Grace Theological Seminary - Xapis / Grace Yearbook (Winona Lake, IN)

Page 19 text:

a teacher in the seminary depart- ment, was openly opposed to the edu- cational ideals of Professor McClain. Dean J. Allen Miller, although very friendly to these ideals, was not by temperament disposed to lead in the battle necessary for their realization at Ashland. To fill the vacancy made by the res- ignation of Professor McClain, and upon his recommendation, the ad- ministration called Dr. K. M. Monroe from his pastorate in Spokane, Wash. Later in the summer of 1927, Profes- sor Garber suddenly resigned to enter another denomination and Rev. M. A. Stuckey was called to fill this va- cancy. Both Monroe and Stuckey were thoroughly conversant with the situation at Ashland; the latter being especially critical, often not too wise- ly, of the administration there. He was unable to differentiate between trivial matters and things that were really important, and therefore made very little effective contribution to the orthodox position because he had made himself disliked so heartily by many teachers in the college. III. The Proposed Seminary in Southern California. From Ashland College Professor McClain went to the Bible Institute of Los Angeles to serve as teacher of Christian Doctrine. During his 2 years there (1927-29) he continued working on a program and curric- ulum looking toward the eventual es- tablishment of a theological seminary which would embody certain educa- tional objectives and ideals which he felt were not being fully realized in any existing school at the time. Hav- ing personally observed, both as a student and a teacher, the distinctive PAGE 13

Page 18 text:

PAGE 12 Christ by saying, “A person may be a member of the Brethren Church... and be an Athanasian on the subject of the nature of Christ, or on the other hand he may be an Arian and still be a good member of the Church. These things are of minor impor- tance” (6). As the churches and pastors be- came aware of the situation, a very definite but unorganized opposition began to gather, in which the late Dr. Louis S. Bauman was the principal leader. His files contain much cor- respondence with certain men in the Ashland College group, revealing the crucial issues of the time. This resist- ance to the “liberal” party gathered strength and support until at the 1921 General Conference a statement of faith, known as ‘““The Message of the Brethren Ministry,” was adopted by the National Ministerial Association with an overwhelming majority over the bitter and prolonged efforts of the “liberals” to defeat it. Although he had formerly been aligned with the “liberals” at Ashland College, to their dismay the late Dean J. Allen Miller joined heartily in the adoption of the statement of faith. This statement of faith, which became a document of great historical importance, in its original form had been prepared by Alva J. McClain, pastor of the First Brethren Church of Philadelphia (7). The adoption of this statement of faith had several important results: First, it provided a rallying point for the evangelical ministers of the church, and was widely endorsed and used by congregations, district con- ferences, and ministerial examining committees (8). Second, a number of liberally inclined ministers left the Brethren Church and entered other denominations. Third, Dr. Gillin stopped attending the General Con- ference, and the few remaining min- isters who had supported the “‘liber- als” suffered a marked decline in influence. Fourth, the churches tem- porarily at least gained a larger voice in the affairs of Ashland College, and began a definite agitation to place on its faculty more men of unquestioned loyalty to the great truths of the Christian faith. In 1925 the: Board called Alva J. McClain to a teaching position there. Professor McClain remained for 2 years, teaching both in the college and seminary department. Although urged to remain by President Jacobs, he resigned in the spring of 1927 be- cause of ill health and dissatisfaction with the situation and prospects there. In the first place, the restric- tion of the “seminary” work to a mere major in the college was con- tinued by the administration with no apparent serious interest in placing it on a graduate basis. Second, the best ministerial students were becoming ambitious for advanced theological training and were beginning to look toward other schools for such work on a graduate level. Some were giv- ing up their proposed “Bible majors’”’ to work for the regular Bachelor of Arts degree so as to lay the necessary basis for entrance to the standard the- ological seminaries. Third, because it had become clear that “liberal” ten- dencies in life and faith still existed on the campus, the environment there did not seem at the time favorable for the establishment of the kind of a theological school needed by the Brethren Church. Prof. J. A. Garber,

Page 20 text:

PAGE 14 values of both theological seminary and Bible institute types of education, he had come to feel that a proper in- tegration of these values in one insti- tution was not only desirable but also possible; a school where the compe- tent scholarship of a seminary might function within the warm spiritual and practical atmosphere of a Bible institute (9). In the fall of 1929, after close and prolonged consultation with the late Dr. Louis S. Bauman and others in- terested, it was decided to undertake the founding of such a school. The First Brethren Church of Long Beach, Calif., of which Dr. Bauman was pastor, began construction on a large educational building and also called Professor McClain to serve as Minister of Education while plans for the new seminary were being formu- lated. Interest in the project spread to many Brethren churches through- out the country. Financial support was promised by outstanding laymen. Possible faculty members were being contacted, and letters were coming from prospective students, some in course at Ashland College. By the middle of 1929 reports of the proposed new school had come to the attention of the Ashland College administration, and correspondence reveals their concern over the possi- bility of the new school being located elsewhere. Under date of July 3, 1929, President Jacobs wrote in part as follows to Dr. Bauman: “I note what you say about the seminary on the (west) coast. Naturally I would rather not see it there. .. . I am in- clined to think in time the seminary there would militate against the work here. . . . I would be much better pleased, and I think the church would be better served, if a way were pro- vided to bring McClain here and the seminary. His very presence here... would mean a world of good to us. I have absolute confidence in him and in his ability to enthuse our young men as they ought to be enthused” (10). Early in 1930 Dr. W. S. Bell, en- dowment secretary of Ashland Col- lege, and an influential member of its board, came to Long Beach for the purpose of urging that the new sem- inary project be launched in organic relation with the college at Ashland. He felt strongly that it would be wel- comed there, that its influence on the campus would do much to keep the college true to the faith, and urged that both Dr. Bauman and Professor McClain should attend the April meeting of the board for the purpose of presenting their program for the proposed seminary. Dr. Bell felt that such a school, if located separately from Ashland College, would attract the major interest and support of the churches and might result eventually in the “‘loss of the college.” By keep- ing college and seminary together, he thought, the Brethren Church could have both and make the college what it should be spiritually. To the ob- jection that much of the promised fi- nancial support might be lost if the school were located in the East, Dr. Bell replied that the college should assume the financial support if placed at Ashland. In a letter to Professor McClain, March 4, 1930, Dr. Bell wrote: “It has been decided to have our college board of trustees meet on April 22. I hope you and Bauman can be here as it will be very impor-