Can CHED interfere over a religious institution schools?

The facts of the HEB Ministries/Tyndale case(from the text of the Texas State Supreme Court August 2007 decision)

Petitioner HEB Ministries, Inc., a church in Fort Worth operates a school, Tyndale Theological Seminary and Bible Institute, which was founded in the early 1990s to offer a biblical education in preparation for ministry in churches and missions. By 1999, its campus consisted of a library, four or five classrooms, administrative offices, a small bookstore, and a computer department, and its enrollment was 300-350 students, with over three-fourths in correspondence courses.

Tyndale’s 1997-1998 course catalog stated: At Tyndale our focus is upon you — the professional minister or motivated layman who wishes to make a difference for Christ in our world. You are the most important part of the TYNDALE equation. Our job is to meet your needs — to meet you half-way with quality Bible courses that help you in your ministry endeavor.

The catalog also contained a lengthy “Doctrinal Statement” setting out Tyndale’s positions on issues of faith. The catalog listed 172 courses, 162 of which were in religious subjects. Of the other ten, three were in general education — “Basic English Grammar & Composition”, “Read, Research & Study Basics”, and “Ancient World History” — and seven were in typing, word processing, and use of the Internet, offered by the “Department of Theological and Biblical Research”. The catalog offered 20 “diplomas”, all in religious subjects.

Tyndale’s catalog offered no “diploma” in any secular subject and no “degree” of any kind, but it characterized programs of study required for a diploma as equivalent to programs of study required for a degree at the same level. For example, the catalog referred to its “Diploma Of Theological Studies” program as a “bachelor equivalent program” and “bachelor equivalent course of studies”, and the “Master of Arts Level Diploma” in “Counseling” as a “Masters Level Program”.

The course catalog did not state that Tyndale’s diplomas were the equivalent of college degrees, but neither did it state that they were not; it was silent on the subject. The catalog stated that Tyndale and Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary were “going forward with parallel programs [in prophetic studies] and exchange of credits between the two institutions”, but did not otherwise say that Tyndale academic credits could be applied toward earning degrees.

In 1998, Tyndale had never been accredited by an agency recognized by the Coordinating Board and had never obtained a certificate of authority from the Board. Tyndale never sought accreditation or a certificate of authority for what it describes as “doctrinal reasons”. In its 1997-1998 course catalog, Tyndale described its position on accreditation as follows:

Many seminaries are on shifting sands. They feel they must impress the world or the culture with their intellectualism. Thus, some schools are spending large sums of money on appearance and are no longer focusing on the substance — strong theology, solid Bible courses, practical language exegesis, etc.

What validates Tyndale? Tyndale believes it is affirmed by its Board of Advisors, Board of Governors, the students attending and, the world-class Guest Faculty who give our students the best of academics and the greatest training in the spiritual message of the Scriptures. But again, many schools seek RECOGNITION and AFFIRMATION from the state, from secular associations or professional groups that really have no business meddling in biblical matters.

The approach of many seminaries and Bible schools is obsolete and antiquated. They are still trying to be, as they call it, “traditional” schools. But mainly, they simply try to keep up with the Joneses. They attempt to look and act like secular universities. But in reality, a school like Tyndale, and other schools with our convictions, are the ones that are traditional, not the other way around.

For example, in the 1960s, most Christian schools were not accredited, nor did the best want to be. They were satisfied with serving the Lord by being complete and whole within their framework and calling. As well, a student could get the best education at these institutions and know he had not been compromised with the culture. But in the 1970s, a push was on for state approval and accreditation. “We want state and federal government approval. We want the world to like us?” [sic] Did any of this have anything to do with the quality or teaching message of those schools? It did not! When one of the big seminaries became accredited in the 1970s, almost all of the older faculty and all of the graduates testify that the school went down hill — not in a certain secular quality manner, but in its message and commitment to truth and the Gospel.

One of the largest Christian Universities in America has said, “We will not become accredited!” That school today is highly respected and other schools want their graduates. Accreditation or lack of it has not had anything to do with the school’s quality or mission.

At commencement exercises on June 26, 1998, Tyndale recognized graduates with 34 awards, listed in the program with titles as follows:

“Certificate of Biblical Studies (Cert. BS)” — two;
“Diploma of Basic Biblical Studies (Dip. BBS)” — three;
“Associate of Biblical Studies (ABS)” — one;
“Diploma of Advanced Biblical Studies (Dip. ABS)” — one;
“Bachelor Level Diploma in Biblical Studies (BBS)” — two;
“Bachelor Level Diploma in Theological Studies (Dip. Th.S.)” — six;
“Diploma of Christian Studies (DCS)” — two;
“Master of Arts (MA)” — nine;
“Master of Theology (Th.M.) — two;
“Doctor of Ministries (D.Min)” — one;
“Doctor of Theology (Th.D)” — two;
“Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D)” — three.

In conferring these awards, Tyndale did not use the word “degree.” Nevertheless, the Commissioner of Higher Education fined Tyndale $173,000.00 for for using the word "seminary" and issuing theological degrees without receiving government approval.

Attorneys of the Liberty Legal Institute then filed a suit in district court against the state for violating the U.S. and state constitutions. The suit, entitled HEB Ministries v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and filed on behalf of Tyndale as well as two other other seminaries in Texas, argued that government attempts to control the religious training of seminaries are unconstitutional. The Austin Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the state and the case was appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

“The State has no authority or competence to control the training of pastors and ministers”

In August 2007, the Texas State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tyndale, saying that “state education requirements affecting the institutions ‘impermissibly intrude’ upon religious freedom protected by the U.S. and Texas constitutions.”

The Court ruled that “since the government cannot determine what a church should be, it cannot determine the qualifications a cleric should have or whether a particular person has them. Likewise the government cannot set standards for religious education or training.”

Does the HEB Ministries/Tyndale ruling apply here in the Philippines?

The freedom of religion clause of our 1987 Constitution is of American origin. Thus, interpretations and decisions of the United States Supreme Court with regards freedom of religion are given great weight by our own Supreme Court. In the landmark case ofEstrada vs. Escritor (which I also discussed in this blog) for example, our High Court cited numerous passages from US Supreme Court decisions.

Should the issue of accreditation (or non-accreditation) of Bible schools in the Philippines ever reach our courts, then we can cite the Texas State Supreme Court ruling in Tyndale that “the State has no authority or competence to control the training of pastors and ministers.”

Read the complete Tyndale decision of the Texas State Supreme Court