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

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

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 34 text:

PAGE 28 reading some of the documents he had presented before the board in 1930, and calling attention especially to Point 5 in the “Seminary Program”’ adopted that year by the board, which read as follows: “The continuance of the seminary on the college grounds should be re- garded as an experiment for the pres- ent, and if it proves successful, steps shall be taken to erect a separate building suited to the special needs of the seminary. On the other hand, if the separation of the two institutions should be finally deemed advisable, both college and seminary shall co- operate in the matter so that it may be accomplished without injury to either.” Dean McClain then said, ‘Recent disappointments and difficulties might be discussed here at length from the seminary standpoint, but I have no inclination to do so, unless such a course becomes necessary. It will be enough to say that my argu- ments for a separate location and autonomy for the seminary, uttered before this board 7 years ago, are all valid today.”’ He then recommended that the seminary be separated from the arts college. The report and rec- ommendation were received in com- plete silence and filed with the secre- tary of the board (33). The answer of the board, made at a later session, was a weasel-worded document, care- fully phrased to avoid making any charges, requesting the resignations of Dean McClain and Professor Hoyt, with the alternative of dismissal (34). These two professors, feeling that the cause for which they had battled could be served better by declining to resign, thus compelled the adminis- tration to carry out its threat. The letters of dismissal came on June 4, 1937. In neither the official action of the board nor the letters of dismissal was there any specific charge of any kind whatsoever, either against Dean Mc- Clain or Professor Hoyt. The board’s published version referred vaguely to a lack of harmony between college and seminary, but made no attempt to explain what the problem was or who was responsible. Basically, of course, there was only one problem — the problem of Christian faith, and it was nothing new at Ashland College. The old problem had simply been drama- tized by the broken promises of an administration which had publicly pledged itself to “stand by” the school’s own “Statement of Faith.” And the drama was heightened some- what by the summary dismissal of two men who thought that promises should be kept. The news of the board’s action aroused widespread indignation. An- ticipating to some extent this result, the college belatedly attempted to shroud itself with a cloak of ortho- doxy by publishing the troublesome Statement of Faith both in its current catalog and a special bulletin sent out to the churches. But later, when the futility of this gesture became ap- parent, the Statement of Faith was dropped from the next catalog (1938- 39) and in its place was substituted a watered-down version of religion which left more room for “liberal” and Unitarian variations (35). The publication of the Statement of Faith, of course, changed nothing. The real issue was not merely its pub- lication, but rather its application.