Page images
PDF
EPUB

too often administered under the direction of trusts, corpora tions, and millionaires, who give the poor man but little opportunity. The liquor saloon, an enemy of labor, home, and good feeling, is still the dominant power in politics, and but little effort is made to suppress it, on the wearisome pretense that laws of this kind cannot be executed. Thus, pauperism is propagated and capital is endangered, as class is arrayed against class through a disregard of the law of love. Materialism of the grossest kind is the basis of much of our social philosophy. The Malthusian theory of population is gaining in popularity, though there seems to be no immediate occasion to dread the awful consequences predicted. Among the Jews, who have ever been so tender toward the waifs of humanity, the national theology taught the truth that "a man's a man for a' that."

It may be customary to cry down anything Hebrew as narrow, offensive, and bigoted; but it yet remains that the votaries of Mosaism have thriven under adverse criticism and unremitting persecution. Christians have been furnished with one of the strongest arguments for the intrinsic value of their own faith in the continued existence and prosperity of the Jews. Once, it was thought that the laws enacted to teach men to love their neighbors as themselves were limited in their scope to a single nation that claimed to be holy and to a race who were content to be a peculiar people. But at the advent of Jesus a new era dawned, and by the preaching of the Gospel peace and good-will* were proclaimed to all mankind. Mosaism was a conservatory for the cultivation of young shoots and rare plants, that might afterward bloom and bear fruit throughout the whole earth.

* Some good authorities prefer the rendering of the Authorized to that of the Revised Version.

John

Poucher

ART. IV.—THE CONFERENCE COURSE OF STUDY. By Conference Course of Study, as every Methodist preacher knows, is meant the course of study prescribed in the Discipline for traveling preachers and for local preachers applying for ordination. In the earlier days of Methodism, before the era of Methodist colleges and seminaries, this "course of study" was the only curriculum pursued by well-nigh all Methodist preachers; and even in this day, with all our vaunted educational facilities, large numbers of our ministers graduate at no other theological school. The day may come when no man will be sent out as pastor of a Methodist society who has not received a collegiate or seminary education, or both; but that day is not yet. Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that God still calls men to preach the Gospel who are neither college nor seminary graduates; and they come knocking at the doors of our Conferences and praying for admission on the grounds of that call. Some are young and can wait for college and seminary training. All who possibly can are urged to step aside for such special preparation. But some cannot turn aside for this purpose. Shall they all be denied admission? The Methodist Church has been in the habit of saying: "If they know they have been converted; if they know, and the Church believes, they have been called of God to preach the Gospel; if they are pure in life and sound in doctrine; if they have native ability and a good elementary English education as a mental foundation; if there is room for them and places that need them, admit them on trial. Let them begin to preach. Put them in the front of the fight, and let them drill afterward." That was what the Conference Course of Study was meant to be—a mental drill for a working Methodist preacher.

It is stating a truism, patent to every practical educator in the Church, to say that this course of study has not accomplished all that might reasonably be expected of it. Where shall the blame be laid? Is it because the course laid down in the Discipline is not the best possible for accomplishing the results desired? It seems hardly proper even to hint at such a thing, when this course has been selected by our honored board of bishops and comes with the seal of their approval fresh upon

4-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XI.

it. Are the undergraduate ministers themselves to blame? In part; for if they mastered the books, in any true sense, the desired end would be attained. Yet many do not master the books. Why not? Is the fault with the committees on examination? In part; for committees have been known to pass candidates upon a very superficial examination.

Yet we must not lay all the blame on undergraduates and examiners. Has not indolence in examined and carelessness in examiner been encouraged, if not engendered, by an unwise method, or lack of method, in planning for examiners and examinations? There is danger in having any officer in Church or State who is not amenable to some higher power for his official conduct; and our Conference committees, as a rule, have been just such officers. Each examiner has been a law unto himself, a free lance, an Ishmaelite. Appointed, frequently, for no special qualification for such service; continued at the caprice of his presiding elder; dropped, at the end of his first, fifth, or tenth year, with or without cause, as might best suit the whims or plans of the power that appointed him; not required to conduct his work according to any system or plan; amenable to no man or set of men for the fidelity and wisdom with which he executed his work; with no praise offered for good work done, no censure for grossest negligence of his sacred trust; with no standard set before him as the ideal method of performing his delicate and important task; with no incentive for him to do his best, neither as appealing to his ambition by a hope of reward, nor yet to his fear of condemnation in case of failure-no wonder, with such a lawless, chaotic system (?) behind him, that an examiner should grow careless, neglect preparation for his examination, and then on facing his class should say, "Well, brethren, I guess you have all studied the books." "Yes, sir." "That is right. And I have no doubt you know just as much about them as I do. But it is my duty to ask you a few questions."

