Time of Blessing Time of Hope: Columbia Theological Seminary, 1976-1986,

I t has been said that each generation
jlbuilds on foundations laid by those
who have gone before them. Nowhere is
that more evident than in churches and
seminaries. This short book is an account
of how my predecessor, Davison Philips,
faithfully and effectively built on founda-
tions laid by those who preceded him at
Columbia. His strong faith, his commit-
ment to the church, his vision for the
seminary, his winsome personality, his
sense of humor, and his firm hand are all
reflected in these pages.

Under Davison's leadership the faculty
was strengthened, enrollment increased,
new programs were begun in response to
the needs of the church, the seminary's
relations with Presbyterian congregations
in the Southeast was enhanced, and the
endowment was substantially enlarged.

Columbia Seminary made tremendous
gains under his leadership as president,
and we are grateful to God for the firm
foundations he laid and upon which we
now have the privilege to build.

DOUGLAS W. OLDENBURG

President

Columbia Theological Seminary

REF

BV

4070

C7946

P44

1994

For Reference

Not to be taken from this room

93-1863

1031

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

http://archive.org/details/timeofblessingtiOOphil

Time of Blessing

COLUMBIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 1976-1986

Time of Hope

J. DAVISON PHILIPS

Time of Blessing, Time of Hope
Columbia Theological Seminary 1976-1986

Copyright 1994 by Columbia Theological Seminary

934863

REF BV 4070 ,07946 F44 1994
Phi 1 ips, J . Davison.

Time of blessing, time of
hope

IOHN BULOW CAMPBELL LIBRARY
DECAT ilA ^ iX

To my wife Kay,
who shared fully in the life and
ministry of Columbia Seminary

Contents

Preface

Acknowledgements
1 The Many Beginnings of Columbia Theological Seminary 1

2 The Education of a President 17

3 Students 33

4 Context and Constituency 57

5 Learning and Teaching 67

6 Finances 81

7 Final Thoughts 84

Endnotes 91

Preface

"History will be kind to you, Sir Winston," a colleague remarked
to Winston Churchill near the end of his career. "So it will," he
replied, "for I intend to write it!" Not everyone could be as confident
as that, and. I certainly am not. In any event, in response to an
invitation from the archives committee of Columbia's faculty, I
present these reflections on the time of my presidency between
November 1975 and January 1987.

The material is intentionally personal. Others have written objec-
tively and substantively about issues faced by those of us involved
in theological education. These reflections are my own, and I take
full responsibility for them. On balance, however, Frederick Buechner
is on target when, after describing so vividly his "sacred journey," he
confesses "there is nothing like talking about yourself to loosen your
tongue!" !

Near the end of his life, President J. McDowell Richards gave us
a concise summary of his recollections of thirty-nine years of history
at Columbia Theological Seminary. The book had an appropriate
title, As I Remember It. A more appropriate title for these memoirs
may be As I THINK I Remember It! What I do remember with
gratitude is that my years at Columbia were a Time of Blessing, Time
of Hope.

Acknowledgemen ts

No one could have had more support and encouragement than
I had as president of Columbia Theological Seminary. The process
of recalling many of these persons has focused my gratitude. I
express my thanks to Katherine Wright Philips, my wife and con-
stant support and guide in our fifty years of ordained ministry.
(During my service overseas as a Navy chaplain during World War
II, Kay was one of the first two women students enrolled at Colum-
bia.) My colleagues among the faculty and staff at Columbia were
faithful and creative associates in our mission. Peggy Matthews
Rowland, president's secretary, came with me from Decatur Presby-
terian Church and had a splendid new chapter in her career. In the
preparation of this manuscript, I received valuable assistance from
our daughter-in-law, Donna Cowley Philips.

James D. Newsome and T. Erskine Clarke of the faculty archives
committee initiated the idea, consulted with me often, and encour-
aged me when I was most discouraged. President Douglas W.
Oldenburg supported the effort continuously. Betty Bowen Cousar
brought the manuscript up to a usable condition with her excellent
editorial work. A special word of thanks to Juliette Harper, who not
only worked on the layout but has solved numerous technical
problems in moving from manuscript to final copy.

The board of directors, president's advisory council, alumni /ae
council, our graduates throughout the world, and that diverse group
of students in our degree programs were all essential to the fulfill-
ment of our great mission. The larger seminary community of the
Atlanta Theological Association which included Candler School of
Theology, the Interdenominational Theological Center, Erskine Theo-
logical Seminary, and Columbia were a nurturing consortium.

The common ventures of the five theological institutions of the
Presbyterian Church U.S. included consultations and planning with
their presidents and deans. After reunion, there were eleven of us
and a broader consultation and planning process.

With its cycle of accreditation visits, the Association of Theologi-
cal Schools stimulated careful evaluation and projections.

The metropolitan area of Atlanta with its more than three million
people, its 122 Presbyterian churches, and its excellent educational
resources matched by booming economic development made our
location a very good one. The Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, where
I have served forty-two years, was supportive in every way. Dr.
William A. Adams, the presbytery executive, an alumnus and at one

time chairman of the board, invested a great deal of time and counsel
on an all too frequent basis. (When I confronted Bill with problems
while we were playing golf one day, he paused on his backswing and
said, "Why do you think we elected you, Mr. President? You were
to take care of all these problems for the church!" He was just
kidding, I think.)

Two other invaluable leaders of the board, J. Erskine Love, Jr. and
J. Phillips Noble, deserve my great gratitude and that of the church
as well. Their insightful counsel and their leadership in the life and
mission of the seminary were tremendous.

The city of Decatur provided good public schools, good medical
services, and an academic atmosphere with Agnes Scott College five
blocks away. I am grateful for all of these elements in the time and
place where we lived and worked.

Davison Philips

The Many Beginnings of
Columbia Theological Seminary

A seminary, like people, nations, and other institutions, can have
a defining moment which marks both the end and the beginning of
distinct periods in its life. When a new president is called and
inaugurated, a seminary may well experience such a defining mo-
ment which is both an ending and a beginning.

It is quite presumptuous for me to think that when I was inaugu-
rated as president in 1 976, Columbia was about to begin a new period
in its history. In a sense, however, that was as true for me as it was
for my predecessors in the office. In any seminary presidency, it is
quite accurate to say that the past is but prelude. You can't go back
and rewrite history. You can't change it. You can't even interpret it
so as to make it perfect. It is not perfect, of course, but history is
essential in understanding Columbia and the forces which birthed it
and shaped its development. So to try to understand the years of my
presidency, we must first hear a prelude, a brief overview of the
seminary's history. We are fortunate to have as reference an unusu-
ally complete and yet complex record of each period in Columbia's
life in the works of George T. Howe, William Childs Robinson, and
Louis LaMotte.

Columbia began in the amazing commitments of the early Pres-
byterian church in this country. It began not in the tradition of a
university setting for a school of religion or even a school of theology,
but, as Robert W. Lynn has accurately described such seminaries, it
began as a freestanding institution of the church. It was the product
of the church. It was nurtured by the church. It was the servant of
the church.

The earliest versions of that vision, however, were later carefully
moderated in scope. As early as 1817, there had been a request for a
plan to educate pastors for the churches of those frontier days. That
year the Presbytery of Hopewell declared "its obligation and pur-
pose to establish a theological school for the training of men for the
gospel ministry." They were so determined to do the will of God that
they appointed not one but two committees to get on with that
exhilarating mission.

The Presbytery of South Carolina, in its forty-ninth session on
April 1, 1824, launched a project under this title, The Classical, Sci-
entific, and Theological Seminary of the South. 2 The impelling motive,
according to the record, was "a desire to raise up a qualified and
native ministry to supply the destitute places, to provide supervision
over the extant churches; to provide an institution free from the
skeptical influences which then prevaded the college of the state."
That college, by the way, was to become the University of South
Carolina.

Columbia Theological Seminary had many beginnings and even
a few false starts. From the earliest period in her long history, an
energizing conviction motivated her founders and supporters. They
unquestionably believed that "Almighty God has called us ... to light
up another sun which shall throw further west the light of the
gospel."

In addition to the broad scope of the original concept, a real
hindrance to beginning a seminary was the inability to agree on a
place for it. Earlier, there had been a commitment to the Piedmont
area of South Carolina as a location. Another possibility was Penf ield,
Georgia. Without reflecting on the qualities of the various places
suggested, the ultimate decision was to begin in Lexington, Georgia.

The first professor, the impatient and exasperated Thomas
Goulding, gave up on the process and began on his own in 1828,
around a dining room table in the Presbyterian manse in Lexington,
Georgia . (That table now sits in the president's office at Columbia
as a reminder of our origins.) Describing himself as the "first
Presbyterian preacher born in the state of Georgia since the founda-
tion of the world," he taught everything he knew about Bible,
theology, history, preaching, missions, as well as Greek, Hebrew,
and Latin. His five students, driven to the limits of their strength by
his merciless pressure during that first year, welcomed the move to
Columbia, South Carolina, for their second year. Prompted by
Goulding 7 s action, the synod had finally decided on a location and
determined to get on with building the seminary.

Columbia, South Carolina, was regarded as "the center of the
synod, the place in which was concentrated the most wealth, literary
advantages, and moral force; and at which the influence of the
seminary could be brought to bear on the largest number of immortal
beings." (Nearly one hundred years later, in 1927, the same reasons
were offered in support of the move to Atlanta.) Objection was made
to the decision because "students might be influenced in dangerous
and, indeed, wicked ways by being in Columbia!"

Mr. I. K. Douglas of the committee on location eloquently re-

2

sponded, "The fact that infidel principles were eminating from the
College of South Carolina in Columbia is a powerful argument in
favor of the institution being placed there. I am not an advocate for
shutting up candidates for the ministry to a convent or a cave; and if
young men cannot withstand temptations in early life, I fear that
there is but little hope that they will bear the burden in the heat of the
day which awaits them in the afterlife. "

Mr. William A. Blanding, a public-spirited citizen of Columbia,
raised the money and purchased the property on which the seminary
was located. Covering a block in the heart of the city bounded by
Taylor, Blanding, Pickens, and Henderson Streets, it was a seven-
minute walk to the College of South Carolina where students were
"privileged to sharpen their mental and disputitive faculties." What
eventually may have been more important for the students in the late
nineteenth century was the establishment just across Blanding Street
of a Presbyterian college for women, a safeguard against the cultiva-
tion of the intellectual "at the expense of the aesthetic side of life"!

In 1831 the size of the faculty was doubled, from one to two, by
the election of Dr. George Howe. The selection of Howe would be
critical to the life of the seminary for two reasons: first, Howe gave
the seminary fifty-two years and three months of service, providing
it with much-needed stability and continuity; second, he gave it the
first strong tie with New England pastors and scholars. Indeed, as an
1825 graduate of Andover Theological Seminary, he was one of
many from that institution who traveled as missionaries throughout
the South and who taught in the institutions of the South. He began
the first library at Columbia, for which four book buyers were
employed in Europe to select the finest volumes produced by theo-
logians and scholars. The choosing of Professors Goulding and
Howe was the end of the beginning for the faculty and Columbia. It
confirmed in the minds of the early leadership that history would
"trace rays of light from institutions [Andover, Newton, and Princeton
Seminaries] who are shooting them into the darkest corners of the
earth." 3

Columbia Theological Seminary has had only seven presidents
since its founding in 1828: Thornton C. Whaling (191 1-1921 ), John M.
Wells (1921-1924), Richard T. Gillespie (1925-1930), J. McDowell
Richards (1932-1971), C. Benton Kline (1971-1975), J. Davison Philips
(1975-1986), and Douglas W. Oldenburg (1987-). Presidents have
sought faculty, students, and functioned as "financial agents," as
they were known in the nineteenth century.

Thornton C. Whaling, Columbia Theological Seminary class of
1883, was a distinguished author and scholar. He was called to

3

Columbia as its first president in 1911, and under his leadership the
seminary experienced a period of prosperity.

Dr. John M. Wells, the second president, came to the seminary
from the pastorate of the First Presbyterian Church, Wilmington,
N.C. He had served as moderator of the General Assembly in 1917,
and returned to the pastorate in 1924.

The third president, Dr. Richard T. Gillespie, was a 1908 graduate
of Columbia and served four different pastorates before his election
on November 24, 1924. He served as president from January 1, 1925,
until his death on May 30, 1930. Before accepting the office of the
president, he asked that the question of location, which had been a
point of contention for a number of years, be resolved. The decision
was made to move the seminary in 1927 to Decatur, Georgia, a small
suburb which had been the first settlement in the Atlanta area. With
great energy and commitment, Dr. Gillespie worked ceaselessly for
the development of the seminary in its new location. He literally
poured out his life into the new Columbia Seminary. Through the
good times and bad, leadership for the church had been educated,
and in some sense, prepared at Columbia, for ministry. The seminary's
mission as well as its existence was preserved, even as it moved to a
new location.

The chairman of the board at that time wrote of Dr. Gillespie, "I
see him now as he stood at the beginning of his presidency, a young
man with a strong, agile, and alert body, and a quick and steady step;
with a clear, keen and logical mind; with a vision that was brilliant
with the richest hopes; an enthusiasm that was freely fed from the
exuberance of youth.... I see him as he called me to the rear of the
chapel just before the graduating exercises of this seminary in 1930
and threw his head on my shoulders and poured out the inner
feelings of his heart to me. His task was done, and he sacrificed all
for his ideals and he stood like a wounded veteran/' In less than a
month, he was dead. A faculty member wrote, "He had the wonder-
ful gift, as his Master had, of seeing men better than they were. And
because he saw them better than they were, they in his fellowship
actually became better. In the depths of his great soul, Dr. Gillespie
was a lover of his fellow man. When the very existence of Columbia
was at stake, Richard T. Gillespie was raised up to be 'the Joshua of
the removal.'" 4

Dr. Gillespie's successor, J. McDowell Richards, had been a
brilliant student and a fine athlete at Davidson College. He had been
appointed one of the first two Rhodes scholars from the Southeast,
and had spent an eye-opening time of study and travel while in
Oxford. On one occasion, he and two classmates carried on a long,

4

competitive struggle to see who could travel the farthest from
Oxford, spend the least amount of money, and still arrive home on
schedule. Once, stranded and out of money in Paris, they chose one
of the group to go back to Oxford, raise the funds, return, and get
them safely home! Dr. Richards had an outstanding academic record
at Oxford and received its M.A. degree in 1926. A Columbia student
at the time of the move to Decatur, Dr. Richards had the experience
of attending the seminary at both locations. Dr. Patrick D. Miller, a
lifelong friend of Dr. Richards and his colleague in the Presbyterian
ministry, once said, "Mac [I would never dare call him that] was a
genius. Whatever course he took in college or seminary, he could
teach the next year/'

After numerous efforts to secure a president for Columbia Semi-
nary in the early 1930's had failed, Columbia's board of directors sent
a delegation to Dr. Richards to tell him that he was their last hope. He
had served four years in the north Georgia mountains in a group of
three churches, and had just begun a pastorate at the First Presbyte-
rian Church in Thomasville, Georgia. That church was faced with a
painful choice: release him to Columbia before the first year was up
or refuse! Because Columbia's call was urgent, almost desperate, the
church had really little choice. One of the distinguished members of
the congregation spoke for the entire church in the congregational
meeting called to dissolve the relationship, "You can have him. You
need him, but don't expect us to like it!"

Dr. and Mrs. Richards moved into the president's home at the
seminary with little more than faith, hope, and a commitment to the
hard, hard work of saving a valuable institution in a location that was
becoming the center of a shifting southeastern population. This
move was made in the deep conviction that Columbia Seminary was
essential if the Presbyterian church was to have carefully prepared
ministers of faith and competence in this area.

Dr. Richards slowly but surely led Columbia forward over the
decades, enlarging the faculty, increasing the finances, gathering
larger numbers of students, and most importantly, increasing its
service to the church. The focus was primarily on educating minis-
ters for the churches of the developing South. In those days,
however, when great emphasis was placed upon sending missionar-
ies overseas, Columbia had more evangelistic missionaries under
appointment by the Presbyterian Church U.S. than any other Presby-
terian theological institution. As the Southeast grew, many new
churches were formed by new graduates. Although that practice
worked well most of the time, the current thought is that there is less
risk involved if new church development is done by persons who

5

have had extensive experience in ministry.

