Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
John Bunyan spent 12 years of his life in prison because he refused to be licenced (you might call it accredited) by the Anglican church to preach. His accreditation came from God not man. Who calls man to preach: man or God? Who ordains man to preach: man or God? It is God in both cases. An ordination service is simply man's recognition of the call of God that has already taken place in the preacher. It is God that ordains a man to preach.
I disagree. God calls a man to preach but that call is recognized by his church. If the church body does not recognize the gifts and calling of God and does not ordain a man to preach, then he is not qualified to preach. The church body is the sending agency for pastors and preachers. They ordain, not God. Their authority to ordain does not come from them as individuals, but from them as a church body.
Then many a great man of God preached for nought. God called them; they went out and preached. History is replete with many examples. The ministires of Dwight L. Moody, Adoniram Judson, William Carey, would all be meaningless. So would the ministries of most of those recorded in the Bible.
Who sent Aquilla and Priscilla, who ended up having a church in Rome?
In the same manner who gives permission to marry: God or man? It is the right of the pastor, ordained of God to marry a couple. This is a God ordained right, which the government ought not to have any control. Yet you willingly submit to it without any thought??
To answer your question, Both. Both God and man give permission to marry. They are not in tension with one another until man violates what God says. Marriage is a God-ordained right about which civil government has an interest. This has always been this way.
But as far as willingly submitting to it, Where in Scripture is a pastor commanded to marry anyone? Where in Scripture is the church even said to be involved in a wedding? Nowhere. We have, out of tradition, added a lot of stuff in, like church weddings and pastors performing. God never instructed a pastor to do that. The solemnization of marriage has always been an affair of the state.
It is true that God ordained marriage. But the state, ordained by God, has established what it means to "be married." So long as the state does not contradict what God says, then we are fine. The state does not force me to marry anyone. They permit me to do it. God does not force me to marry anyone. A marriage is in the sight of God, but it is also in the sight of the state.
As for a license to marry, most states now do not require it. Michigan is one of those states; Ohio is not. I recently married a couple in Ohio and had to get a license to make it legal. To marry them otherwsie would have been an illegal marriage. But when I performed the ceremony, I was performing a service to the state. It was not a part of my "pastoral duties" as outlined in Scripture.
Furthermore, the state does not require anything with respect ot marriage, other than that I be a licensed or ordained clergy man of the church at which I serve.
But we are rather off topic here.
There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the government or any societal organization outside of the nation of Israel or the church was ever involved in the institution of marriage. Pre-law we have the examples of the Patriarchs finding wives for their sons, and arranging marriages for them. It had nothing to do with the nation in which they lived.
During the law, marriage laws were very strict. They were not allowed to marry outside of the nation of Israel. Thus Israel itself, God's chosen people, (acting as a kind of church) would be totally involved in the wedding ceremony. When divorce was given it was given by Israel. The nations in which they lived never had any say about marriage or divorce. It was always Jewish and strictly Jewish.
In the New Testament marriage was under Jewish law, or when Paul alludes to marriage in his epistles he never alludes to the governement. It is always in the context of the church. He uses Old Testament law for an example, never the laws of the nation. We would thus deduce that the responsibility of marriage falls under the obligation of the church, and never the government. It is the church that has capitulated to the government in this matter.
To blast another institution for accepting accreditation, when it doesn't change their curriculum, their standards, or interfere in any way with their day to day operations; when you accept the government interference into a God given right such as the marriage of a couple is absolutely hypocritical and wrong.
Apples and oranges. Your first statement is, as yet, unsubstantiated. The second is simply wrong. Performing a legal marriage is not government interference. In fact, if a couple does not get legally married, they are living in fornication, no matter what they may intend. If I had refused to get a marriage license for Ohio, that couple would be living in sin.
Not if it is the sole right of the church to marry them. What shall we say then? Shall we obey God or man? Is it the right of the government to tell the church and give the church the authority for marriage. Or does this authority come from God?
Furthermore, the principle of separation and church and state has more to do with churches, not universities or colleges.
I haven't seen anyone here invoke the separation of church and state, though perhaps I missed it. The discussion was about who has the authority to set the standards in a Christian institution? Can a non-Christian serve as a viable guide for what Christian education ought to be?
If you read my first post on page one, I broght the matter of separation of church and state up there. It is one of the Baptist distinctives that we hold to dearly. I believe it was this distinctive that kept Dr. Cedarholm from keeping MBBC from being accredited in the first place. The government has no place in the church. It is a basic principle of Baptists. But as I pointed out: Where does one draw the line when it comes to so-called government interference. There is far more government interference in the licencing of a pastor to perform a marriage or officiate at a funeral, then in the accreditation of a university or college. That is what is apples and oranges. There needs to be some consistency in the thinking of Baptists concerning the principle of separation of church and state. The government has its hand in the church in more ways than you can possibly think of. Accreditation is simply a minor issue when compared to some of these other issues.
Another comparison: BJU graduates are snapped up very quickly by different organizations all across the nation. They don't have a problem gettng jobs, nor do they seem to have a problem transferring into most universities in the U.S. Their academic reputation precedes them.
Therefore what is there to worry about?
In a Christian university or college, should not our educational academic standards at least meet or excel the basic standards set forth by an accreditation committee? I certainly would hope so.
DHK
... Nursing and aviation require accreditation to even exist. Education is accredited through the SC Dept of Ed. Those are mandatory, which is BJIII's reason. They have to be accredited to exist. Regional accreditation is a voluntary subjugation of Christian philosohpy and ideals to secular criticism and mandate. 