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

Page 32 text:

PAGE 26 college president to increase the non- Brethren membership on the board, the General Conference adopted a strongly worded resolution warning of the danger of opening the door to modernistic control, and disapproving his proposal. Again the college ad- ministration fought the Conference action, and subsequently proceeded to do exactly what the Conference had disapproved (28). Third, smarting under the adverse actions of the Conference, the friends of Dr. Anspach proposed a motion of confidence in him and the entire ad- ministration of Ashland College. This motion was tabled by the Conference (29). IX. The Year of Decision, 1936-37. Coming from his defeat at the Gen- eral Conference, in which the semi- nary had participated actively, the college president proceeded to make things uncomfortable for those sem- inary teachers who continued to in- sist on the use of the college State- ment of Faith. The climax came early in 1937 when the entire faculty of the institution had met to consider a pro- posed code of “Rules and Regula- tions” for their organization and guid- ance. This code provided, among other things, that ‘a member of the teaching staff may be dismissed .. . for inefficiency or neglect of academic duty, immorality, or conduct unbe- coming to a gentleman” (30). Dean McClain moved the addition of an- other cause for dismissal, namely, “for teaching anything contrary to the college Statement of Faith.” This motion was quickly defeated by a loud chorus of ‘“‘No’s.” Pointing out the seriousness of this action, Dean McClain asked that his own affirma- tive vote be made a matter of record. Prof. Herman A. Hoyt made the same request. Someone moved that all the votes be so recorded, but the motion was overwhelmingly defeat- ed. At this point the late Dr. L. L. Garber, no mean parliamentarian, in- formed the chairman that anyone could demand a roll-call vote. In- stantly Professor Hoyt made the de- mand, and the roll-call began. It happened so quickly that the opposi- tion had no time to collect its wits, and the chairman simply moved with the tide. Otherwise the issue might never have come to a clean-cut public decision, as it did, with no escape for anyone (31). The second name called in alpha- betical order was that of the president himself. Dr. Anspach made an angry speech against the application of the college Statement of Faith and voted an emphatic “No,” after which there was no longer any uncertainty as to the safe way to vote. When the vote was finished, only five votes were re- corded as favoring the application of the Statement of Faith. Three of the votes were cast by the seminary teachers—Hoyt, McClain, and Stuck- ey. Only two college teachers sup- ported the seminary position — the late Dr. L. L. Garber, and Dr. Scholl, who a year later was quietly pushed out of the college. The above incident is related some- what in detail because it seems to have precipitated the fateful decision of the college president and his sup- porters to put an end to the theolog- ical seminary, at least in the form and with the uncompromising Chris-

Page 31 text:

great embarrassment of all con- cerned, leaving the seminary with less than the minimum number of teachers necessary to maintain stand- ard theological work (23). At the 1936 meeting of the board, a large part of the president’s report was devoted to an unwarranted and rather petty attack upon a group of preseminary college students who had distributed Christian tracts on the campus; and submitted a plan to divide the college student body into two groups in relation to “standards of living and conduct’; the one group to be permitted to uphold “restricted standards”; the other and larger group not to be required to live in harmony with such restricted stand- ards of “social activities’; and the views of each group were to be “re- spected and protected” (24). This absurd proposal, supported by a ma- jority of board members present, aroused widespread indignation, pro- voked the resignation of Dr. L. S. Bauman from the board, and subse- quently resulted in the historic “Open Letter” addressed to the president of Ashland College by the Brethren Ministerial Board of the Southern California District (25 ). Vill. The Conflict Enters the General Conference of 1936. Following the issuance of the “Open Letter’. and its distribution throughout the churches, the college president labored hard to explain his actions and rally support to his ad- ministration. When the General Conference convened in August of 1936, the main issues had become fairly clear: first, the protection of “liberalism” in the college because of the refusal of the administration to apply the officially adopted standards of faith; second, the question of church control over its board; third, the conflict over standards of life and conduct on the campus; fourth, deep concern regarding the future of the seminary under the jurisdiction of a hostile president now supported by a majority of the board, and whose promises apparently meant little. The so-called “Ashland College Problem” reached the floor early in the General Conference where it was discussed to some extent. That the problem was no mere tempest in a teapot is abundantly clear from the following actions passed by the Con- ference: First, after the public reading of the “original charter of Ashland Col- lege,’ a motion was made that the Conference appoint a committee of seven men to investigate the condi- tion causing the disturbance and re- port back to the General Conference in 1937. Although bitterly opposed by the college president and his friends, the motion passed with a fair majority of votes. According to the Minutes, page 13, “The Special Com- mittee for investigation of Ashland College as elected by conference are as follows: R. D. Barnard, C. A. Stew- art, R. F. Porte, Wm. Schaffer, Jr., Roy Patterson, E. H. Wolfe, H. V. Wall” (26). This committee organ- ized and outlined a program of pro- cedure, but was informed by the col- lege administration that it would have to wait for an invitation from the college board which would not meet until the following year (27). Second, as to the proposal of the PAGE 25

Page 33 text:

tian viewpoint which had character- ized its original founding and conduct during the 7 years from 1930 to 1937. Sensing indications of this decision, late in the year Dean McClain made a final and friendly appeal to Dr. Anspach not to act recklessly because of the wide area of church interests which were involved. But the appeal was fruitless. The administration was already busily engaged in assembling to its support various small groups which had little in common except a feeling of resentment against the de- termined stand of the seminary for the application of the college State- ment of Faith. X. The 1937 Meeting of the Ashland College Board of Trustees. When the board met at Ashland on June 1, 1937, the controlling majority had its plans laid in advance. As a rather empty gesture in the direction of investigating itself, and to forestall the expected adverse report of the General Conference Investigating Committee, the administration had set up its own committee. Its three members, all well known for their opposition to the seminary, made per- functory inquiries of several teachers, but their attitudes made it clear that they had already decided that the col- lege administration was right. Both the late Dr. L. S. Bauman and Rev. C. H. Ashman came to the board meeting as members designated by the Southern California District, but under the new constitutional provi- sion adopted by the college board in defiance of the General Conference disapproval, both men were refused a seat on the board. The minority who stood for the Statement of Faith fought valiantly but vainly. It had already become clear, from published statements of the college administra- tion and its supporters, that they had fixed upon one of two alternate goals: they intended either to gain control over the General Conference of the denomination; or failing this they would move to take the college en- tirely out of the denominational con- Dr. Paul Bauman bids farewell as he begins a world tour of mission fields with Dr. Louis Talbot, September 1949. trol. The college attorney had al- ready prepared a brief to show that the Brethren Church could not legal- ly control the institution (32). Anticipating to some extent the objective of the college administra- tion, and desiring to establish a his- torical record of the situation, Dean McClain of the seminary in his an- nual report to the board reviewed the events which led to the founding of the seminary at Ashland in 1930, re- PAGE 27