During the quite desperate days of the 1930's, it seemed that
Columbia would follow many other church institutions in that
period into some ecclesiastical grave. Indeed, the death rattle could
be heard in the throats of numerous seminaries around the country.
On three different occasions, merger with Union Seminary of Vir-
ginia and /or with Louisville Seminary in Kentucky was looked
upon as a way out for everyone. However, with the strong support
of the churches and pastors of the synods who own and control
Columbia, and more importantly, with God's guidance and care,
Columbia survived and ultimately flourished.

When I entered Columbia in the fall of 1940, there were less than
fifty full-time students. My class had twenty-three, nineteen of
whom graduated. The faculty, with the exception of some part-time
instructors, consisted of Professors Cartledge, Green, Gutzke, Kerr,
Robinson, and President Richards. There were two buildings,
Campbell Hall, which was later enlarged, and Simons-Law. There
were five faculty homes, a large and beautiful campus, and a very
fine location in metropolitan Atlanta. Atlanta, even then, was a
center for transportation and enjoyed considerable economic influ-
ence throughout the Southeast.

On October 14, 1940, as retiring moderator of Atlanta Presbytery,
Dr. Richards preached a widely published sermon called Brothers in
Black. This was probably done in response to remarks by Governor
Eugene Talmadge. In the sermon Dr. Richards called for justice
between white and black people. He called especially for a deep
bond of unity of faith within the church for "in Christ all are one."
Later, in 1962, Dr. Richards gave outstanding leadership to Atlanta
as a coauthor of A Minister's Manifesto, which called for the preserva-
tion of public schools in the face of threats from the state to close them
rather than desegregate. Eighty-seven ministers joined Dr. Richards
in signing the manifesto, including two Columbia presidents who
succeeded him, Ben Kline, and myself.

He was like a father in the faith to me and to many of his students.
He cared deeply for each of us and even at times leaned over
backwards to give us the benefit of a doubt. Even though he did not
always give the devil his due, he could be very direct and critical. I
don't believe, moreover, that he ever heard of the finer points of
nonjudgemental pastoral counseling with which we are familiar. If
he did, he was not overly enthusiastic about them.

Dr. Richards moved in his presidency from making most deci-
sions himself to consulting with the faculty and the board on
appointments and other major decisions in the life of the institution.

6

When they were young seminary professors, Wade P. Huie, Jr.,
Shirley C. Guthrie, and Charles B. Cousar once approached Dr.
Richards in the formal setting of his office with a proposal that
faculty participate more fully in the appointment of new professors.
After listening to their presentation with some care, he turned, as he
often did while he was thinking, and looked toward the window of
the president's office. As he also often did, he took out a ring of keys
and began to push them around the circle. They noticed the back of
his neck was getting a little red, which was a sure sign of some
impatience. Finally, he said, "I don't see anything wrong with the
method we have employed when I appointed faculty. Each of you
arrived at Columbia Seminary through that process, didn't you?" To
the credit of all concerned, that did not end the conversation and a
much more equitable and effective system was initiated which
ultimately became the norm for Columbia.

President Richards' leadership and service gave new meaning to
the experience of all the presidents who followed him and will follow
him. In the scriptural phrase, "Others have labored and we have
entered into their labors."

Dr. C. Benton Kline, the fifth president of Columbia, has had a
long and useful career as a distinguished teacher of theology and
philosophy, and as dean of the faculties at both Agnes Scott College
and Columbia Theological Seminary. A deeply committed Presby-
terian minister, he has exceptional abilities as a teacher, an adminis-
trator, and as a leader in the life of the church's governing bodies. He
is widely regarded in academia for his work in accreditation visits
and in consultation on major educational innovations. He was active
in such ministries of the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta as Campus
Christian Life and the Committee on Ministry.

Although it is usually difficult and quite complicated to serve
after a long-term predecessor, President Kline made a lasting impact
on Columbia in his tenure of four years. While at Agnes Scott College
he had been a visiting professor of theology at Columbia for several
years, so he already knew the seminary well when he joined the
faculty in 1969. He had extensive experience not only as an academi-
cian but also as a Presbyterian minister, preaching, teaching, and
serving in local churches and governing bodies. As chairman of the
board at the time he was called to be president, I participated in the
conference which presented the call to him. Dr. Kline impressed us
all with a response reflecting his conviction that the call was a valid
and divinely led invitation to very significant service for the church.

Four years later on a lovely spring evening in April 1975, 1 was
called out of a meeting at Decatur Presbyterian Church by the

7

chairman of the seminary's board of directors, J. Erskine Love, Jr. I
learned that President Kline had asked the board of directors to
relieve him of the presidency, grant him a sabbatical leave in the fall,
and return him to full-time teaching as professor of theology. He
explained his reasons: "I believe that my own talents and gifts direct
me to teaching and educational leadership. Increasingly, I find that
the limitations of my strength and interest work against what a
president should be doing. I have been a teacher for twenty-five
years and think that is what I want to do with the rest of my life/'

Regretfully, the board accepted his resignation. In the fall of that
year, he developed some heart problems which ultimately led to
successful heart bypass surgery. Ten years later, his strength and
vigor were renewed by the same procedure. He has continued to
serve the seminary as professor of theology, and the church in the
Council on Theology and Worship and various special ad interim
committees. He also continues to serve through the Association of
Theological Schools, particularly in academic matters and accredita-
tion visits.

Of lasting impact from President Kline's administration are the
achievements of a revised curriculum with an innovative blending of
academic requirements. One new and helpful element involved
clinical pastoral education and supervised ministry courses. A key
was the careful evaluation by professors and peers at several stages
in the life of a student. The advanced degree program, with empha-
sis on degrees in pastoral counseling and the degree of doctor of
ministry, was initiated. Since that time, both have grown in numbers
and in impact. The appointment and development of faculty and
staff was conducted with wide-ranging searches and careful evalu-
ation. Frederick O. Bonkovsky, T. Erskine Clarke, Catherine Gunsa-
lus Gonzalez, Oscar Hussel, Jasper N. Keith, Jr., Cecil Moore, and
Keith Nickle were appointed during his tenure. Generous sabbatic
leave policies with accountability in their use were developed. A
renovation of Campbell Hall was begun, and plans for new buildings
were initiated.

The Calling of a President

Of course, the call with which I am most familiar came to me in
November 1975. In many ways, it came as a great surprise. As the
years had gone on, I had felt more and more committed to being a
pastor of a church. As I approached my fifty-fifth birthday, I had
begun to think of the possibility of going to a less demanding
congregation than that of a large church in metropolitan Atlanta. I

8

doubt if there is such, but at least I could dream about it!

Any valid call to ministry, and this is surely true in my case, is
based on a sequence of calls. There was a call to faith which emerged
in the context of a family of faith in my home. In the Presbyterian
tradition, we had family prayers and daily Bible reading as I grew up.
We were at worship every time the doors opened at the churches in
Nachitoches, Louisiana, and Tallahassee, Florida. At age nine, just
before a move to Florida, I went through a typical communicants
class led by the minister, and on a subsequent Sunday made a public
profession of faith before the session and the fifty members gathered
for worship. In my experience, that was a call to faith, the faith of a
commitment of life to God whom we know in Jesus Christ.

The call to be a minister of Christ in the Presbyterian church came
specifically in the Senior High Conference of Florida Presbytery the
summer after graduation from high school. A retired minister
preached on the theme: "Have You Ever Considered the Call of
Christ to be a Minister !" I did consider it as a result of that sermon,
and it seemed to be a call of God.

My plans for a prelaw course at the University of Florida were
abandoned on the advice of my pastor, the Reverend E. N. Caldwell.
"Go," he said, "to a Presbyterian college. Take Greek, Bible, history,
philosophy, and English, and youTl be better prepared for semi-
nary."

In the weeks following high school graduation, my family and I
took a trip to Washington, D.C. Coming home, we planned to stop
at Hampden-Sydney , Davidson, and Presbyterian Colleges. How-
ever, on a beautiful June afternoon, Hampden-Sydney College sold
itself, and I began registration that very day. Both the dean and the
president spent several hours with me and even led a tour of the
campus.

Of course, little of this is the pattern today for seminary students
since, in many cases, the call to faith and to ministry comes after
college or university. Then, twelve of the sixty-seven graduates in
my college class went on to seminary!

Having been exposed at Hampden-Sydney to the Student Vol-
unteer Movement urging persons to consider foreign missions ser-
vice, I looked toward ultimately serving in China where one-fourth
of the world's population lived. After World War II, about the time
I finally finished my doctoral dissertation, that great nation closed its
life to missionaries from overseas . Thus, until the call came from
Columbia in November 1975, I remained committed to the parish
ministry in our church. I am very grateful for the privilege of serving
as a minister of Christ in that setting.

9

In the spring of 1975, a presidential search committee was
appointed at the meeting of the board of directors: J. Phillips Noble,
chairman, Professor Shirley C. Guthrie, Board Chairman J. Erskine
Love, Jr., the Reverend James B. Johnson, Jr., Mr. Lyman Mobley
(student), Mr. Thomas E. Rast, President Marc Weersing (Presbyte-
rian College), Ms. Emily Wood, the Reverend Frederick Z. Woodward,
and the Reverend S. D. McCammon, Jr. (Mr. McCammon later
transferred out of the Synod of Florida to Virginia and became
ineligible for service.) They began their work in July and moved
rapidly in their process.

The committee appropriately approved a process of openness to
the church at large and to the seminary community for suggestions
about both the position and the nominee. At the committee's
request, I made some recommendations to them, and you can be sure
that my name was not on the list. Significant papers were received
from the faculty, student body, the alumni /ae, and the church at
large. In other words, they cast the net widely. They also appropri-
ately worked in a strict and confidential way. Confidentiality was
preserved because I was one of a large group that knew nothing of
what was going on. The invitation to a meeting with the presidential
nominating committee at the Atlanta airport on October 30, 1975,
was, therefore, unexpected.

My recollection of the interview was that my part of it was not a
very good one. The method of discussion was appropriate since it
dealt with such substantive issues as the nature of theological
education, the challenges facing Columbia Theological Seminary,
and primarily, the expectations of the president. However, I couldn't
say very clearly what I would do if elected, what associates would be
appointed, and what changes would be made. Frankly, I just didn't
know. I had never thought much about them. One of my best friends
on the committee told me later that I was right in thinking it was a
pretty poor interview, but that "they had decided to call me any-
way." You see, three out of their top five candidates withdrew from
consideration!

Three days before the November 3-4, 1975, board meeting, Phil
Noble called and we had a long visit. The committee wanted very
much to make a nomination at the upcoming board meeting. It
seemed to me, though, that the decision was so major for Kay and me,
and indeed for the seminary and Decatur Presbyterian Church, that
it should not be made with a snap judgement. Still uncertain, on the
day before the board met I said, "go ahead and call me but give me
the freedom to refuse if I wished to do so after further thought and

10

reflection." This they did, and I ultimately accepted and never
looked back.

For several reasons, the decision seemed to be a call of God. The
heart of the matter may have been expressed by Kay, "Where else
would a fifty-five-year-old Presbyterian minister have an opportu-
nity to do such unique and important work as that of a president of
a seminary?" As I do in most things, I agreed with her.

The invitation created a tremendous increase in my prayers for
guidance. The decision was influenced by these factors: it was
important work for the church; I knew the situation fairly well; there
appeared to be some confidence in the church that my experience
and gifts could be helpful in leading the seminary as president; and
the search committee had certainly given a great deal of thought to
the nomination after very broad consultation. Most importantly, the
board had issued the call. Doesn't it always come down to an inner
conviction that a true call is an offer which cannot be refused?
Sometimes, the fact that one seems needed is a large part of it.

So for better or for worse, these are the circumstances and the
inner convictions which made me feel that it was an authentic call. It
was, indeed, the call of God through people, events, and needs. Years
later, I have no doubt that the call was authentic, and I am grateful to
those who opened the doors of opportunity through it.

The November 1975 meeting of the board of directors at Colum-
bia Seminary initiated a new beginning for Kay and me as well as for
the faculty, students, and constituency of Columbia.

This was also a new beginning for Decatur Presbyterian Church.
The decision was bittersweet since it meant leaving a much-loved
community of faith. I wrote to the congregation on November 18:

I know of no greater privilege than to serve as your pastor.
Thus, it is extremely difficult to tell you of my affirmative
response to the call of Columbia Theological Seminary to
become president there on January 1, 1976.

Throughout the twenty-one years here, I have known
nothing but a deep commitment to the magnificent opportuni-
ties for ministry in Decatur Presbyterian Church. On a number
of occasions, I have felt led by God's guidance to decline other
invitations to service. In this instance, I have sought and, I
believe, received guidance that this is not only the call of the
church and the seminary, but, indeed, of the Lord, whose I am
and whom I serve.

Perhaps it will help to review the sequence of events
during the past three weeks which have led to this conviction.

11

On Thursday, October 30, the search committee representing
the board, faculty, and students of the seminary asked me to
meet for an extensive discussion of Columbia's situation.
Following this, they reported their unanimous decision to
recommend me to the full board on November 3 and 4, for
election as the next president. Since there was insufficient
opportunity to consider so significant a matter, I asked for
several days time for prayerful consideration.

These have been rather intense hours of continuing a full
program here and at the same time experiencing the some-
times lonely and sometimes challenging moments of decision
making. The session has prayed with me for God's guidance
through these days. In the end, Kay and I have felt that this is
a valid call of God to a challenging and significant work
affecting the whole church and hundreds of students during
the next decade.

After twenty-one years of serving Christ and the community as
pastor of Decatur Presbyterian Church, the Presbytery of Atlanta
approved the dissolution of the relationships as requested by the
congregation and me, and also approved the call of the seminary to
serve as president.

J. Erskine Love, Jr., on behalf of the board of directors, presented
me with a gracious and generous introduction to the seminary
community in a special convocation. I had about an hour to prepare
a statement for them, and I am still not sure of all the things I said.
Quite naturally, I expressed some anxiety about the tremendous
responsibilities a president at Columbia would have for the immedi-
ate future. Of course, the Columbia community was anxious as well.
I do remember telling them that I could only be myself and no one
else. That would be good news for some and bad news for others,
particularly those who were hoping for more! However, in reliance
upon the grace and guidance of God, our anxieties would eventually
give way to confidence and great expectations for the future.

The question before the seminary at that moment was, "How
shall we begin?" From my perspective, we began with gratitude for
Columbia's history and tradition which had brought us to that
moment. We were grateful for the present opportunities and the
support of the synods in the states of South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky. We were
grateful for a clear sense of mission as a Presbyterian theological
seminary. The buildings, the location, the faculty, staff, and board,

12

and the prayers of the church at large were all causes for genuine
gratitude.

The problems and challenges before us were varied but real. To
ignore them was to risk not only failure but a real disaster for us and
the church. We began, then, with a prayer for the guidance of God
in the important decisions before the seminary and in the lives of all
concerned in its work. The God we served was the God of hope, and
we would move on with hope.

I wrote the seminary community, faculty, staff, and students the
day after my election: 'The opportunity to meet with you in
convocation for the announcement of my election as your president
was important and meaningful to me. As we think and pray
together, I look forward to sharing vision, hope, and strength with
you as God guides and nourishes that process. You can understand
that the past few weeks have been unique times of struggle and
decision for Kay and me. God's promise, however, is that with
mission there is peace and strength. 'As the days are, so our strength
will be.' Let us help each other in the hope that we can be more
together than we could ever be apart." I said to them in a postscript,
"When you stood up in chapel on Thursday morning following Mr.
Love's announcement, you frightened me! I thought you might be
walking out!"

By January 1 976 we had begun together the board of directors,
the faculty and staff, the students, and the entire constituency in the
Presbyterian church. The first faculty meeting I attended during my
first week at Columbia brought a rather complex decision. A
member of Decatur Presbyterian Church, who for years had been
quite active and had served as scoutmaster for the Boy Scouts of
America troop which met at our church, died. The associate pastor
called to see if I would have the funeral. It was set near the time of
the faculty meeting which was for me a "command performance." In
addition, our church polity does not allow a former pastor to con-
tinue to do pastoral duties without the invitation of the session and
the pastor. I was forced to decline. It was very difficult for the family
to understand that. It was a decision, however, which set a pattern
for years to come.

