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

Page 29 text:

THE FACULTY, 1947-48 Front Row: Homer A. Kent, Alva J. McClain, Herman A. Hoyt. Back Row: Paul R. Bauman, Harry Sturz, Robert D. Culver. letter, which contains other material of considerable interest, shows con- clusively that there was no misunder- standing on the part of anyone re- garding the pledged program of the new president. Furthermore, at a meeting of representatives of both seminary and college, Dr. Anspach announced the above program and then asked each professor present whether he would agree to cooperate in this program. The seminary teachers agreed heartily—for it was their program—the college men final- ly acquiesced, but with great reluc- tance. As it appeared afterwards, they were not able to make promises quite as easily as the new president. But at the time it seemed like the beginning of a better day. In the 1935 annual meeting of the college board, when Dr. Anspach had been called to the presidency, Dean McClain in his annual report to the board had referred to conditions in the college in part as follows: ‘The baneful influence of fraternities .. . Faculty worldliness, including addic- tion to cigarets, cards, and movies... Tolerance toward smoking and danc- ing by the students .. . Drinking and public drunkenness among students, with no apparent serious attempts to investigate thoroughly and discipline . . . Contemptuous attitude toward the church and its ministry . . . Ques- tioning the truths of Christianity, and the teaching of the dogma of evolu- tion... Denunciation of the seminary as being responsible for the difficul- ties here... Attempts to discredit the character of the seminary work by claiming to students that it had ‘no academic value’... Spreading reports PAGE 23

Page 28 text:

PAGE 22 dean emeritus and Professor McClain was made the dean of the seminary. By 1934 the difficulties of the col- lege had increased. It had been re- moved from the list of accredited in- stitutions. The confidence of many pastors had been shaken by the ad- ministration’s failure to apply the standards of faith. Among the col- lege students there was much discon- tent, Many preseminary students being disturbed by anti-Biblical atti- tudes in certain classrooms; while on the other hand the worldly majority were clamoring for greater liberty than allowed by the somewhat feeble rules. The tension between seminary and college was heightened when the president suddenly stopped three seminary professors from teaching Bible classes in the college, and also ruled that no college credit would be given for Bible courses taken by col- lege students in the seminary classes (20). In the college certain promi- nent teachers, for reasons of their cs ies Eugene Allen and Dr. McClain at the 1942 graduation. own, secretly began to agitate for a change of administration. The board of trustees, at the spring meeting of 1935, accepted the resig- nation of President Jacobs and elect- ed to that position Dr. C. L. Anspach, a former dean of Ashland College. The death of Dr. J. Allen Miller had left vacant the professorship of New Testament and Greek in the semi- nary, and to this position the board called Herman A. Hoyt, a brilliant linguistic student and protege of his former teacher. VII. A New Administration and Its Trojan Horse (1935-37). President Anspach’s administra- tion began auspiciously and with promise of a better day. He was ac- quainted with the situation at Ash- land, having talked with many of the pastors who were solidly behind the seminary and disturbed about the college and some of its teachers. He had consulted at length personally with Dean McClain before coming to the presidency, pledged his faith and adherence to the college standards of faith, said he would publish them in the college catalog and “stand by” them. In a letter to Dean McClain dated February 11, 1935, Dr. Ans- pach said he had decided to accept the presidency. As to the “liberal” trends at the college, he frankly ad- mitted that wrong teaching had been going on there, but stated that his policy would be to “reorganize with the Wheaton |College| viewpoint” and “contact conservative men in all denominations”; that in this “direc- tion there was hope and none in the direction of liberalism” (21). This

Page 30 text:

PAGE 24 throughout the community that the seminary teachers are troublemakers ... These charges can be verified if the board wishes to investigate. . We believe the coming of Dr. Ans- pach will begin immediately to change these conditions under which we have had to work. His program for the institution, as outlined by him upon several occasions, is the pro- gram we have believed in and prayed for through the years... . Every diffi- culty that has ever arisen between seminary and college administration has had to do, either directly or in- directly, with Christian faith and life. No other problem exists. Our battle is not over men, but over truth. We do not hate men; we do hate untruth and error. And we do not propose to surrender when it arises. If you ex- pect us to, do not ask us to remain here. We believe that, if Dr. Ans- pach’s program is loyally and enthu- siastically supported, this institution can become by God’s grace one of the most outstanding educational institu- tions in America, spiritually and in- tellectually” (22). No president ever began his admin- istration at Ashland College with so complete and united support of its church constituency, or with such un- reserved approval for his avowed pro- gram. Yet within a few months the new president’s almost cynical viola- tion of his solemn promises had pre- cipitated a conflict which virtually wrecked the seminary at Ashland, lost to the college at least half its church constituency, and led to divi- sion of Brethren churches into two national conferences. To be sure, one man by himself could not have done all this. There had been existing dif- ferences, some trivial, and others more serious, but none that could not have been handled without such far- reaching results if the actions of Dr. Anspach had been tempered with more wisdom and good will. Consider some of these actions. A clear indication of his real inclinations appeared when the new president be- came sharply critical of the seminary because its teachers protested the in- clusion of certain religious modernists on his inaugural program. Further- more, one of his first administrative acts was the proposal of certain con- stitutional changes to permit a sub- stantial increase of non - Brethren membership on the board, and de- priving the church districts of their former elective powers, thus making the board self-perpetuating. This was serious enough for the college, but far worse for the seminary which was controlled by the same board. Again, he began to reduce arbitrarily the small financial allowance made to the seminary for essential activities such as the annual day of prayer. In his first year it was found that, in spite of his former pledges, the new president was actually sympathetic with the very teachers in the college whose attitudes had caused much of the dif- ficulty under the former administra- tion. During the academic year of 1935- 36 Dr. K. M. Monroe resigned his po- sition as professor of the Old Testa- ment, and President Anspach author- ized Dean McClain to secure for this position Rev. Homer A. Kent, then pastor of the First Brethren Church of Washington, D. C. After the lat- ter had accepted the call, Dr. Anspach suddenly reversed himself, to the