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

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

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 22 text:

PAGE 16 should not be handicapped by the un- pleasant task of correcting erroneous theological o pinions expressed in [college] classroom and chapel. It is not that such opinions are feared. But it is demoralizing and embarrassing to have these issues arising between faculty members of the same institu- tion. .. . If the seminary teacher ven- tures to defend the church’s view- point, he is likely to be regarded as a troublesome heresy hunter and placed in a false light before the [col- lege| student body. If the arts col- lege would support enthusiastically the theological position of the sem- inary, this situation could be correct- ed. But experience does not indicate much hope for such a solution, al- though it might properly be expected of a church college. . . . In some re- spects the presence of the seminary on the Ashland campus would be an embarrassment to the arts college. Such seminary work as we are doing there at present is being done surrep- titiously. To borrow a well-under- stood term, we are ‘bootlegging’ our seminary education as far as graduate work is concerned. This will be per- fectly clear to anyone who reads the college catalog (1930). . . . The sit- uation is demoralizing to the best in- terests of ministerial training in the Brethren Church. . . . If the college | administration] demands the reten- tion of the seminary on this campus, it should be given the dignity and prestige that such a school deserves and must have” (13). In concluding his presentation of the new seminary project, Professor McClain assured the board that al- though the men for whom he spoke were strongly in favor of locating the school in southern California where both a building and financial support were available, nevertheless they THE ASHLAND SEMINARY QUARTET IN 1936 Jacob Kliever, Kenneth Ashman, Robert Ashman, Luther Grubb, and Robert Scott