The Nature of the Office

The nature of the office and the length of a president's term should
be added to a cluster of issues in theological education which the
church needs to address. The nature of a call to ministry in some
specific place, with a distinctive mission, is of the utmost significance

13

both in the church and with seminary presidents today. There is a
growing concern throughout academia about the role of seminary
presidents and the forces at work which now make their tenures very
short. Since the usual tenure is four to seven years, it is all the more
amazing that J. McDowell Richards served thirty-nine years as Co-
lumbia's fourth president. Will anyone ever duplicate or surpass
such a period of leadership? (The only possibility might take place
in some independent seminary started by an independent minister
who owns and controls everything there throughout his/her entire
lifetime.)

The first task of most search committees who will nominate a
seminary president is to determine the nature of the office and the
abilities and commitments of the person needed. Columbia's presi-
dents were all quite different, especially in the style of leadership
they brought to the seminary. However, each provided something
needed at Columbia in the years of his service. Each served a specific
institution in a specific place in varying historical contexts.

The 1975 committee agreed that the president should have the
following qualities:

1. The president should be someone with competence as an admin-
istrator.

2. The president should be a respected and spiritual leader for the
constituency.

3. The president should have the ability to function in academic
circles.

4. The president should be a team builder having ability to recognize
competence.

5. The president should have broad pastoral experience, but not
necessarily lengthy.

6. The president should be known in the denomination.

7. The president should have competence for denominational lead-
ership.

8. The president should have a capacity for fund raising.

I have the distinct feeling that they were forced to settle for less
than complete fulfillment of these qualities in their choice of a
president! In any event, all of the presidents have been qualified by
education, experience in the Presbyterian church, and a deep com-
mitment to the mission of the theological seminary in a denomina-
tional setting. Given the pressures externally and internally, how-
ever, requiring creative leadership on the part of the president, there
must be some limits on expectation.

A result of the nature and duties of the presidency and pressures
involved has been frequent turnover in the office. During the years

14

1976 through 1987, each of the eleven Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.)
theological institutions called a new president and did so twice in
some instances. With one exception, all presidents were ordained
Presbyterian ministers. Austin, Louisville, Dubuque, McCormick,
and the Presbyterian School of Christian Education chose experi-
enced and well-known educators; Princeton, Union (Virginia), Co-
lumbia, and San Francisco, pastors of churches. Most had not only
the degrees required for ordination but also earned doctorates.

I am not alone in my conviction that there are no conclusive ways
to describe the functions of presidents or to prepare by education or
experience for the position. What so complicates this whole process
is that presidents are expected not only to devote intensive time to
participation in the life of the institution as administrator, teacher,
and leader, but in some ways, also as pastor. Decision-making
processes, which call for extensive participation by various groups,
is time-consuming and is effective only when wisely utilized. A
president is expected to participate in the governing bodies which
own and control the seminary. The Council on Theological Educa-
tion at the General Assembly level and the councils of the synods and
the presbyteries by charter have a partnership with seminaries such
as Columbia. For me, numerous opportunities to preach, teach, and
lead seminars throughout the United States and overseas were a
great privilege. In addition, I enjoyed teaching New Testament
courses and continuing education seminars. They demanded much
preparation, however, and the time needed for that was most diffi-
cult to secure in a president's schedule. The development of faculty,
consultation with students, and participation in decisions in many
areas can drain a president's strength quickly.

In reflecting on all of these things, I am continually impressed by
the gifts and the leadership of the presidents of our theological
schools. Out of commitment to both Christ and the church, they
devote enormous time and energy to this important mission.

In the collegial style of management today, neither the president
nor the other constituent groups involved can effectively work
together without mutual respect and support. A seminary is a
special kind of community of scholarship, service, and life which
reflects the work of Christ. No management style will succeed if it is
strictly business oriented.

Summary

Through ninety-eight years in Columbia and forty-eight years in
Decatur, there were numerous other beginnings and endings for this

15

seminary. The post-Civil War era in the midst of a desolate environ-
ment was one beginning; another came after a brief period of
suspension in the 1880's for the usual reasons of few students and no
money. At the time of the move to Georgia, it was the conviction of
some that the institution was finally coming to an end of its service
and that without the move, it would soon be buried in an ecclesias-
tical grave. As Columbia, South Carolina, was at the time of the
seminary's founding, so Atlanta, Georgia, was the center of the
Southeast at the time of the move. The Presbyterians of Mississippi
and Alabama, particularly along with Florida, had long petitioned
for a site much closer to them. Under these pressures, a very wise
decision was made by the board of directors.

Through the influence of elders and pastors, including John
Bulow Campbell, and the pastors of Decatur, First (Atlanta), and
Central (Atlanta) Presbyterian Churches, the resources were devel-
oped for the move. Two buildings were erected, the library was
moved on a truck by students, and classes were initiated on what had
been farmland. One of the students involved in moving the library
to Decatur evidently kept the large brass key to the library door in
Columbia. He sent it to me through his son, and it is now on display
at the seminary as a valued artifact.

Decatur has proven to be an excellent choice. The building of a
suitable plant in a good location, with a strong faculty and student
body, was the great vision of those who led the move to Decatur and
was an important part of the prelude to my presidency.

16

The Education of a President

Those swiftly moving months following the November 1975
board meeting seemed at times to be an ever-rolling stream of
conferences, meetings, appointments, research, travel, preaching,
and a general "getting-to-know-each-other" period. Hundreds of
letters from all kinds of people provided great sustenance for me
during this challenging time.

President Kline, Dean Cousar, and a number of other faculty in
unusually supportive ways said, "welcome" and "we will help!"
Professor James S. Stewart, my Ph.D. supervisor and New Testament
professor at New College, Edinburgh, wrote, "Warmest congratula-
tions on your call to the presidency of Columbia Theological Semi-
nary. May you have great happiness in this important academic
position and much blessing for many fruitful years." Richard T.
Gillespie, III, son of a former president, sent this message: "Mary and
I are delighted to hear that you have accepted a call to become
president of C.T.S. It is needless to tell you of our interest in and
concern for the institution. We have a son who is a first level student
there." Their son, Richard T. Gillespie, IV, and daughter, Mary
Gillespie Amos, graduated from Columbia during my presidency.

The varied responses can be illustrated by these: from an
alumnus in Taiwan, Don McCall, "It is good news, indeed, that you
will assume the presidency of Columbia Seminary on January 1 . We
will pray for you and look forward to keeping in touch with you in
the years ahead." A faculty member commented, "I hope your caulk
is better than mine for this sinking ship!" Neely McCarter, dean of
Union Seminary in Virginia and an alumnus of Columbia, advised:
"Don't work yourself to death like Ben Kline and Fred Stair do."
(Note: Both are alive and working still!) None of these letters and
calls, and the file is five inches wide with them, meant more than
those from a great number of lay people throughout the church and
the city of Atlanta. These sincere good wishes and assurances of
prayerful support minimized the sense of loneliness we all feel in
new situations. They sustained me both in those early days and to the
end of my presidency.

For me, the end of the beginning came with the inauguration
service on November 8, 1976, at Peachtree Presbyterian, one of the

17

seminary's most supportive churches. Nearly a year had passed
since the board elected me, an intensive year of moving in on January
1, 1976, and then moving on. The service was a blend of academic
tradition and worship. Official delegates came from old and new,
weak and strong, diverse and uniform educational institutions.
Every synod and presbytery in the supporting synods sent a repre-
sentative. Faculty, students, and staff participated. Of major signifi-
cance was the leadership of the board of directors in the planning and
in the implementation of one of the most important moments of my
life and in the life of Columbia. J. Erskine Love, Jr. administered the
vow of inauguration in which I pledged my service and leadership
to this instrument of God's mission to the world. I never think of him
without giving thanks for the quality of his life and friendship.

A most memorable moment in the service came in the inaugural
prayer offered by J. Phillips Noble. I kept a framed copy in my office
throughout my tenure as a constant reminder of the grace of God.

Eternal Father,

Lord of Kings and all who exercise authority,
Maker of priests,
Caller of prophets,
Saviour of mankind,
We worship you here and now.
Risen and ever-living Christ,

Head and Cornerstone of your Church,
Author and Finisher of our faith,
Victor over sin and death,
We worship you here and now.
Divine Holy Spirit,

Life of God among us,
Searcher of human minds and hearts,
Revealer of truth and error,
We worship you here and now.
Great Triune God, wonderful beyond our comprehension,
Touch us all this hour and this moment.
Especially touch thy servant chosen to lead this
school of prophets, priests, and servants.
Make him a prophet with courage to speak

the truth when it is hard.
Make him a priest among priests who reverently

ministers thy grace.
Make him a servant who becomes leader indeed,
by humble serving.
18

Living God, be behind and before and beside him in the day
and in the night, in the marching of the years and the changing
of the times,

To make him strong, without being dictatorial;
To make him humble, without being weak;
To make him wise, without being arrogant;
To make him effective, without being affected;
To make him determined, without being

stubborn;
To make him hopeful, without being naive;
To make him tolerant, without being ambivalent.
Through all the days of his presidency,

May your favor rest upon him.

May he be held secure by your love that will not let

him go.
May he lead clearly and creatively with courage

born of a lively faith.
May his commitment to you, rooted in the heri-
tage of the past, bring forth results appro-
priate to this day and every new day.
We pray in the name of Jesus, who gives shape to the ministry
and life of us all. Amen.

May God be praised for the way it was answered in the years of
my presidency. May I be forgiven if it was not.

Among the distinguished speakers and participants at the inau-
guration were:

Dr. W. Frank Harrington, pastor, Peachtree Presbyterian Church,

board of directors, Columbia Seminary
Miss Alice A. Johnson, Columbia Seminary senior
Mr. James H. Foil, Jr., Columbia Seminary senior, student
coordinating council president

J. Erskine Love, Jr., chairman of the board, Columbia Seminary
Dr. J. McDowell Richards, former president, Columbia Seminary
Dr. C. Benton Kline, Jr., former president, Columbia Seminary
Dr. J. Phillips Noble, search committee chairperson, board of
directors, Columbia Seminary

Dr. James E. Andrews, stated clerk, The General Assembly,

The Presbyterian Church in the United States
Dr. Fred R. Stair, president, Union Theological Seminary,
Richmond, Virginia

Dr. Grant S. Shockley, president, Interdenominational
Theological Center, Atlanta, Georgia

19

Dr. Charles B. Cousar, dean of academic affairs, Columbia
Seminary

Dr. William A. Adams, alumni/ae association president,
Columbia Seminary

Dr. Hubert V. Taylor, senior faculty member, Columbia
Seminary

Nine hundred Presbyterians attended, many of whom were
friends and colleagues from other days. In addition to Peachtree
members, First Presbyterian Church of Atlanta, First Presbyterian
Church of Thomasville, Georgia, and Decatur Presbyterian Church
encouraged me greatly through the presence of many lifelong friends.
Ecumenical representatives were important in their participation.

I am still amazed that so many persons stayed after the long
program for the reception hosted by Dr. and Mrs. Harrington and
Peachtree Presbyterian Church. By the end of the day, I was a most
warmly recognized and welcomed president, and to say the least, the
beginning was over!

In a major article dated December 1976, the Presbyterian Survey
described the inauguration:

For the sixth time in 149 years, Columbia Theological Semi-
nary inaugurated a president, Dr. J. Davison Philips, in color-
ful ceremonies at Peachtree Presbyterian Church, Atlanta,
Georgia. Philips succeeds Dr. C. Benton Kline who had been
president of the seminary since 1971 and who resigned to
return to teaching. Philips was pastor of Decatur Presbyterian
Church before he was elected to this position. 'Three Tables/ 7
the new president's inaugural address, focused on the mission
of preparing people for the ministry. The first table described
the seminary's heritage from its founding in Lexington, Geor-
gia, in a study session around a table in the Presbyterian
church manse under the tutelage of Dr. Thomas Goulding.
The second table, a study table, symbolized today's educa-
tional task for the seminary. The third table, Holy Commun-
ion, illustrated the church's strength and mission in Jesus
Christ.

The Presbytery of Greater Atlanta emphasized the occasion
by holding an adjourned meeting at the time of the inaugura-
tion. Adding to the occasion was the colorful procession of 135
representatives of synods and presbyteries in the three synods
which support the seminary, the faculty, the board of direc-
tors, and those of numerous other colleges and seminaries.

20

President Fred R. Stair wrote, 'Tour inauguration was auspi-
cious, impressive.... Now that you have settled down from your
inaugural 'high/ and it was good to hear your inaugural address
which I deeply appreciate... do you still agree we could have a SPATS
meeting at Columbia Seminary February 26-271" SPATS, Southern
Presbyterian Association of Theological Schools, brought five semi-
nary presidents together to plan and implement joint efforts for the
good of the church's mission in theological education. It was one of
hundreds of meetings which I attended in the eleven years to follow.
( In heaven I hope they do not sing that gospel hymn, 'Til' We Meet
Again"!)

We were at the end of the beginning.

Learning to be President

While the board of directors presented the call to be Columbia's
president with warmth and confidence-inducing commitment to
share in the great mission of the seminary, they were quite realistic
in urging, and, indeed, requiring a period of indoctrination. They
recommended that the first two months of 1976 be used for visits to
other institutions, and consultations with other presidents, theologi-
cal education councils and associations. This I embraced with all
possible enthusiasm, for while the basics of faith and mission involve
both, there is a broad gap between a pastorate in a church and a
presidency in a seminary.

My first week at Columbia was set aside in my mind as a time of
planning and scheduling consultations. I would, of course, preside
over my first faculty meeting during that week and start intensive
and extensive consultation with the administrative staff. There was
a very natural anxiety on everyone's part as we began this new
chapter in our lives and our ministries. This week was an instant
learning experience.

Don't think I am forgetting the faculty and students, either.
Perish the thought! They came individually and collectively with
information, advice, and requests. One student group complained
of the flaws in the clinical experiences where the supervisors were
"ruthless" in their criticism of the pastoral care given in hospitals or
in local congregations. Others indicated it was the best part of their
education.

Many of the faculty consultations were either "getting acquainted"
sessions or requests for sabbatical leave. Columbia had and has a
very generous leave program which provides full salary and benefits
for one year in seven. As an option, a quarter, now a semester, was

21

granted after three years. When combined with the summer, that
gave an extended opportunity for study here or abroad and for
research and writing. A clear purpose for the program of study and
research was developed under the supervision of the faculty and
dean, and recommended to the board of directors for approval.
Sabbaticals made significant contributions to professors' research,
effectiveness in teaching, and to the educational mission of the
seminary.

The fifteen secretaries on the staff also asked for a meeting. This
is remembered as a "getting-to-know-you" time, but there were
discussions about pay, benefits, vacation and sick leave, and work-
ing conditions. A number of them asked for IBM electric typewriters
to replace the Royal electrics, but that was far from unanimous! That
problem is now solved with computer word processors throughout
the administration and faculty offices.

One of the most enjoyable interviews was with the kitchen staff.
Claude Clopton, the cook, had served during the Richards and Kline
administrations with great efficiency and good humor. Many gradu-
ates had done scholarship work in the serving line under Claude's
supervision, and he was the first person they went to see when back
on campus. Claude was that rare person who went the third and
fourth mile to do his job. Once, as Atlanta was paralyzed in an ice
storm, Claude drove through hazardous streets in the early hours of
the morning to get to the seminary to cook breakfast. Approximately
a mile from the Columbia campus, his car skidded into a ditch near
Agnes Scott College. Slipping and sometimes falling, he walked the
rest of the way, and it was breakfast as usual at 7:30 a.m. A longtime
friend to me and other presidents, Claude got his wish to work until
he died. A faithful member of Holsey Temple C.M.E. Church, he had
a wonderful funeral service there and a memorial service in the
seminary chapel on January 28, 1991, during the week of the Colum-
bia Forum. Professor Charles B. Cousar represented Columbia and
spoke at both.

Of invaluable assistance to me at that point, also, were two
important administrators at Columbia. Treasurer F. Sidney Ander-
son carefully briefed me on budgets and finances, and with Eugene
Tennis, the director of development, informed me of potential sources
of gifts and grants for the mission of Columbia. Sidney, an alumnus,
a pastor, and a former dean of students, devoted long hours to
managing the office of treasurer, the endowment, and the faculty and
campus plant budgets.