So a few meaningless questions are asked from a hurried glance at the "table of contents;" the examiner expresses his satisfaction at their evident proficiency; all the class pass with high marks, which mean nothing; and every intelligent student, as he leaves that room, hangs his head in shame at such a farce of an examination, which passes men indiscrimi

[ocr errors]

His soul is shocked,

nately, whether they have studied or not. his mind dazed, as he wanders off to himself to ponder this recent revelation: "And is the door to the ministry of the great Methodist Episcopal Church so carelessly guarded-the Church of my choice, the Church of my love, for whose ministry I have such high regard that I have laid aside all other prospects and ambitions and have devoted ten years of my youth and early manhood in preparation for its holy work-and yet is it of such little value that one need only know the silly schoolboy questions asked us by that popular minister in order to be admitted into the charmed circle? Surely, to be a minister of our Church means far less than I had supposed. The loosest examination I ever had in public or high school, in college or seminary, was strictness incarnate compared with that I have just passed. Does it really require less brains and culture to be a minister of the Gospel than to be a teacher in the public school or a freshman at college?"

The workings of the old system of appointing examiners and conducting examinations, as seen in an experience of several years in the Wilmington Conference as examined and examiner, suggest five objections to the method:

FIRST OBJECTION: CHANGING OF EXAMINERS.

If "practice makes perfect" in other things, why not in examinations? No man is as well prepared to examine at the first reading of a book as at the tenth reading. Nor is it possible for any examiner to tell beforehand just how a question will strike the mind of a student. A wise examiner strives to so frame a question that its meaning shall be perfectly plain. All ambiguity must be excluded. Yet, with the utmost care, a question that seems perfectly clear to the examiner may not prove univocal to the examined. One question given to a class last year, that to the examiner's mind could mean only one thing, was misunderstood by every member of the class. Hence we concluded that it was an unfair question and one not to be asked again in that form. Improvement in examinations can only take place by continuing one man on the same books. Colleges act wisely in this matter. By continuing a man year after year in one department he becomes a master of that department, better able both to teach and examine every time he

restudies his course. Who would care to attend a college where the professor changed departments every year-taught Latin this year, Greek next, mathematics the third, science the fourth, and then was dismissed and an entirely new man put in his place? Yet the latter has been our Conference method-constant changing, either by putting in new men outright or by moving forward the examiner with the class. No man has had a chance to examine two years in succession on the same book. This is most unwise, as anyone can see.

Remedy: A permanent board of examiners, who shall continue to examine in the same studies year after year. See Rule 1, below.

As a corollary to objection one, rather than as a separate objection, comes the unwisdom of having separate examining committees for each year's class. Changing examiners and separate committees for each year stand or fall together; the condemnation of the one is the death sentence of the other. Why should it be deemed necessary to have two men engaged in examining candidates on Harman's Introduction at the same time, because some candidates are in the second and some in the third year? Should not the very fact that they had faced an examiner in the second year on the first half of the book and learned his style of examination be the strongest argument in favor of their appearing in the third year before the same man for examination on the last half? Why should two examiners be necessary on United States history, or Methodist history, or grammar, or the Discipline, or on books on other subjects which are identical in the two courses, simply because in one the candidate is being examined as a traveling, in the other as a local, preacher? Are history, grammar, and the Discipline different because studied by men seeking these different relations? Does not wisdom say, "One examiner for both?" Is it not far wiser to have certain examiners for certain books and to let them examine all those who are to be examined on these books, whether traveling or local, whether first or second or third or fourth year preachers?

Remedy: Divide the entire courses of study for traveling and local preachers into departments. Place a wise, progressive educator in charge of each department and keep him there. See Rule 2.

« PreviousContinue »