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

Page 25 text:

tration, but came from outside sources interested in the cause of advanced theological education for Brethren ministers. Its location fi- nally at Ashland College was in re- sponse to the urgent overtures of offi- cials of the college board, and to the offer of this board to meet the condi- tions of the program laid down for the new school. Also, it should be said, quite a few supporters of the proposed seminary felt that the loca- tion in Ohio would make it more easily available to all the churches of the denomination. Furthermore, al- though some pastors felt that a mis- take was being made in accepting the Ashland location, still others felt just as strongly that the establishment of the seminary there would help to make the college what the churches wanted it to be. This proved to be an unduly optimistic view, in the light of the subsequent history of their relationship. V. The Beginning of the Seminary as a Graduate School of Ashland College in 1930. In the Brethren Evangelist, issue of May 3, 1930, President Jacobs pub- licly announced certain actions which had been taken at the recent college board meeting. Among others things, he wrote, “With the seminary here along with the arts college, our inter- ests will not be divided. There will be no question about the granting of suitable degrees, and everything points to the wisdom of such a choice. More will be said about the situation at length later through these col- umns” (p. 14). In the Educational Day issue of the Brethren Evangelist, May 31, 1930, Rev. George T. Ronk, president of the college board, announced formally that “At the recent meeting of the board of trustees arrangements were made for establishment of a post- graduate seminary with power to grant graduate degrees in three- and four-year courses in theological train- ing... . Beginning with the first of next September, all new students for the seminary in full-course work must enter the college of liberal arts and graduate therefrom before ad- mittance into the seminary”’ (p. 2). In the same issue of the above church publication, Prof. Alva J. Mc- Clain in an extended article outlined the recently adopted “NEW SEMI- NARY PROGRAM” under which “The present seminary department of the college will be enlarged and ad- vanced to the rank of a standard the- ological seminary for college gradu- ates. ... All the seminary courses are to be revised and raised to the level of graduate work. . . . The emphasis of the school will be fourfold: orthodox belief, spiritual living, thorough scholarship, and practical applica- tion.” As the executive head of the new school, Professor McClain an- nounced that the departments and teachers would be arranged as fol- lows: Dr. J. Allen Miller, dean: depart- ment of the New Testament and Greek, with an adjunct in Philoso- phy. Prof. Alva J. McClain, associate dean: department of Theology and Christian Evidences, with an adjunct in English Bible. PAGE 19

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-

Page 26 text:

PAGE 20 Prof. Melvin A. Stuckey: depart- ment of Homiletics and Practical The- ology, with an adjunct in Church His- tory. Prof. Kenneth M. Monroe: depart- ment of the Old Testament and He- brew, with an adjunct in Archeology (sys In delivering his address as the moderator of the General Conference of the Brethren Church, August 26, 1930, Professor McClain said, ‘This fall for the first time in the history of the Brethren Church we shall be able to offer our young men a regular 3 years’ seminary course for college graduates. .. . It seems to me, there- fore, that this General Conference should take cognizance of the situa- tion and recommend to the various districts and congregations a whole- hearted support of the seminary pro- gram’ (16). In response to this rec- ommendation by the moderator, the Conference by formal action recom- mended to the churches the new sem- inary program (17). The seminary opened in Septem- ber, and Dean J. Allen Miller, writing of the need of advanced training for the ministry, in the Brethren Evan- gelist of September 20, said, ‘Such a school we have opened for the first time this week at Ashland College... a graduate school of theology of such rank as the highest type of evangel- ical faith and life joined with a ripened and broad scholarship can offer... . We are making this begin- ning now. We must have time to justify this advanced step. . . . May God bless the task to which we now anew consecrate ourselves” (p. 2). VI. Progress of the Seminary in an Unfavorable Environment (1930-35 ). The new arrangement began with the enthusiastic support of all the ' evangelical pastors and churches which had been praying and working for such a school. Most of the newly adopted program for the Seminary was quickly placed in operation un- der the direction of the associate dean, Prof. Alva J. McClain, who pre- pared the first catalog and wrote much of its material which embodied the educational objectives and ideals now being perpetuated in Grace The- ological Seminary. From the begin- ning at Ashland, the original cata- log carried as a statement of Chris- tian faith the document adopted by the Brethren National Ministerial As- sociation in 1921 under the title, ‘““The Message of the Brethren Ministry.” The seminary began in the fall of 1930. Two years later the number of regular students had grown to 18, and a steady stream of preseminary stu- dents were moving up through the college. However, even this early the seminary program was meeting a cool reception on the campus, and occasionally open hostility. In cer- tain college classrooms teachers were expressing critical attitudes toward some areas of Christian truth. The seminary faculty, in counseling with its preseminary students in the col- lege, felt it their duty to help these students to maintain their Christian convictions. Thus it was inevitable that tensions would arise. In the gen- eral chapel exercises, with speakers from both college and seminary fac- ulties, opposing religious viewpoints were often expressed. Students were quick to sense these conflicting views