revival in the church and in world missions. REFERENCES Anderson, L. 1990. Dying for Change. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers. . 1992. A Church for the 21st Century. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers. Barna, G. 1990. The Frog in the Kettle: What Christians Need to Know About Life in the Year 2000. Ventura, CA: Regal Books. Brereton, V.L. 1990. Training God's Army: The American Bible School, 1880-1940. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Buss, D. 1994. Educating toward a Christian worldview: Some historical perspectives and prescriptions. Faculty Dialogue. No 21 (Spring-Summer), pp 63-89. Eagen, L.J. 1981. The Bible College in American Higher Education. n.p.: American Association of Bible Colleges. Guinness, O. 1994. Fit Bodies, Fat Minds. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Kallgren, R.C. 1991. The invisible colleges. Christianity Today. Vol 35, no 10 (September 16), pp 27-28. McQuilkin, J.R. 1983. Understanding and Applying the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press. Naisbitt, J. 1982. Megatrends: Ten new Directions Transforming Our Lives. New York: Warner Books. Rimmer, H. 1936. The Harmony of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Soderholm, M. 1955-56. Understanding the Pupil. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.