The Reverend Cecil Moore, also a graduate of Columbia Semi-
nary, has spent a major part of his life and ministry as superintendent

22

of buildings and grounds. He is that rare minister who can do many
things in connection with buildings and grounds and who was a
most valuable administrator in the whole mission of the seminary.
He came back to the campus from a pastorate in Mississippi out of a
real interest and commitment to Columbia. One evidence of Cecil
Moore's contribution can be found in the appreciation of faculty for
him, and particularly for his care of faculty housing. When profes-
sors purchased homes off campus to build up equity and get income
tax reductions in benefits, they always wanted to "rent" Cecil!

Will Ormond, a highly valued professor of biblical exposition
and my classmate at Columbia, once spoke in a chapel sermon of his
wonder at Cecil's abilities. He documented it by describing a
frustrating moment when he could not start his lawnmower. He
pulled and pulled and to hear him tell it, sweat great drops of
perspiration to no avail. After the fifteenth failure to get it running,
he saw his neighbor Cecil come out of his house and walk slowly
across the lawn. Will declared that the mower started immediately
after Cecil laid his hand on it!

Charles B. Cousar agreed to serve as dean of faculty even though
he was due a year's sabbatical at the time of my election. What a
source of wisdom and information he was to me for the first three
years of my presidency! Dean Cousar is an excellent example of a
devoted faculty member who, with his wife, Betty, and their three
sons, shared in the life of the seminary community. His influence on
students was one of quality in New Testament studies, in worship,
and even in sports and parties! His sabbatical leaves produced good
results in his scholarship through study in Germany and Cambridge,
England, as well as an earlier Ph.D. with A. M. Hunter in Aberdeen,
Scotland. His whole ministry has been at Columbia.

Oscar Hussel was chosen from a number of candidates as the
next dean and vice president for academic affairs. A professor of
Christian education, he had had wide experience in a church in
Birmingham, Alabama, and on the Board of Christian Education of
the United Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) at the time of important
curriculum developments. A careful planner and experienced leader
in the church, he worked well with the faculty and staff, and with me,
during my remaining eight years.

Dr. T. Erskine Clarke, dean of students, developed clear policies
for financial aid, work scholarships, students' life in worship and
recreation and student disciplinary policies. When he was ap-
pointed professor of American religious history, alumni Peter
Carruthers and Philip R. Gehman continued the work of the office
with devotion and diligence.

23

Professor of theology, Shirley C. Guthrie, Jr., was the faculty
representative on the search committee charged with nominating
the president. A faculty member since 1957, he was, and is, held in
high regard by colleagues and students. Often preaching and teach-
ing in churches and conferences, Dr. Guthrie knew our constituency
well, and was a valuable source of information and insight. His book,
Christian Doctrine, originally a part of the Covenant Life Curriculum,
has been one of the most influential books in the life of Presbyterian
congregations. It continues to be studied in churches throughout the
denomination, and used as a textbook in seminaries in this country
and abroad.

Although the needs of Columbia prevented my using the two
months offered for research and "learning how to be president/' I did
have significant interviews with the presidents of ten theological
schools. The first conference was with Dean James T. Laney of
Candler School of Theology at Emory University. Later president of
Emory University and now Ambassador to South Korea, he had
served the Methodist church as a missionary in Korea, and was an
ethics scholar. We are still good friends, and I am much indebted to
him. Candler School of Theology was well financed through a plan
which began in the North Georgia Conference of the Methodist
church and is in place in Presbyterian and Lutheran churches. Each
local congregation voluntarily committed two percent of its current
expense budget to Candler. That remarkable concept of binding the
church and the institution together in a common venture has spread
throughout the United States. It has made Candler a well-financed
institution and bound it to the Methodist church.

The second conference was arranged through Al Jepson, a former
campus minister at Georgia Tech, a member of Atlanta Presbytery,
and on the staff of Fuller Theological Seminary. President David
Hubbard of Fuller, who was later to be president of the Association
of Theological Schools, was in Atlanta for an A.T.S. committee
meeting. We met in the president's office which was still in the
process of transition. The famous circular oak table used by Ben
Kline was in the center of the room. (Ben used it for six stacks of
papers dealing with six different areas of responsibility. He would
move his chair to the stack to be dealt with that day rather than
moving the papers. Ingenuous and efficient!)

The conversation with President Hubbard dealt with basics
and especially relations with constituencies and finances. Fuller has
grown in its curriculum and has continually sought, through faculty
and students, acceptance by the Presbyterian church. The door, once
closed to Fuller graduates, has slowly opened through the efforts of

24

scholars like President Hubbard and Jack Rogers, professor of theol-
ogy. (After service in the Theology and Worship Ministry Unit of the
General Assembly, Professor Rogers is now a faculty member of San
Francisco Theological Seminary.) I remember Dr. Hubbard's fervent
recommendation that any person making proposals for new pro-
grams such as the school of world mission and the pastoral counsel-
ing program would be required to raise the money involved.

President Fred Rogers Stair of Union Theological Seminary in
Virginia, in his usual thoughtful and gracious way, promptly wel-
comed Kay and me to a three-day, carefully planned consultation at
Union. The invitation reflected his attitude that the two theological
institutions were partners, not competitors, in the great mission
assigned to us by the church. He gave us the use of a guest room, an
office and phone, a car, and a list of appointments with deans,
administrators, and students.

Although he revealed a very positive view of the president's role,
he also kept it in perspective with humor and realism. For example,
he suggested that the academic world of the campus could "take you
over like kudzu vines on a Georgia farm. YouTl be talking of
meetings and organizations in letters, not words ATS, SPATS,
ATA, VC, GAC, etc., etc. That helps you sound like a president!" he
said. Just kidding, I hoped.

Seminaries all have distinctive patterns of life and work. I am
reminded ot the terra-cotta figures in Xian, China, where hundreds
of soldiers with horses and chariots were buried by a young emperor
so that they would serve him in life after death. The artist was trying
to duplicate their features in life, by making each figure distinctive.
The church's institutions, even with a common mission, also have
distinct features. Although all relate in significant ways to the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), only Columbia has precise language
which gives authority to "own and control" to the synods. T. Hartley
Hall, IV, successor to Dr. Stair as president of Union, called them " a
patchwork quilt" of relationships in his carefully researched study of
charters of all Presbyterian seminaries involved in the reunion of
Presbyterians.

Location, in itself, will provide distinctiveness. History, dealing
with beginnings and evolving patterns of government, will also
provide complexity. Only the mission truly unites. The education
and continuing nurture of ministers, the scholarly research and other
resources for the church, and the programs on and off campus for lay
leaders are reflected in various ways in the life of seminaries.

Union Seminary, and this visit only confirmed my previous
impressions, was and is a place where the basics are given attention.

25

Commitments to teaching and learning of a high quality were
apparent. Securing and managing the gifts of the church to meet the
financial needs of the institution was a priority for all. The students,
faculty, staff, buildings, and programs on and off campus were also
a responsibility that had been taken seriously at Union.

One impression was not entirely unexpected. Professors and
administrators at Union evidenced a genuine interest in students
before, and after graduation. One professor who pastors his former
students and minister friends is John H. Leith, emeritus professor of
theology. As classmates at Columbia Seminary, and friends since
that time, I have valued his continued relationships with former
students as well as his books on theology, the creeds, the Reformed
tradition, polity, and on the life and work of the church.

The other seminaries of the former P.C.U.S. were visited in fairly
rapid succession. The Presbyterian School of Christian Education,
established by the General Assembly to educate Christian educators
for the church, is also located in Richmond, so we visited P.S.C.E.
while at Union. The issue of ordination for educators remains
important to the church and to that school. The proposals calling for
moving the basic degree from a two-year to a three-year degree with
the educational requirements for ordination fully met have been
approved by the General Assembly.

In a limited way, all Presbyterian seminaries are now providing
ministers who have significant responsibility in Christian education
in local churches. In fact, the great majority of our churches are
served by one minister who is responsible for the education of youth,
adults, and children, as he or she is responsible for everything. In the
realities of congregational and parish life, the luxury of picking and
choosing among these areas is just that, a luxury. It would seem that
many seminary students wish to pick and choose what they will do
in the parish setting. It may be preaching or pastoral care, but
program, administration, fund raising, and civic duties are often
excluded. It just won't work that way! This means every seminary
must provide education in the teaching and learning programs of the
church which we have called "Christian education/' The Presbyte-
rian School of Christian Education, however, is the only institution
of the Presbyterian church focusing on that in a comprehensive and
intensive way, with graduate work for advanced studies. This
makes it all the more valuable to the church.

The preparation sequence in those early days in the president's
office took me to the Northeast for consultations at Union Seminary
in New York, New York Theological Seminary, and Princeton Theo-
logical Seminary in New Jersey. The three are quite different but

26

offer many insights to the rest of us. Union, New York, was under the
leadership of President Donald K. Shriver. A P.C.U.S. minister, a
campus pastor, and professor at Candler School of Theology, he
brought a blend of academic prowess and administrative skills to
Union. One of his first aims was to build a stronger relationship
between his institution and the church. "How can we serve each
other?" he asked. In its life in pre- World War II and in the postwar
period, Union had world-renowned professors such as Reinhold
Niebuhr who impacted the theological world from the standpoint of
his early parish ministry experiences. Union's Presbyterian connec-
tion continues through its merger with Auburn Theological Semi-
nary. Don and Peggy Shriver were very gracious in welcoming me
and spending a good deal of time analyzing issues facing the church
and the world and their relation to theological education.

When Don was made president of Union, he left his Candler
professorship in Christian ethics, but preserved his membership in
Atlanta Presbytery. In a New York Times article reporting the arrival
of Dr. Shriver at Union, the president of the student government was
so impressed with this new president that he remarked, "I am glad
that someone is now in charge of life at Union Theological Semi-
nary!" Early on, President Shriver brought the distinguished Afri-
can American preacher and professor, Dr. James Forbes, to Union to
teach. When Dr. Forbes spoke at the Columbia Forum a few years
later, he said to us, "I knew Don was from the South, because the day
we moved into the seminary apartment, he appeared at the door to
welcome us personally with a housewarming gift of a loaf of home-
made bread and some cheese!"

I enjoyed a day at New York Theological Seminary. Dr. Dean
McKee, who was president when it was called Biblical Seminary,
taught during his latter years at Columbia. He prepared me for an
impressive and innovative seminary. With the majority of students
working, much part-time education went on. Asians, Blacks, and
Hispanics of all theological persuasions enrolled in night classes and
attended all day on Saturday. The Saturday I visited, President
William Webber of Harlem parish fame was teaching two classes. He
gave me, however, some valuable time in a two-hour discussion of
his seminary. "Our students," he said, "are hungry for education
and for theological degrees. Some are in storefront churches and
others in large congregations. A substantial number of Pentecostals
attend, but there are some more liberal communions represented,
including some politically active students."

After worship at Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church and a
visit with the pastor, David H. C. Read, I travelled to the historic

27

Princeton Theological Seminary. President James I. McCord ar-
ranged a guest room for me, told me where to find the key in a sign
outside, and assured me I would have the room where Karl Barth
once slept. Surrounded by so "great a cloud of witnesses" in such
historic settings, I was surprised that I slept soundly and barely made
it to breakfast before the dining hall closed. Again, a good group of
teachers and administrators made time for me, and we talked of
the many important issues of faculty, students, constituency, and
finances.

The diversity among students at Princeton was surprising to me
in its extent. A significant number of non-Presbyterians were and are
enrolled in the master of divinity degree program. There were
caucuses for twelve different special interest groups announcing
their activities, lectures, and one or two demonstrations!

During the last fifteen to twenty years, Princeton has been able
to attract a number of young and gifted professors from other
Presbyterian seminaries. There are reasons for this, but based on the
experience of faculty at Louisville, Union in Virginia, and Columbia,
the major attraction is the opportunity to work with Ph.D. and other
graduate degree students. However, this is a loss of highly valued
faculty for these institutions, as I know from experience with the loss
of Thomas G. Long. President McCord finally secured Professor
Long's acceptance on the third try. He wrote a letter expressing
regret at taking him from Columbia, but said he was needed at
Princeton to "anchor our department." That didn't help too much,
for we also needed him for his many gifts.

Princeton's endowment, estimated in 1993 at more than $300
million, is an admirable example of stewardship. Under the leader-
ship of John Templeton, investment counselor and chairman of the
board of trustees from the early 1950's until just recently, the endow-
ment has grown in value and greatly increased through gifts and
bequests. I had just become president of an institution with five
million dollars in endowment! But, "Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's endowment [or the size of thy neighbor's library] ." What
a hard saying!

At the invitation of President Ellis Nelson, we enjoyed a consul-
tation with Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary which was
very important to those of us at Columbia. Both schools shared the
Synod of the Mid-South as a supporting synod. The states of
Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky make up that synod.
The first two had long shared support for both Louisville and
Columbia. However, Columbia had a very large number of gradu-
ates in all four states and drew many students from them.

28

One complicating factor was that when the Synod of the Mid-
South was formed in the early 1970's, the two institutions agreed to
a division of the seminary gifts from the synod, twenty-eight percent
for Columbia and seventy-two percent for Louisville. This reflected
the ratio of dollars both had received before presbyteries in that
geographical area were merged into the synod. In addition, Louis-
ville was related to both Presbyterian denominations, which meant
that reunion would have special impact on that divided situation.

As the British say, it "needed sorting out." Two things helped.
Both presidents and both institutions worked together to make it
work for the good of the church. In a capital funds campaign for
$1,500,000, President Nelson and I travelled together speaking to
large and small church groups. He was fun to be with and a most
insightful person. Growing up in Texas and spending years at Union
Seminary in New York teaching Christian education, he was com-
mitted to the church, theologically perceptive, and an interpreter of
the American religious scene.

He would speak on What the Church Expects from Seminaries. I
would speak on What the Seminaries Expect of the Church. Just to
relieve the monotony of sameness for both of us, one night I reversed
the topics and speaking first, took his title. Without any notice of the
change, he went on and gave my speech!

Working with Ellis was an invaluable experience. As a man for
all seasons, he knew well theological education and also the church
with all its dynamics. He told me of a defining moment in a faculty
meeting with which I could resonate. In the context of that seminary's
history and its present challenges, he asked those at the meeting,
"Who are our constituents?" His answer: "The members of the
Presbyterian church. We may have a few others, but this is the basic
constituency given us and no other."

It was a double blessing from Louisville when Ellis' successor,
President John Mulder, a church historian, Presbyterian leader, and
gracious colleague, became a valued partner in our mission for the
Presbyterian church. His present role in editing a significant series
of important works on the Presbyterian church, our history, and our
present dilemma is of lasting influence for us today. We need to pay
attention to what this research reveals, and to what it says in
speaking to our future!

Numerous opportunities are provided for new presidents and
other administrators by the Association of Theological Schools. With
257 institutions in the U.S.A. and Canada in its membership, a
constant flow of new leaders assumes responsibilities in a wide
variety of schools.

29

In the first few years of my presidency, a seminar sponsored by
the Lilly Endowment stands out. New presidents were invited to
attend what was actually an institutional planning program and to
invite their key administrators in academics, finances, and develop-
ment. The fact that such a session was held off campus in the context
of stimulating addresses and discussions made it work at a very
important time for Columbia. Plans, both short and long range, were
developed without interruptions. In the final versions developed
with the board of directors and the presbyteries, they formed our
institutional priorities and efforts for the late seventies.

A second seminar, sponsored by the Association of Theological
Schools, was the pre-convention program on spirituality in theologi-
cal education. The conference began with an address by the execu-
tive director, Dr. Jesse Zeigler, presenting the urgency of the issue of
developing spirituality in the experience of seminary students. He
began with a conversation he had with a stranger on an airplane
during a long flight. When the man discovered that Dr. Zeigler
worked with seminaries and other theological schools, he began to
talk about ministers who had served in his midwestern church. His
comments went like this: 'The ministers I have known in my church
are smart, they know theology, they are good counselors, and they
administer the life of the church well. How I wish, though, they knew
more about God, and how to relate God to my life at my level of
existence/'

Dean Krister Stendahl responded after the address with an
urgent call for a vision of Christian spirituality in America. It could
be developed "through contributions from experience in this area
from both new and old traditions. It is essential," Professor Stendahl
went on, "for students preparing for ministry." He described a
faculty meeting in 1954 when he had just begun as a professor at
Harvard Divinity School. He asked, "Who is responsible for the
spiritual development of our students?" After a long silence, some-
one responded by saying, "Here in the United States, we don't do it
that way. Here, all of us are responsible." Professor Stendahl
continued by saying, "In Sweden, anytime you get that answer it
really means no one does it!" His colleague responded, "You have
touched a sensitive nerve, Dr. Stendahl."

