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

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-

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 21 text:

tant that you should, at least one of you. I am satisfied that the two in- stitutions (seminary and college) cannot be maintained separately at the present time without the loss of the college [italics supplied|” (11). Recognizing the validity of these appeals, both Bauman and McClain agreed to meet with the college board at Ashland for the purpose of explor- ing the possibilities of reaching some agreement which would not jeopard- ize the future either of the college or the proposed new seminary. It should be stated here that Dr. Bauman was already a member of the Ashland College board, representing the churches of the Southern California District. Professor McClain had been elected moderator of the General Conference of the Brethren Church for the current year of 1929-30. IV. The Agreement to Locate the Seminary at Ashland. The Ashland College board of trus- tees convened at Ashland, Ohio, in their annual meeting on April 24, 1930, the date having been changed to make it possible for Bauman and McClain to be present. In a carefully prepared manuscript, Professor Mc- Clain presented the plan of the pro- posed seminary, dealing with three things: first, the need for a standard Brethren theological seminary; sec- ond, the reasons why the Ashland College campus would not be the best place to locate it; and third, some essential conditions which must be met if the seminary were to be lo- cated there. As to “The Need for a Brethren Theological Seminary,” many of the arguments presented by Professor McClain are still cogent today, as in- dicated by the following excerpts: “The Brethren Church must provide theological training for its own min- istry. If we do not, our best young men will go elsewhere. Some have already made application to enter other seminaries. . . . The Brethren Church can not depend upon the arts college at Ashland to do this work. By its very nature the arts college must either be silent or else keep in the background the distinctive posi- tions of the Brethren Church. ... We need a theological seminary which, by example and precept, will lead men to feel that it is supremely worth while to be a minister in the Brethren Church. . . . Without an adequately trained ministry, enthusiastic for our message, we are doomed. Competi- tion is keen, union is in the air, and modernism is dissolving all differ- ences” (12). Regarding “The Location of the Seminary,” Professor McClain argued that while there would be some ad- vantages in placing it at Ashland Col- lege, there were many reasons which could be urged against such a loca- tion. A few of these reasons are re- produced here in part: “The seminary should be conducted in a religious atmosphere which does not and can not possibly exist in an arts college which is open to the general public and where the seminary students are a small minority. . . . It should be frankly recognized that the [Ash- land] college faculty contains an ele- ment which does not sympathize with the theological viewpoint of the sem- inary and a majority of Brethren ministers. The seminary professors PAGE 15