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

Page 23 text:

might agree to the location at Ash- land College if the board would ap- prove and support a definite “SEM- INARY PROGRAM” which he then proceeded to outline. Since the main points of this program are of high his- torical significance, they are repro- duced here rather fully as they appear in the original manuscript: 1. The present seminary department of the arts college should be made a standard theological seminary for college graduates ... degrees to be granted only to those who have properly matriculated. 2. The faculty shall be composed of at least four professors... . 3. The dean of the seminary should have complete jurisdiction in all seminary matters, similar to the jurisdiction of the president in the arts college. . . . He should be a member of the board of trustees in order that the seminary interests may be properly represented thereon. 4. Teachers having the degree of Th.M. from standard seminaries should be ranked with the doctors in the arts college, in such matters as scholastic standing and salary. ... (If the two institutions were separated, this issue would not be raised.) 5. The continuance of the seminary on the college grounds should be regarded as an experiment for the present, and if it proves successful, steps shall be taken to erect a separate building suited to the spe- cial needs of the seminary. On the other hand, if the separation of the two institu- tions should be finally deemed advisable, both college and seminary shall cooperate in the matter so that it may be accom- plished without injury to either. 6. A plan should be worked out which will insure the financial autonomy of the seminary. This plan should provide either for an equitable division of present and fu- ture endowment income between college and seminary, or else authorize the sem- inary to conduct its own campaign for endowment. 7. The seminary should publish its own . annual catalog and bulletin. 8. Within the board of trustees, there should be a seminary committee composed of at least five members appointed by the president of the board in consultation with the seminary faculty. The dean of the seminary should be a member ex officio of this committee (14). After considerable discussion of the proposals as set forth by Professor McClain, although there was some apparent hostility on the part of the college administration and its sym- pathizers on the board, nevertheless, with no dissenting vote, the proposed plan for the seminary as a graduate school of the college was approved by the trustees. The support of Dr. C. H. Ashman, member of the board and pastor of the First Brethren Church, Johnstown, Pa., was no small factor in the favorable outcome. At the same time Professor McClain was called by the board to reorganize and head the seminary on the new grad- uate basis, with the title of associate dean. The late Dr. J. Allen Miller, for many years dean of the seminary department, was continued with his title. It was understood, however, with the full and friendly consent of Dr. Miller, that complete responsibil- ity and authority in the reorganiza- tion and direction of the seminary was vested in the associate dean. Dr. Miller was enthusiastic for the new plan and cooperated to the fullest ex- tent. The date for the opening of the new school was set for the fall term of 1930. The college administration acqui- esced in the board’s action, but it was fairly clear that they were not too happy about it. Viewing the matter purely from an academic standpoint as it might possibly concern the arts college, their attitude was at least understandable. The college on March 19 had at last secured aca- demic accreditation from the North PAGE 17

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

Page 24 text:

PAGE 18 AN ASHLAND SEMINARY GATHERING IN CALIFORNIA, SUMMER OF 1936 Standing: Rev. and Mrs. Louis Bauman, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Carter, Mrs. Ernest Pine, Ray Klingensmith, Ernest Pine, Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Shiery, Mr. and Mrs. Con- ard Sandy, Prof. and Mrs. Kenneth Monroe, Prof. Melvin Stuckey. Kneeling: Mr. and Mrs. Orville Lorenz, Mrs. Ray Klingensmith, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Carey and child, Prof. and Mrs. Alva J. McClain, Mrs. Melvin Stuckey. Central Association. The added ex- pense of the new seminary plan would to that extent reduce the funds available and needed in the college to maintain the accrediting standards. Furthermore, the administration feared that the establishment of the seminary as a graduate school might injure the academic position of the college in the eyes of the North Cen- tral examiners who were not inter- ested in positive Christian theolog- ical education. It was no secret also that some members of the college faculty would have been only too glad to get rid of the seminary entirely. But there was another side to the problem which created a genuine di- lemma for the administration. A col- lege endowment campaign was in progress among the churches, and the most potent argument being used to secure financial support from the churches was that Ashland College provided education for the ministers and missionaries of the church. Therefore, the administration hesi- tated to consent to the establishment of the seminary elsewhere since it would attract the financial support of the churches, most of which were more interested in training students for full-time Christian service than in merely supplementing the secular ed- ucational facilities already existing in half a hundred other institutions in the State of Ohio. These were some of the considerations which undoubt- edly silenced temporarily the opposi- tion to the establishment of the sem- inary as a graduate school at Ashland College. They did not welcome the prospect of it coming there, but to have it go elsewhere appeared to be worse. And so the decision was made. It should be clear, therefore, from the above-mentioned facts, that the proposal and plan for a seminary on a graduate basis did not arise from within the Ashland College adminis-