He had, indeed. Granted, an obsessive turning inward can be
little more than escape. But Protestants have only recently become
concerned again about spirituality. They have been seeking to
recapture nurturing ways to develop spirituality through prayer,
worship, scripture, devotional reading, meditation, and above all,
communion. Another forceful comment came from a dean of a

30

strong, African American seminary urging us to look at the contribu-
tions which the African American church was making in this area.

After these two important lectures, the presidents and deans
were divided into groups of twelve (apostolic number by coinci-
dence!) and spent several hours on questions in the area of spiritual-
ity. What is it? How can we authenticate it? Most of all, how can we,
personally, and the entire seminary community, experience it? Dean
Mouw at Fuller Theological Seminary presided, and Henri J.M.
Nouwen was the resource person.

Father Nouwen taught for a time at Yale in the broad field of
pastoral care and counseling. However, it seems to me that he got the
attention of ministers in his books with his view of ministry. The
"future leaders of the church," as described in The Wounded Healer,
"must enter into the pain of persons if they are to be healed." They
must be, moreover, "articulate, compassionate," and most of all,
"contemplative" ministers of Christ. 5

What are our wounds as ministers? From eight or ten different
words, Professor Nouwen chose "loneliness" as best describing our
experience. In this pivotal discussion in a little room at a convention
center, we came under the leadership of one who seemed to under-
stand the strengths and weaknesses of presidents and deans who
were, after all, human yet committed servants of Jesus Christ. The
contemplative, reflective, prayerful disciplines of our walk with God
and with the people of God will ultimately nourish and bless us.
Otherwise, who is "steadfast, immoveable, always abounding in the
work of the Lord?" The whole conference and the small group
discussions made a strong impression on me. I believe these issues
will always be of enormous significance in learning to be a minister.

My consultation at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
was with President Prescott Williams, Old Testament scholar and
successor to the very effective President David Stitt. It came after a
meeting of the Committee on Theological Education of the P.C.U.S.,
the primary coordinating instrument of the five P.C.U.S. theological
schools. With wit and wisdom, President Williams talked of the
distinctive ministry of Austin Seminary to the great Southwest, and
of the seminary's close relationship to the Synod of Red River. The
Presbyterian church in the Southwest and Austin were mutually
dependent on each other. In many ways, Austin's geographical
setting gave it a special relationship with its governing bodies.

President David Stitt led Austin during a period of increasing
financial support and a growing respect for its work. Jane Stitt, who
shared this work with her husband, was a valued member of the
P.C.U.S. Committee on Theological Education. They shared the

31

hopes and dreams of those who cared about Austin Presbyterian
Seminary. I wish I could have spent more time with the faculty and
students there.

With these various and helpful visits, the briefing and consulting
ended, and the work began.

32

3
Students

The life of a theological seminary begins and ends, ultimately,
with students. In 1828 five students began an informal program of
tutoring with Dr. Thomas Goulding. The first organized class at
Columbia was enrolled in 1831 with six students, only four of whom
were regular students studying for ordination on a full-time basis.
Of the first six graduates, three served in foreign missions overseas.
The needs of the nation still influenced the graduates to go west to
Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. Of the first fifty gradu-
ates, thirty-six accepted calls westward and only twenty stayed in
the Southeast.

Educators sometimes say that their existence and their mission
require four things: "friends, faculty, funds, and freshmen." Colum-
bia Seminary would say, "friends, faculty, funds, and students."

The numbers and the abilities of the students enrolled in a
Presbyterian seminary are the result of a broad partnership commit-
ted to a joint venture between the seminary and the church. Students
are usually confronted with a call to ministry through a local church
and the presbytery. The seminaries help to clarify and nurture that
developing call.

During my presidency, students came with a wide range of
decisive experiences in their sacred journeys. "Sacred journeys" is a
phrase given by Frederick Buechner to his own spiritual and intellec-
tual journey during some defining moments in his life. In a trilogy
of books devoted to his learning from life, he describes his response
to a call to ministry:

I entered Union Theological Seminary in the fall of 1954. If
anyone had told me as little as a year or so earlier that I was
going to do such a thing, I would have been no less surprised
than if I had been told I was going to enter the Indianapolis
500!... To the degree that I felt woefully inadequate to the task
of being whatever I thought a Christian was supposed to be, I
needed all the help I could get. So to seminary I went.. ..In the
spring of 1953, 1 had left my job in Lawrence School to be a full-
time writer in New York. It was that fall, with my third novel
failing to come to life for me, that in some sense my life itself

33

started to come to life for me the possibility, at least, of a life
in Christ, with Christ, and on some fine day conceivably, even
a life for Christ, if I could ever find out what such a life
involved, and could find somewhere in myself courage enough,
faith enough, craziness and grace enough, to undertake the
living of it. So, trailing all those clouds of glory and whatever
else, I started setting forth on the daily voyage, aboard a
number four Fifth Avenue bus, from my bachelor apartment
on Madison Avenue at 74th Street to the seminary at Broad-
way and 120th.... Such skills of reading, writing, and under-
standing as I picked up during my disheveled and war-
interrupted college career, I gathered together and directed
toward a more or less single end. I wanted to learn about
Christ about the Old Testament, which had been his Bible,
and the New Testament which was the Bible about him; about
the history of the Church, which had been founded on the faith
that through him God had not only revealed his innermost
nature and his purpose for the world, but had released into the
world a fierce power to draw people into that nature and adapt
them to that purpose!... I wanted to learn about Jesus Christ,
and thus put a face on the mystery we call God. 6

Few of us could describe a call this vividly or experience our
application to seminary along this precise path, but many of us, and
I am one of them, understand the pull of a call like some great
undertow which seems irresistible.

The enrollment at Columbia of M.Div. and M.A.T.S. students
averaged 200 plus from 1980 to 1986. The first degree, as the M.Div.
was often called, provided the majority of full-time students living
on or near the campus. With the explosion in the numbers of persons
seeking education beyond the M.Div., however, the majority of
students enrolled in degree programs at Columbia by 1980 were not
the 200 traditional ministerial students preparing for ordained ser-
vice. Amazing!

The advanced studies program with D.Min., S.T.D., Th.M., and
even the M.A. in theological studies, included 300 and more who
were ordained and practicing ministry, and who also practiced
lifelong learning. Students studying for degrees beyond the M.Div.
level usually stretched the requirements out over four or five years.
There were always a few Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists in the
M.Div. degree program but never more than five or ten percent. With
the development of the doctor of ministry degree, however, during
my presidency there were at least a third in that advanced degree

34

experience who were from other communions.

The mission of the seminary from 1828 to this day owes its very
existence to the first degree, once known as the bachelor of divinity
and now the master of divinity degree. Again and again, the
Presbyterian church committed to its seminaries the formidable task
of educating ministers. Included in their preparation was the devel-
opment of the mind, the nurture of personal faith and spirituality,
and where possible, the resulting competence in the practice of
ministry. So the challenge, then and now, is the education of persons
who will meet the daunting demands of ministry in the church and
in the world.

In 1 976, Columbia was moving out of the Vietnam era when a few
students enrolled who were avoiding the draft out of conscience, or
occasionally, for self-protection. What does a seminary do about
enrolling students? For some, it is a matter of "taking whatever
washes up on the shored as one seminary president put it. Colum-
bia, as a Presbyterian seminary, was and is caught between obliga-
tions to the church to be a seminary where the church's candidates
for ministry can be prepared, and the pressure to serve as a gatekeeper
saving the church and the students from a formidable cluster of
damaging experiences.

At times, admission committees are tempted to use educational
criteria exclusively in enrollment decisions. In a few extreme cases,
it doesn't matter if a person is committed in faith or in mission to the
service of Christ in the church or in the world. What matters is the
graduate record exam score and the college or university transcript
grade point average! This view is too limited.

A priority for Columbia Seminary in 1976 was to develop a
process which would enroll persons who had significant promise in
ministry and both personal faith in and commitment to serving in
Christ's mission through the church. Such a process is not as easy or
as simple as it sounds. Decisions were made with all of the informa-
tion provided through papers and person-to-person evaluations. If
only academic criteria were used, there was the danger of a person
functioning well in the seminary academic program but not very
well with people and not at all in ministry. A few also came with
minimal academic credentials but did satisfactory work through
deep commitment and good teaching and became effective minis-
ters. These candidates usually had changed in the years since college
and had become more deeply committed Christians and Presbyteri-
ans! Judgements made in admissions are sometimes faulty, never-
theless, careful and prayerful judgements in each case were usually
helpful to all concerned.

35

The process was strengthened through consultations with com-
mittees on ministry in the presbyteries of our constituency and
beyond. As reunion developed, the ordination examinations and
vows required by the General Assembly helped to focus the process
of the church's requirements for ordination.

Here are the basics of a program developed by Charles B. Cousar
and Oscar J. Hussel, deans of faculty; T. Erskine Clarke and Peter C.
Carruthers, deans of students; Harry H. Barrow, director of admis-
sions; and the president. The program has integrity and is fair to
persons applying to the institution, its mission, and to the church at
large.

1 . Ideally, an enrollment process involves the church at every
level of the seminary's relationships and responsibilities. To accom-
plish that ideal, two differing pieces of information about an appli-
cant proved extremely valuable. One was academic work, and the
other was a personal evaluation. In addition, a pilgrimage paper
gave a succinct and extremely important picture of a journey of
developing faith and commitment.

As important as the materials provided by the applicant and the
references listed were, the individual was considered on the basis of
personal, face-to-face evaluations. Professors, deans, and the presi-
dent were involved at every level. All the folders with completed
materials were studied prior to the person-to-person meeting. Dur-
ing the two annual conferences on ministry, Kay and I usually hosted
an open house for prospective students in our home. Harry H.
Barrow often maintained a relationship with a prospective student
over a period of two or three years. The deans and the president may
well have met and interviewed every first degree student enrolling.
I gave much time and thought to each admissions decision. I
interviewed on weekends, holidays, and once on Christmas Eve.
The majority of time was spent with those applications which made
the decision difficult. Shall we or shall we not? The very impressive
ones were admitted with enthusiasm and often received one of the
honor scholarships. Sometimes, after a series of such interviews, I
went home thinking, "God hasn't given up on the church yet!" A few
applicants, often with obvious personal and emotional problems,
were denied admission, but the decisions were made with sympathy
and with the hope that healing could be found. My participation in
this process, though demanding a great deal of time and effort, was
one of the most satisfying of my experiences as president. I see our
graduates today in significant work and am grateful to have had a
part in their education.

The most astonishing interview in my experience came during

36

one of the conferences on ministry. An older applicant assured me
that we should not be concerned about the payment of tuition and
fees. He was suing the President of the United States and the FBI for
harassment, and the three million dollars would be more than
enough! By the way, he was not a Presbyterian!

The most recent study of Presbyterian theological institutions,
presented at the 1993 General Assembly, realistically faces the situ-
ation today:

A. The majority of students are self-selected rather than enlisted
by the church for their skills and abilities in ministry.

B. The church as a whole gives low priority to the enlistment for
ministry.

C. About one- third of Presbyterian candidates for ministry
attend non-Presbyterian institutions.

D. Many students no longer major in the humanities in college
and thus need to make up for that through special educational
experiences at seminary.

E. With a large percentage of students with financial responsi-
bilities for families and limited resources, seminaries are pressed to
raise and disburse large amounts of financial aid.

The report recommends a renewed effort at the congregational
level to encourage the most promising candidates to consider a call
to ministry. It also recommends a new commitment on the part of the
whole church to finance adequately the work of theological institu-
tions of the Presbyterian church. This seventy-two-page report is of
tremendous importance to the tasks in theological education of the
whole church.

While admission to the graduate degrees is the responsibility of
the director of advanced studies and the advanced studies commit-
tee, the same general principles apply in practice. A cluster of issues
is considered. Could the minister do the work required by the
courses involved? Could the minister develop both a significant
project in the practice of ministry and a doctoral dissertation of good
quality? The academic transcript with the grade point average and
the quality of the seminary where the first degree was awarded were
considered important indicators of the student's potential. Even so,
the evaluation of the applicant's practice of ministry was important,
too, since this was a degree in the practice of ministry. Would this
educational experience make an impact on that ministry in the
future?

The master of theology degree was designed to provide ad-
vanced study in one of the theological disciplines. To the amazement
of the faculty, it continued to enroll sixty to seventy persons each

37

year. With the doctor of ministry degree rapidly growing, some of
us thought the Th.M. would phase out. Not so!

The doctor of sacred theology degree was administered through
the Atlanta Theological Association and the Georgia Association of
Pastoral Care. By any measurement, the S.T.D. was a demanding
degree; only a few were admitted and even less finished.

2. The enrollment process includes a clarifying component so
that students understand the demands of the ministry in clear and
realistic ways. Personal interviews can do this, but the various
conferences on ministry each year also utilize students, faculty,
deans, and the president.

In Presbyterian heritage, we place great emphasis on a call. This
runs counter to a culture often found even in the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) that talks of jobs and tight job markets. A corollary
to that is the view that if we had about a thousand less ministers,
everyone would have a great job! Such a view implies that the
categories of prestige, pay, and power measure the quality of a
minister's work. The call of Christ, however, speaks of greatness in
terms of "those who serve most!" The Book of Order, the Book of
Confessions, and other official documents clearly reject the job con-
cept and its secular connotations. It is a call in the biblical, theologi-
cal, and historical perspectives of the church.

Granted, nonparish settings and vocations for ministers are
sometimes valid places of fulfilling calls. However, to view them
and experience them as we would just another job is damaging, if not
fatal, to the practice of ministry.

What about a glut of ministers? That is a complicated issue.
There are never enough for some needs such as associate pastors for
education or youth ministry or evangelism. Often, there seem to be
too many who want to have a specialty such as teaching or pastoral
counseling.

The primary factor is the health and growth of the church. If our
decline in membership and the number of churches continues, there
will be far too many ministers. The most perceptive analysis I have
heard was by President Stair at Union, Richmond, "If the church is
in mission, it never has enough ministers. If it is not in mission, it
always has too many/ 7

Meetings with students and faculty provide great opportunities
to clarify all kinds of issues about the meaning of ministry. Almost
always, seminaries admit students who have been nurtured in the
faith by a local congregation or an experience in a campus fellowship
group, or even a focused service ministry. Many have an evangelical
experience as an adult. One of the great hazards involved in coming

38

to seminary is the way unrealistic and unauthentic expectations
accumulate. It is important that these expectations be addressed.

3. The enrollment process provides for diversity and avoids
seeking only those who fit some pattern of age, gender, and race.
That diversity is not always reflected in the church itself but is
essential for the health of the church's life and work today.

Prior to World War II, most students were enrolled directly from
college, usually a Presbyterian college. It is different today. One
person interviewed for a Columbia faculty position won the hearts
of the committee by commenting on his degree from a state univer-
sity of rather modest reputation. Later, he attended a strong Presby-
terian seminary. 'The first week I was in seminary/ 7 he stated, "I

thought every student was a graduate of (name withheld to

protect the innocent), and their first question to me was 'what
fraternity did you belong to? 7 "

In 1976 there were only nine women in a class of forty-seven. In
1993, about thirty-five percent are women. During my tenure, the
first woman president of the student coordinating council was
elected, Gail Perkins. The first African American president was
Ralph Aker, and the second, Charles Heyward. Columbia has not
only enrolled an increasing number of women but also a small but
significant number of African Americans, Asians, and a few Native
Americans.

We, of course, were greatly dependent upon the churches of our
constituency for helping identify and recruit the persons in these
categories. One year, I was intrigued when a synod passed a
resolution urging Columbia Theological Seminary to enroll more
minority students. The problem for us was, "Where would we find
them?" Answer: "The churches of the synod!" The resolution did
lead to a new understanding on everyone's part that the churches of
a synod like that one would need to identify and interpret a call to
ministry to minority students if they were to even think of enrolling
in a Presbyterian seminary. It was, indeed, a joint venture. Churches
must bring more minorities to a growing faith in Christ and to
Presbyterian church membership if we are to have any such candi-
dates.

4. The enrollment process presents a complete and authentic
picture of the educational program and its requirements. The
requirements are largely based on the requirements of the church for
ordination and the competencies needed for effective ministry as we
move into the twenty-first century.

The Greek school, a rather grueling eight-week course, took
place in the summer before beginning the full seminary curriculum.

39

It often had an icy shock effect on students. They called themselves
"The Fellowship of Suffering." Based on the church's requirement of
a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew for use in biblical studies, the
experience helps a minister to use the commentaries and other
resources available today in Old and New Testament exegesis.

For the majority who will serve as ministers in parish settings of
varying kinds, the basics in their practice of ministry are preaching,
worship leadership, pastoral care, Christian education, and admin-
istrative tasks. Years ago, we thought two out of three would be
about all we could expect. However, we are beyond the day when
a congregation could say with satisfaction, "Mr. Smith is a good
pastor, but he can't preach much!" Or vice versa for that matter!

5. The enrollment process presents a clear picture of the financial
requirements during seminary. The large number of older students
with families increased steadily after 1976. Columbia was blessed
with exceptional faculty and student housing. However, even with
spouses working and limited income from part-time work in the city
and the churches, the scholarship aid budget increased dramatically.
The indebtedness from college loans made the situation worse for
older students. The number of advanced studies students who had
to secure their tuition and other expenses beyond very limited
salaries added a dimension which no one in 1828, 1927, or even 1976,
could have imagined.

6. The enrollment process will work best if a close partnership is
maintained with the church. The candidates committee (now the
committee on preparation for ministry), the presbytery and synod
executives, and the committee at the General Assembly level are all
extremely important components of the calling, educating, and
ordaining of our ministers. The church's increasing insistence on
continuing education for all leaders in the church has been validated
again and again. Thus, the advanced studies area has enlarged its
impact beyond graduate degrees to include non-degree continuing
education for ministers and other church leaders. The Lay Institute
of Bible and Theology was just beginning in 1986 when I retired and
is wonderfully conceived and rapidly developing.

The danger in any of these programs is to develop a feast of good
things to which no one comes! On the other hand, with a wide range
of choices, the response is quite remarkable, and the lessons learned
always valuable.

7. The enrollment process should include a realistic presentation
of the opportunities for learning in the city of Atlanta and particu-
larly in Decatur. With 122 churches, the Presbytery of Greater

40

Atlanta is an ideal source of part-time placement in supervised
ministry and part-time employment.

The world is a part of the campus and curriculum of Columbia
students. There is important interchange of both faculty and stu-
dents with institutions throughout the world. The alternative con-
text winter term seminars are amazingly productive. The clinical
settings for learning about pastoral counseling are as good as those
anywhere. The Georgia Association for Pastoral Care and other
certified supervisors are very helpful resources. Grady Hospital is
exceptional both in size and in the quality of medicine practiced in a
public hospital which has a high number of very poor people in its
patient group. A semester as a student chaplain at Grady will
educate in a way rarely found on campus! Placements in both
ministry courses and in employment are widely available in the
Presbyterian churches of the metropolitan Atlanta area and those in
our synods. They are a much-needed component of a student's
learning to be a minister. They help prepare pastors for a real church
in the real world.

8. The enrollment process will present the seminary campus and
plant in a favorable but realistic way. Columbia's campus never fails
to impress first-time visitors. Most of the buildings are fairly recent
in construction and in renovation. More are being developed.
Thomas E. Rast of Birmingham led the board in planning and
constructing new student and faculty housing. Renovations in
Campbell Hall and throughout the campus have been completed
and made accessible to persons with physical disabilities.

Atlanta Presbyterians, ministers and members of the supporting
Synods of the South Atlantic and the Mid-South support the semi-
nary with funds, faculty, prayers, and students. We are mutually
indispensable!

To summarize: God calls, the church validates, and the student
responds. That is the Reformed tradition, of course. But the church
also creates, guides, and supports the seminary. It should and does
expect its seminaries to act with integrity and with honesty in the
preparation of ministers in all the various steps of enrollment,
education, evaluating, graduating, and calling ministers of Christ.

Internationals

Hundreds of overseas students studied with us and were a major
part of the seminary community during my administration . They
brought life and witness to the campus community. They came from
Brazil, England, Germany, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Latin America,

41

Norway, Scotland, South Africa, Taiwan, Zambia, and other over-
seas countries on one-year scholarships. Most worked on a master
of theology degree, but others did special study of significant nature.

Formal relationships with Codrington College, Barbados; Seoul
Presbyterian Theological College; Trinity College, Glasgow; United
Theological College of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica; and
Westminster College, Cambridge, set up ongoing programs with
Columbia which led to exchanges of students both here and there.

Professors Wade P. Huie, Jr., and T. Erskine Clarke initiated the
program of internationalizing theological education and led it through
early days of expansion. George Thompson Brown, professor of
World Christianity, participated in the program with both his teach-
ing and his writing. His book, Christianity in the People's Republic in
China, is considered first-rate. Having grown up in China as a son of
missionaries, and serving as Executive Director of Global Mission for
the Presbyterian Church U.S., he had worldwide contacts with
ecumenical partners.

This poignant story was related by Professor Brown. "In 1 980, on
my first visit to China with the United Board for Higher Education
in Asia, I tried to get permission to stop off in Xuzhou, where I had
lived as a boy. This was not permitted even though our train passed
through the city on the way from Beijing to Nanjing. However, I did
send telegrams from Beijing to two men in Xuzhou whom I thought
would remember me. One was a pastor, a colleague of my father, and
one, the son of a pastor and elder in the church who had been a
boyhood playmate. I gave them the number of the train and the time
it was to pass through Xuzhou where it was to stop about fifteen
minutes. I said I would be glad to see them if they could come to the
station. I did not know whether they would receive the telegrams
and if they did, whether they could come to the station. When the
train arrived I saw them standing on the platform, waiting. There
were just the two of them nobody else. We talked, wept, laughed,
and had a wonderful reunion."

Kay and I participated in a Columbia Seminary sponsored trip to
China in 1983 led by Tommy and Mardia Brown. One of the
highlights of the trip was meeting the Rev. Peter Tsai in Hangzhou.
Pastor Tsai, who studied at Princeton in the 1940's, was the "grand
old man of the Presbyterian church" in China prior to "liberation,"
and is now the chairman of the China Christian Council in his
province (Zhejiang). After traveling hard for ten days throughout
China we came bone tired to Hangzhou, where we attended an
evening service in a large church. Following the service, we were
refreshed by fruit and tea, and a welcome. A minister from the

42

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) asked: "What contribution has the
Christian Church of China made to the witness of the world church?"
"It is," Pastor Tsai replied, "the witness of a Christian Church which
stood up before the world and said, 'Jesus Christ, not Chairman Mao
or any earthly ruler, is Lord/"

Strong ties grew with the seminaries and pastors of the Presby-
terian Church in Korea. Professor Brown and Dean Hussel planned
three-week summer courses for Korean Presbyterians, ministers,
and educators which proved to be very fruitful. With a steady stream
of visitors from overseas, the global context of ministry today was
greatly enhanced in the minds of both faculty and students.

In 1980 the presidents and deans of the Atlanta Theological
Association's four theological schools visited Codrington College
and the United Theological College of the West Indies. The purpose
of the visit was to discuss the possibilities of a joint venture in
cooperative education for students and faculties of these institutions.
The evolving programs began through a continuing education two-
week seminar in Jamaica attended by Professor Huie. His prelimi-
nary discussions with President William Watty and Anglican Bishop
Neville DeSousa in Kingston led to a continuing exchange of faculty
and students. Professor Huie had long had a deep commitment to a
world view of the church. In addition to his participation in the
Jamaica program, he taught in Ghana and Korea during his sabbati-
cal leaves. Vee Huie, Wade's wife, shared both the experiences and
the commitments involved.

For five years, Professor Huie conducted alternative context
courses in Jamaica for Columbia students. The geography of such
courses has spread throughout the world. Professor Clarke has now
assumed responsibility for much of this program. Without this early
vision and effort, the 1980 consultation with West Indies educators
and clergy would never have happened.

None of this was as simple as it seemed at first. For example, the
first question put to us in Kingston was, at the very least, surprising.
"Are you in any way representing the CIA?" The answer, "No, but
why do you ask?" It was really a suspicion created by the behavior
of various fundamentalist TV evangelists and missionaries from
their churches. The fact was that some were, at least in a minor way,
acting for the CIA in their inquiries and reports. The idea was quite
offensive to the ministers from the West Indies present in that
meeting. Efforts to build a sense of trust and partnership ultimately
succeeded for all concerned, and the first visiting professor, Presi-
dent William Watty, spent a good sabbatical year at Columbia.

Two unusual things from the memories of that year remain.

43

President Watty arrived the evening before I was scheduled for a
10:00 a.m. chapel service of worship. I had chosen an obscure passage
in Song of Solomon, Chapter 1 :6b, 'They made me caretaker of the
vineyards, but I have not taken care of my own vineyard/' We had
hoped President Watty would arrive earlier and initiate his ministry
with us by leading that service. As I talked with him about this, he
not only agreed to preach in chapel but said he would take my text
for the sermon. The Old Testament scholar came out in him, and the
sermon was excellent. I am embarrassed, for I would have not only
done worse with the passage but would have interpreted it quite
incorrectly. One is often spared "by the mercy of the Lord"!

Bishop DeSousa spent a sabbatical with us, preaching and teach-
ing on occasion with the permission of the Bishop of Atlanta of the
Episcopal church. He certainly helped a Presbyterian seminary and
Presbyterian churches with his ministry and found time to partici-
pate with the Episcopalians on occasion. Dr. Howard Gregory, the
current president of the United Theological College of the West
Indies, received his S.T.D. from Columbia and is a friend to many of
the faculty and staff at the seminary. Ashley Smith, President
William Watty's successor, also spent a sabbatical with us, as did a
number of United Theological College faculty members.

Among other helpful visiting professors during this period were
two Scotsmen, Stuart McWilliam and David Steel. Retired ministers
of the Church of Scotland, they were lifelong friends who fished the
streams of the Highlands once a year and spent considerable time
debating the merits of their respective divinity schools at the Univer-
sities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Both taught elective courses in
worship and preaching. Stuart lectured during the Columbia Forum
on worship. Living in a guest apartment in Florida Hall and eating
in the Tull Dining Hall, both they and their wives came to know
students well and were good friends to many. During a number of
years, they not only served Columbia but also Peachtree Presbyte-
rian Church. As "scholars in residence" at Peachtree, they taught
adult classes on Sundays and Wednesday evenings and were ex-
ceedingly well received by large groups of Peachtree' s members.
Mrs. Steel and Mrs. McWilliam have both since died, and we grieve
for these two wonderful women.

Dr. Steel and Dr. McWilliam returned from Scotland once to
participate in the special services marking the completion of an
extensive enlargement of the Peachtree sanctuary. There were three
services on Sunday morning as usual. Dr. W. Frank Harrington, a
distinguished alumnus and great supporter of Columbia Seminary,
preached at the 8:30 a.m. service. Becoming ill as the next service

44

The young seminarian

The young pastor

The Decatur Presbyterian Church The Columbia Seminary years:
years: The Philips family (1-r): Kay, Kay and Davison Philips
Graham, Davison, Jim, and June

45

Susan Harrington, daughter of W. Frank Harrington; C.
Benton Kline, Columbia president from 1971-1975; Gay
Love, wife of Board chairman J. Erskine Love, Jr.; J.
McDowell Richards, president of Columbia from 1932-1971;
and Kay Philips at the inaugural dinner for President
Philips, Peachtree Presbyterian Church, 1976

Chairman of Columbia Seminary's Board of Directors toasting Miss C
Virginia Harrison at her retirement in 1961

46

The faculty, late 70s and early '80s

47

Erskine Love, chair of
the seminary's Board
of Directors, and
President Philips

President Philips
with Shirley
Guthrie, professor
of systematic
theology

Old Testament Professor
Ludwig Dewitz and
President Philips, at the
retirement of Professor
Dewitz

President Philips and faculty at a Christmas luncheon, 1977

i<iu",vat,'i

ftiillill

Long-time co-workers: J. Davison Philips and Peggy Matthews
Rowland

JOHN BULOW CAM ?ARY

COLUMBIA; < ARY

DECATU

931863

49

Cecil Moore, Class of
1962, superintendent of
buildings and grounds
since 1973

New student apartments in the Village, built in 1978 and 1983

50

President Emeritus J. Davison Philips, Board Chair John A. Conant, and
President Douglas W. Oldenburg

Davison Philips at Columbia with the presidents and deans of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) theological institutions, 1986

51

Columbia

Friendship

Circle

Scholarship

recipients,

fall 1979:

Samuel

Pendergrast,

John Mabray,

\ Laurie

I Hartwell,

I Tom Bagley,

I Elbert

1 Darden

Columbia
Friendship
Circle Scholar-
ship recipi-
| ents, fall 1985:
Chuck Hasty,
Sarah Speed,
Peter McLain,
Brad Smith,
Scott

Andrews,
Melodie
Wager

Fellowship
recipients,
graduation
1978: Warner
Durnell, Mac
Spann, Dan
Holloway,
Anna Case-
Winters

52

Neville DeSousa,
bishop of Jamaica,
was a visiting scholar
at Columbia, 1985-86.

Alternative Context class visiting with Lady Bustamante in Kingston,
Jamaica, 1986

53

The Queen and the
Pope at a seminary
Halloween party

Mr. and Mrs. Harry Owens of Tallahassee, Florida,
presented Dr. Philips with a replica of the seminary seal
carved by Mr. Owens, 1978.

54

began, he was forced to withdraw and receive medical help. As he
left, he sent word to the two Scots that one of them must preach at the
11:00 a.m. service. David designated Stuart as the preacher because,
he said, "You preach without notes !" The sermon, The Recovery of
Wonder, was superb! It was one of two Stuart had brought along on
this special trip, not expecting to use either one. It was a high point
of that special occasion in Peachtree's life.

These few selected items are proof that long before it became a
widespread commitment among our theological schools, the inter-
nationalizing of theological education was practiced effectively at
Columbia.

Advanced Degree Students

Who are these women and men who spend much time, money,
and study in additional graduate degrees to the master of divinity
they have already earned?

There were two major foci for them. The master of theology
degree had students studying in all the traditional theological disci-
plines. The master of theology in pastoral counseling was particu-
larly well supported by ministers who wanted certification as coun-
selors or expertise in an area where they were being pushed by real
people in their ministries. A good part of this degree involved
clinical pastoral education courses which enabled students to learn
as they practiced ministry in hospitals and other special settings. The
key to this learning by doing was supervision. The doctor of sacred
theology took these students, who were primarily counselors or
professors, along similar patterns in a challenging and difficult
program.

The other focus was the doctor of ministry. Almost always, those
enrolling were ministers who had been involved in pastorates or in
missionary service. They had a minimum of three years of experi-
ence, an indispensable asset in their work. At the other extreme,
some were in the last ten years of their active service. Invariably, the
dissertation project involved some aspect of the ministry they were
performing and /or the setting for it. Many were graduates of other
seminaries, and a good-sized minority were non-Presbyterians. The
programs for groups who studied in such settings as Brewton,
Alabama; Decatur, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; Oxford, Mississippi;
or Summerville, South Carolina, were designed to provide learning
from peers as well as from the instructors.

As the D.Min. enrollment grew, James D. Newsome was called
from a pastorate in Paducah, Kentucky, to initiate a new phase in

55

advanced studies at Columbia. He personified a commitment to
advanced study in his own academic and professional work. When
he was appointed professor of Old Testament, he was succeeded by
another alumnus, W. Douglas Hix, who moved the scope and the
quality of the commitment and work of these students to new levels
of effectiveness. With a blend of pastoral and academic experience,
he was a creative administrator and leader of seminars on ministry.
It was under Dr. Hix's leadership that the D.Min. experienced its
most dramatic growth.

Last, but not least, the ministers and lay persons coming to
seminary for a brief summer seminar and for the January courses
were fully qualified as students. Lay people, especially in the Lay
Institute, were and are diligent students.

All in all, the flow of students was like a passing parade. The
majority finished the course. A few did not. No institution can
guarantee 100 percent success. In the years following retirement, the
student community has completely rotated, and now I know only a
few of the present group. Stay tuned!

56

Context and Constituency

One of the discoveries made almost immediately by any semi-
nary president is that the quality of the constituency is a very
important factor in the health of that institution. The supporting
synods who have ownership and control are crucial today to the
health of Columbia Theological Seminary. In 1828 they created
Columbia for the purpose of "throwing the light of the gospel on the
frontiers of the West/' Being interpreted today, this means providing
ministers for pastorates in the rapidly growing southeastern United
States and, indeed, in the world! The supporting synods' churches
provide most of the money, the students, the faculty, and the build-
ings. They are still the real reason for Columbia's existence.

After the Synod of Florida was organized at the end of the
nineteenth century, its first major decision was to request and receive
partnership with Georgia and South Carolina in the "ownership and
control" of Columbia Theological Seminary. Alabama and Missis-
sippi followed, and all were motivated to provide education and
preparation for the parish ministry.

The relationship between the church and the seminary is a many-
faceted thing and should be valued highly by all concerned. Both
church and seminary are necessary in theological education which
has as its focus the preparation of ministers for service at every level
of the church. Nor can we forget that the seminary was and is a
theological resource center for the whole church, lay and clergy alike.
Years ago, a delegation from the Synod of Mississippi and Alabama,
made up of four or five ministers and elders, met with Dr. Richards
at the seminary with concerns about what they called the theological
drift of the institution. Dr. Richards invited me, as chairman of the
board, and also Dr. Felix Gear, dean of the faculty, to be present. We
spent several hours talking together. The key point, I believe, had
little to do with a broad based theological position. The ordination
vows of the faculty, the plan of government, commitments of the
seminary, and the vows tenured professors took did not seem to be
as important to the group as was a specific view of scripture. They
kept pushing Dr. Richards as to whether or not the seminary sub-
scribed to the view that the Bible was without error. They indicated
that they thought that the original manuscripts, which we do not

57

have, were without error! Error was a complex and imprecise
concept in their minds, it seemed to me. Since we don't have the
original manuscripts, it was rather difficult, as it always is, to deal
with this issue. Dr. Richards believed, as I do, in the inspiration and
authority of the Bible, but he always sought a definition of inerrancy.
He would say, "Since there are four different versions of the sign on
the cross of Jesus in four different Gospels of the New Testament,
what does this mean? Were there four signs there, each with varying
words, or was there one sign and the four different versions of it
simply capture the essence of its meaning, namely that Jesus was
King?" I've always been troubled that none of this discussion
seemed to be helpful to anyone. The study of ancient scriptures must
not in any way mute the voice of God speaking to us.

One thing stands out in my mind concerning the relationship
with the church which is quite painful. The schism which came in the
old Presbyterian Church U.S. led to the departure of congregations
and ministers to the newly formed Presbyterian Church of America
and also to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The pain continues,
as it does in all schism. The fact that it involved graduates of
Columbia, friends of many years, and even members of my own
family, makes this separation especially difficult.

Trustees

The board of directors at Columbia is more than a group of
persons selected for honorary positions. They are capable ministers
and elders who direct the mission of the seminary and hold it in trust.
Unlike some Presbyterian seminaries where the directors are se-
lected in a self-perpetuating method, all of Columbia's directors are
elected by the supporting synods.

A number of outstanding elders and ministers in the Atlanta
area were the key to making possible the move to what had become
the geographical center of the supporting synods. Some of the bright
hopes involved in the move began to fade, however, after three or
four years of existence in Decatur. The terrible economic depression
of the thirties almost struck a mortal blow. Again, it was the board
of directors which kept the seminary going forward. Mr. John Bulow
Campbell was a pivotal leader as he had been in guiding the move
to Atlanta. Without his leadership and resources, Columbia would
have no doubt either vanished from the face of the earth or accepted
one of the invitations to merge with other seminaries. In any event,
Columbia survived and flourished in Decatur. The mission, the
spirit, the theological commitments, the relationship to the church,

58

and indeed, the quality of students and faculty were all major items
in the work of the board of directors.

Although under the rules of the synods, some directors could
serve no more than six years and none any longer than nine years, we
were able to survive that turnover as new members assumed respon-
sibility. The synods continued to elect to the board able and experi-
enced persons who guided Columbia's life as a servant of the church.

The value of the leadership of the chairpersons of the board
during my tenure is beyond measure. J. Erskine Love, Jr., J. Phillips
Noble, and William A. Adams were all different in personality,
experience, and style. Yet all three led the enormously significant
work of the board with great devotion and effectiveness. Erskine
Love knew of the seminary through his father's attendance there.
During the years he was founding and developing Printpak, a
flexible packaging company, Mr. Love came to know and admire
President Richards. Phil Noble and Bill Adams were able Presbyte-
rian ministers with extensive experience in the church: John Conant,
the present chairperson of the board is, as Erskine Love was, a deeply
dedicated elder at Trinity Church in Atlanta with a strong faith and
impressive leadership capacity. Both have touched, for good, nu-
merous causes of the Presbyterian church and the city of Atlanta.

A director who listens to the president, gives clear and persua-
sive counsel, and reflects in word and in deed the indispensable
character of a seminary is invaluable. I do give thanks to God "upon
every remembrance of them."

During my period of service, the church, the seminary commu-
nity, and the administration had great satisfaction in adding out-
standing women leaders to the board with the election of Dr. Mary
Boney Sheats of Agnes Scott College, Deedie Simmons and Emily
Wood of the Synod of Florida, and Mary Ellen Alexander of Missis-
sippi. Others have followed. At the same time, we added represen-
tatives of minority ethnic groups of great ability and experience in
our denomination. The election of these board members was impor-
tant to both the campus community and the church at large.

The board could, of course, suggest to the synods well-qualified
persons to serve on the board. Only once was this a problem. In the
Synod of the Southeast, a person could not be approached by the
board until after he or she had been actually nominated by the
nominations committee of the synod. We gave a good deal of
thought and consideration to three persons who would be eligible
for the next class of directors from that synod. The names were sent
to the chairperson of the institution's committee. Somehow, that
person failed to send them on to the nominations committee, which

59

was the normal procedure. You can imagine how surprised I was to
have a phone call from the stated clerk of the synod saying that, since
we had made no suggestions, they had elected other persons! Unfor-
tunately, assuming that all was well and that they had been ap-
proved at the meeting of the nominations committee, we had already
contacted all three in an unofficial way. I had to phone them and tell
them what had happened. This was certainly embarrassing!

In the latest version of the plan of government, Columbia devel-
oped, as did all synod institutions, a category of "at large" members.
Subsequently, three "at large" directors were added to the board.
These persons were all Presbyterians and all from our supporting
synods. The need for such categories was illustrated when J. Erskine
Love, Jr., was rotated off the board by the Synod of the Southeast. He
had been an extremely useful director and had a special theological
understanding of ministry and of the needs of the church. He not
only made significant gifts of money to the seminary but gave of
himself without reserve to be of help to presidents, faculty, and
students. Although it was possible for us to elect other capable
directors, it seemed that the strength of such institutions as Rabun
Gap Nacoochee School, Agnes Scott College, Westminster Schools,
Presbyterian College, and Princeton Seminary, meant that there
were a few directors who, if not bound by the limited terms of a
synod, could make a continuing contribution and provide a continu-
ing source of leadership. The Synod of Florida and the Synod of the
Mid-South unanimously approved the whole plan of government
with this and other changes. In the Synod of the Southeast, two or
three persons spoke against it, but the plan was approved by a
considerable majority.

The real issue is, "What do we need in directors at Columbia
Seminary?" Mary Boney Sheats used to say that college presidents
thought they needed "wisdom, work, and wealth from a trustee, and
that two out of three were about all you could hope for!" We had a
great blend of wisdom, work, and generous giving from our direc-
tors. Those who could not provide financial gifts would often
provide significant leadership in terms of wisdom and work. Al-
ways, their commitment to Christ and the church, their understand-
ing of our mission, and their bringing the church and that mission
together was invaluable.

I felt the tremendous support of the board in the call to become
president. It continued throughout my tenure at Columbia.

60

Candidates for Ordination

Closely related to all the issues in the relationship to the church
has been the matter of candidates for the ministry. As noted earlier,
you cannot go out into the world and create and recruit candidates
from the graduates of a university or college. Candidates for the
ministry can only be produced by the church or by a body related to
the church. The "wind of the Spirit blows where it wills/' as the
Gospel of John says, and people have different spiritual pilgrimages,
but almost always candidates have an encounter with God which
comes from an exposure to the life of worship and mission of God's
people in the church. It may be in a campus Christian ministry
group, but more likely, it is a local church where, during high school,
college and even in adulthood over a long period of years, the call is
proclaimed and heard and followed. One aspect of this is that, at long
last, the church is far more careful in recommending people for
entrance into a theological seminary, let alone for ordination. Local
congregations differ. Smaller ones, of course, which have a member
applying to seminary are almost trapped by the family nature of a
small church, and the sessions consequently feel that it would be
disastrous to decline to recommend a person for admittance. Some
even say to the seminary that they knew the seminary would turn
this person down, and the local church would then be in a position
to provide pastoral support to the disappointed applicant.

A seminary lives in tension with the church as to its expectations.
On the one hand, churches expect quality graduates, and they
determine quality, as I do, as the ability to preach, pastor, and
administer. One of the early letters I received at Columbia was from
the chairman of a pastor nominating committee in a small congrega-
tion. He reported that the committee had heard twelve graduates of
Columbia Seminary among the group they considered. None could
preach a good sermon! What could I say or do? In consultation with
professors in the worship and preaching area, we discovered that
these graduates included several who came from that presbytery and
who had been unanimously and enthusiastically recommended to
Columbia.

Moreover, the search committee evidently didn't understand
that preaching is a demanding and difficult task. It takes a lifetime
of hard and prayerful work to become an effective communicator of
the Good News of God in Christ. It takes almost a miracle of the Holy
Spirit's guidance to do it. We are forever hearing a select few expert
communicators in different categories of television programs with
whom we preachers are compared. Sometimes Presbyterians in the

61

tradition of John Calvin and various nineteenth century theologians
become perhaps too logical, academic, and wordy. It sounds as
though we speak in strange and unknown tongues with all the
special language involved, biblically and theologically. Therefore,
one of the unfinished tasks of a theological seminary is to provide
specific training in communication, as well as in biblical and theo-
logical content. Calvin was a powerful and passionate preacher, but
his themes were theologically and biblically organized in rather
academic form. Today's most effective preaching, in my opinion,
should be written, but should sound like verbal, person to person,
conversation. Vivid word pictures, and attention-holding illustra-
tions are also helpful in an age where adults, at best, have a three-
minute attention span. Jonathan Edwards' two and one-half hour
sermons cannot compete today with TV sound bites and three-
minute news items.

What, then, is good communication? However one goes about
the teaching of preaching, the theological commitment of the stu-
dents being taught to communicate is critical. In earlier years
Columbia had fundamentalist students who recorded professors'
lectures and looked for heresy the way the Pharisees did when they
"watched" Jesus and reported what he had said. It was almost
impossible to teach them to preach. Fortunately, we no longer have
those students, but we do have persons who come to seminary out
of a sense of commitment to Jesus Christ. Their experiences today
could be described as being evangelical in the best sense of that term.
The seminary has the task of cultivating in them the heavenly vision
that comes with their evangelical experience. Then when the New
Testament question is asked, "What happened to the heavenly
vision?" a good response can be that "it is more in focus, it has
enlarged its scope, and has maintained the relationship with God
who is at the center of it." From my own experience, I know that the
windows of my mind were opened somewhat in seminary, but were
enlarged in graduate school and in ministry. Such growth in knowl-
edge and understanding makes serving the risen Christ far more
healthy, faithful, and, indeed, valid.

The Cultural Scene

Every decade seems to escalate the pace of change. Certainly, the
day is gone when a person could retire to a monastery, pull up the
drawbridge of the mind, and shut out the world. The context of the
life of a seminary today calls for immersion in the life of the world
with certain restrictions. That doesn't mean that students can go off

62

and follow destructive, addictive behavior just to say that they have
experienced the world as it is. It doesn't mean that faculties can
become almost secular in their work. It does mean that a student who
serves a term as a chaplain under supervision at Grady Hospital and
experiences Saturday night in the emergency room will be drawn out
of a comfortable cave. It means that experiencing the lives of people,
whether very poor or very affluent or somewhere in between, brings
a sense of reality to preaching and pastoring. It also means that the
more we can know about what is happening in the lives of people
sitting in pews and worshiping God with us, the more we can
minister to their needs in effective ways. The great explosion of
activity in the curriculum of Columbia brings the basics of theology,
Bible, history, and the practice of ministry into the context of the
realities of human existence today. This does not mean that any of
the great traditions of learning are de-emphasized. Putting them,
however, in the cultural context will bring a new authenticity to their
use.

For example, local churches, not denominations, lose members.
What has happened? Research today indicates that the great major-
ity of members drift away from the church into a kind of "no
religion" secularity . They move around the country. They may have
drifted away during college and sometimes do not even think of the
church until they want to be married, want to have children bap-
tized, or they get under such pressures in their lives that they reach
out desperately for God's help. If you look at persons placed on an
inactive roll of a Presbyterian church as I have done in three different
situations, very, very few of them go to the new conservative or
Pentecostal churches. Less than five percent could be identified as
having done so, but great numbers of them go nowhere and are
involved in no religion. When the denomination says that evangelism
is one of our two major priorities, it must confront this fact and ask
"Will our children have faith?" or "Will our faith have children?"
Also, "Will anyone have faith because of the witness and the nurture
of the Presbyterian church?" The appointment of professors in
ministry and in evangelism and church growth arose in an effort to
provide training and insight in these areas.

Conclusion

Are there other contextual factors that impact a seminary? Of
course. There can be an economic recession when the seminary no
longer receives gifts of real estate or appreciated assets in the num-
bers needed. During the depression, most of the pledges which

63

brought Columbia to Decatur in 1927 were divided between the few
who paid with great difficulty and those who could not pay at all.

Does politics impact us? Of course. On the world scene, the
political changes in Europe and Asia are the most significant of all.
However, closer to home, the quality of leadership in the govern-
ment at every level in the United States makes its impact on the
seminary for better or worse.

Does education in public universities and colleges impact a
seminary? Of course. In recent years, we have discovered that we
could not expect to enroll a large number of students every year who
have been trained in Presbyterian colleges. At my own alma mater,
Hampden-Sydney College, Bible, Latin, Greek, sociology, philoso-
phy, English, history, mathematics, and science were all required.
Many times today our second career students have studied engineer-
ing or science and very little liberal arts. Occasionally they have
studied law, and occasionally, even medicine or dentistry. They
have excellent backgrounds in their fields, but not the background
best suited for a theological education. What really pleased me was
when someone who came from a small, public institution of less than
average academic excellence gradually came alive, graduated with
distinction, and brought great satisfaction to those who had worked
with him or her.

The great majority of students who came from institutions of
quality, highly ranked universities or from Presbyterian colleges,
did well at Columbia. Elbert Darden, one of the finest Black students
during my tenure, was an outstanding Southwestern Conference
basketball player at Rice University who held the conference scoring
record for a number of years. He was elected Mr. Rice University.
More importantly, he had a degree from a rigorous program. One of
our students in an intern program at Highland Park Presbyterian
Church near the campus came to know him. They had more than
basketball in common, a relationship with Jesus Christ. Under that
influence, Elbert responded to a call to ministry and enrolled at
Columbia. You can imagine how much he meant to Columbia
Seminary during his time with us, and means to the church today.

Perhaps one of the things most often overlooked in considering
Columbia's context is its relationship with other educational institu-
tions in Atlanta. The Atlanta Theological Association includes
Candler School of Theology, Erskine Theological Seminary, and the
Interdenominational Theologial Center. These all have exceptional
strengths and to share them has been invaluable for each institution.
The University Center in Georgia involves fourteen major Atlanta
institutions plus the University of Georgia. Begun in 1938 by Emory

64

University, Georgia Tech, the University of Georgia, Agnes Scott,
and Columbia Theological Seminary, it now includes other out-
standing institutions. One benefit of working together is the access
to the more than fourteen million volumes in the combined libraries.
Everyday the libraries circulate books requested by the others. I
enjoyed this relationship.

In addition to educational institutions, Atlanta provides excel-
lent economic and cultural resources for its citizens. Its religious life
provides a varied laboratory for learning. Presbyterians in the
metropolitan area are supportive of Columbia, particularly in con-
tributing students, gifts, and supervised ministry placements. Church
employment of youth ministers is also of mutual benefit.

The city of Decatur, population about 20,000, has many charac-
teristics of life in a small town. Stores, shops, offices, and banks are
very convenient. Hospitals and medical resources are nearby. City
services are excellent. There is a strong political and educational
dimension to the city. Decatur and DeKalb County have been very
good for Columbia Theological Seminary, and I believe the seminary
has been good for Decatur and for DeKalb County. One small
evidence of this is a shared use of the seminary athletic field, which
one mayor said, "is the equivalent of having another park for the
city/'

The school system is the key to Decatur's vitality. A few years
before the Atlanta city schools were required by court action to
desegregate, Decatur voluntarily united its Black and white schools.
Since then, our three children and three grandchildren have been in
schools where white students are in the minority. The city joined
together to sustain public education when there were other options
such as starting a private school. The Winnona Park Elementary
School and Decatur High School have a large number of seminary
children enrolled, as well as missionary families' children from
Mission Haven. A teacher at Winnona once spoke with appreciation
of all the children of Columbia students and missionaries in her
classes. "However/ 7 she said, "it means I have a conference with a
preacher at least once a week!" I was intrigued one year when the
only starter on the Decatur High football team who was white was
the son of a seminary professor. Charles Cousar and Ben Kline
served as valuable Board of Education members.

And yet, there is more to the context of seminary life than a
dynamic urban environment full of cultural, educational, and eccle-
siastical resources. The urban problems of crime and poverty which
are so related to each other are also painful realities.

An elder at St. Luke's Presbyterian Church, Billy Payne, led the

65

committee which planned, financed, and constructed a fine, new
sanctuary there. On the Sunday afternoon after the dedication, he
reportedly said to his wife, "I need another challenge now that this
is over/' She said, "What do you have in mind?" He replied, "I
would like to try to bring the Olympics to Atlanta in 1996."

The Olympic games are coming. This will, of course, remind us
that we are part of the whole world, and we must never forget it.

Perhaps the most significant context for theological education
in this latter part of the twentieth century is the world. At a
breathtaking pace, the changes in the world are creating a paradoxi-
cal blend of hope and despair. Good and bad news, progress and
calamity all shake us out of complacency. Events seem out of control.
War, pestilence, famine, and terror ride across the globe like the four
horsemen in Revelation.

So, "Welcome to the world!" More importantly, as Jesus said,
"Go into all the world and preach the gospel."

66

Learning and Teaching

The Reverend Joan Gray, pastor of the Columbia Presbyterian
Church adjacent to the seminary campus, once aptly remarked,
"Seminaries must do more than teach ministers to do. They help
them in many ways to do things and do them fairly well. However,
seminaries must also teach ministers to be." True! That many-
splendored concept of being includes such things as spirituality,
character, intelligence, and integrity.

How can a person possibly learn how to be in ministry without
making many false judgements and self-destructive mistakes? T. S.
Eliot, in his usual perceptive way, once wrote, "We shared the
experience but missed the meaning. " Isn't it true that ministers can,
in the course of their sacred journey, go through many experiences
of worship, mission, and counseling which we share with other
people and yet miss the meaning of faith and life?

By the grace of God and the help of educational experiences, a
minister can and must both be and do. A minister of Jesus Christ has
so much to do, and do well, so many professional duties that
overload schedules and calendars, that he or she must be on guard
not to miss the meaning of ministry. In the great tradition of the early
Church, the apostle Paul writes to Roman Christians in that city of
power and wealth and tremendous evil. His appeal begins at
Romans 10:13.

For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be
saved."

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not
believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they
have never heard and how are they to hear without someone
to proclaim him? And how are they to proclaim him unless
they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of
those who bring good news!"

That ringing call to believe involves sending those who have heard
and believed and who thus proclaim the authentic good news of Christ.
The person who does proclaim the message must also be a believer
in Christ who is walking through the journey in obedience and

67

faithfulness. In the biblical frame of reference, making Christ known
to the world was preceded by knowing Christ. It is always so.

The seminary cannot do everything in the development of the
spiritual life of the student. However, in this community of faith,
moments of worship, fellowship, and nurture all combine to provide
spiritual formation. The one-half hour chapel service each day
provides a time when the community gathers in a unity of worship
to listen for the Word of God. Most services are led by faculty,
students, or other members of the seminary community, with occa-
sional guest preachers or speakers. Once a week throughout the
year, senior students provide leadership in their senior service of
worship.

The most nurturing experience for me was the Friday chapel
service. Seminary presidents are always a little uneasy when they
hear that a petition is coming, but I was elated when students came
to my office with a petition requesting Friday chapel as a time to
share the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. I concurred, as did the
worship committee and the faculty. Because the service lasted just
thirty minutes, we had to develop a method of serving up to 185
people with reasonable promptness. Thus, we formed a line up the
aisle of the chapel, went forward, broke off a piece of bread, and
dipped it in either the wine or the grape juice cup. After partaking,
we returned to our seats for prayer and thought. It was a continuing
source of strength for the journey for me.

One story I remember about chapel communion was from Pro-
fessor Ludwig Dewitz' s first such service as the officiant. It seemed
that one of the students assisting inquired about using wine for
communion instead of grape juice. Evidently, he was from a church
which followed that custom. Dr. Dewitz approved, and wine was
used. From his front row pew, Dr. Richards noticed immediately,
and according to one of the professors present, seemed unusually
restless!

As soon as the service ended, the following conversation ensued:

President Richards: "Dr. Dewitz, who was in charge of this
service?"

Professor Dewitz: "I was, Dr. Richards."

Pres. Richards: "By whose authority have you served wine
today?"

Prof. Dewitz, obviously stunned, having always used wine in
Germany and in England, answered: "By Jesus Christ's authority,
Dr. Richards."

Dr. Richards reportedly had no answer but chuckled all the way
down the hall to his office!

68

A senior student asked that we not use wine exclusively. He had
come to sobriety in his life some years before through the program
of Alcoholics Anonymous and indicated that alcohol of any kind
might trigger his very destructive pattern of alcoholism again. We
honored this request promptly and gladly.

A seminary must always nurture its theological and biblical
commitments if the health of the institution is to be maintained, as
well as the health of relationships with the churches. We minister in
an age when the old question confronts us, "Is there any Word from
the Lord for us today?" There is, and we must faithfully hear and
proclaim it.

Homiletics Professor Wade Huie always required that a sermon
have a solid, biblical exegetical base before it could be applied
relevantly to contemporary life. The quickest way to fail senior
preaching was to omit that biblical base, as a few surprised students
discovered. The most that can be hoped for at seminary is that
students form a pattern of work and an attitude toward scripture and
its use in ministry which will nurture them all of their lives. "What
is God saying here?" "What is its meaning?" These are real questions
we must ask when we turn to the scriptures. There is simply no way
that students can learn all the answers to these questions in the brief
time they spend in the master of divinity degree program.

Advanced degrees also focus on forming this pattern of depen-
dence on and use of scripture. In the doctor of ministry degree, both
a biblical and a theological section is required in the dissertation, in
addition to an analysis of a specific project in ministry.

The Bible has been central at Columbia throughout all of its
history. At graduation ceremonies back in the nineteenth century,
Dr. Howe held up a Bible and said, "Let this book be the basis of your
preaching and the center of your life." If, through "the sacred page
we seek and find the one who calls to faith, life, and service, we have
been fed with the ^bread of heaven/"

Faculty

As has been indicated, the members of the faculty at Columbia
for many years were all members of the Presbyterian Church U.S.,
now the reunited Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). A few were mem-
bers of the union presbyteries which related to both major Presbyte-
rian denominations in the United States. Unlike some university
divinity schools which are almost completely ecumenical, this gave
to the constituency another assurance that we were committed to the
theology, polity, and mission of the Presbyterian church. We were

69

further committed to the purpose of preparing good ministers of
Jesus Christ for the Presbyterian church and would continue to do so.
There are presently one or two exceptionally gifted teachers at
Columbia, such as Professor Walter Brueggemann, who are mem-
bers of other Reformed bodies.

In the spirit of our Presbyterian commitment, the faculty partici-
pated actively in the presbyteries and synods to which they be-
longed. Unfortunately, it became increasingly difficult to see that
every presbytery in these supporting synods had a faculty member
from Columbia in it. A number were active in Atlanta Presbytery, by
far the largest presbytery in the three supporting synods. Faculty
members served on ministry, Christian education, and campus
Christian life committees, and also on the councils. They often were
resource persons for retreats, synod schools, and youth groups.

As reunion approached, all of us received more and more
invitations to preach in the churches of the former United Presbyte-
rian Church U.S.A. Moreover, the synod and the General Assembly
increasingly sought the time and work of the faculty. As president,
I found that I was preaching somewhere almost every Sunday
throughout the year. It was a great privilege to be in various
churches in our constituency and overseas as well. It was a special
privilege for me to preach not only throughout the United States, but
also in Brazil, China, England, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Scot-
land, Switzerland and points in between!

As more and more faculty travelled to off-campus seminars and
programs, both credit and noncredit for ministers and laypersons,
the concept of campus and curriculum was expanded both geo-
graphically and ecclesiastically.

For most of my eleven years, at least one faculty member each
year was elected a commissioner to the General Assembly of our
church. In addition, one student was chosen to serve at the Assembly
as a seminary student representative. These students worked long,
long hours serving as pages, and helping to carry out logistical tasks
for printing reports. They reported that interaction with the many
diverse people attending the General Assembly more than compen-
sated them for their hard labor.

During my tenure I recommended thirty-six professors of vary-
ing ranks for election or promotion by the board. With rare excep-
tions, I would happily make these recommendations again. Only ten
of the twenty-nine faculty members serving in 1986 were at Colum-
bia when I arrived in January 1976. Two of the ten moved from other
assignments to their positions in 1986. Visiting instructors, 106

70

altogether, came and went. Nine of the 1986 faculty filled new
professorships.

The largest increase in faculty came in the pastoral area with the
additions of Ben C. Johnson, professor of evangelism and church
growth, and Robert H. Ramey, Jr., professor of ministry. Professor
Jasper Keith was appointed to the position held for many years by
Professor Thomas H. McDill, whose long and distinguished tenure
saw the establishment of pastoral care as an important discipline at
Columbia. Professor Brian Childs was appointed to fill the position
vacated by the untimely death of Professor Theron Nease. The
appointment of World Christianity Professor George Thompson
Brown, in the historical doctrinal area, was also closely linked to the
pastoral area. Barry Davies, instructor in music, made special
contributions to the seminary community through his direction of
student musicals, usually each spring and fall. Adjunct professors
were used for church music and courses on the Black church.

The choice of faculty, and the development of professors' abili-
ties, competency, and effectiveness is crucial for the future of Presby-
terian seminaries. Evaluation, sabbaticals, and hard work contribute
to this ongoing growth.

Professors write great numbers of articles and books. They
balance the research, the writing, and the service in the church with
a primary commitment to teaching and learning in the life of the
institution and in the lives of students. A good teacher, I truly
believe, is not easily found, nor is he or she readily nurtured and
supported along the way. When teachers help students identify the
real questions in this age of questions, they inspire learning. For
example, as the twenty-first century rushes toward us like a great
wall of water, full of promise and full of threat, teachers and students
together struggle with the age-old question, "What is the meaning
of the God whom we know through Jesus Christ?"

Learning How to Learn

Two principal approaches mark the experience of learning at a
theological seminary like Columbia: traditional learning and learn-
ing by doing under supervision. Two of the three areas of theological
study, the historical-doctrinal and the biblical, involve traditional
learning. For example, Bible, theology, and history can be taught by
a combination of the lecture method and the dialogue technique.
Properly done, research is critical to learning these disciplines.

Traditionally, everything in Europe for generations and, indeed

71

centuries, has been taught through lectures with one-on-one tutor-
ing used occasionally. During my student days at the University of
Edinburgh, all the courses were taught this way, because they largely
consisted of Bible, theology, and history, with an occasional so-called
practical course. Increasingly, the latter area has been enlarged. For
Ph.D. students much of the learning took place through the old
method of discussing dissertation research with a professor or
supervisor: Even though this weekly encounter often led to the
dreaded assignment of another twenty-five books to be digested
before the next meeting, the back and forth discussion was a creative
learning experience, as ideas were presented, challenged, revised, or
approved.

Today theological learning comes about beyond that received in
biblical, theological, and historical data analyzed in class discus-
sions. This is particularly so in theology, biblical exegesis, worship,
mission/and pastoral care, which are all tested in supervised minis-
try placements in parish and chaplaincy settings. Learning which is
authentic takes place when these elements are merged into a process
which creates a time to learn by doing under supervision.

The fact that our denomination requires written ordination
exams of Presbyterian ministers is important. For example, church
government, as found in the Book of Order and the Directory of
Worship, is one of many essential items to be learned. The greatest
single difficulty is that there is simply too little time in the student's
program for all these important courses. Everything is needed in a
seminary curriculum. More and more, it takes three and one-half or
four years to complete all the requirements.

The first interview I had after my election as president was with
the Atlanta Constitution reporter, Billy Cheney Speed, an award
winning writer in the field of religion. The thing that she seemed
most interested in, and which she developed far more than I had
expected, was the commitment to teaching ministers how to learn
over a lifetime. I am convinced that lifetime learning is very impor-
tant; otherwise, spiritually and intellectually, a minister can become
as dry and lifeless as a sucked orange. My own experience validates
that.

Learning during seminary in actual experiences is required in
such courses as the first summer of work in a parish setting or in a
hospital chaplaincy. A student is evaluated not only by a supervising
pastor who has been prepared by the seminary for this important
responsibility, but also by a strong lay committee. I know from
personal observation in the churches of Atlanta that a lay committee
develops over time, through training and experience, an excellent

72

capacity for evaluating, nurturing, and guiding future ministers. (It
also has the by-product of helping committee members appreciate
worship and Christian education in their own churches much more!)
This program emerged in a rudimentary form, and was developed
further by Professor Jasper N. Keith, a very competent pastoral
counselor and teacher. Professors Huie, Hubert Taylor, Thomas
Long, and later on Lucy Rose, all participated in training people to
evaluate preaching and preachers.

Professors in the worship and preaching area had an extremely
exhausting task. Dr. Huie and his colleagues listened to hundreds
and hundreds of sermons from students who were learning to
preach. They also reviewed hundreds and hundreds of video
examples of student work. Painstakingly and carefully, they dealt
one-on-one with them, and with the help of student peers evaluated
their work. Professor Huie was called by some students "Wade, the
Blade" for his sharp analysis of their efforts. Where would you find
such person-to-person effort in a large institution?

Professor Huie taught students more than preaching. With their
gracious warmth, he and Vee opened their home far more than was
expected to gatherings of students and their families. The Huies'
hospitality to international students was exceptional. Their four
sons came to know seminary students and often participated in
volleyball games, touch football, and other sports with them. Both
Vee and Wade, who served throughout the denomination as inter-
preters of world missions, had a great vision for the global Church.
All of this meant that they were at the center of the life of the
community at Columbia and were caring counselors of many stu-
dents. This could also be said of the majority of the faculty and
especially the senior faculty. Professors Guthrie, Kline, Gonzalez,
Ormond, Clarke, Newsome, Keith, Ramey, Carroll, and Barrow are
examples of those who opened their offices and homes to students.
Other faculty members engaged students on the "field of sports."
Harold Prince, longtime librarian, was famous as a terror on the
tennis courts to unsuspecting students.

The whole commitment of the seminary to learning by doing
under supervision provided ongoing development for many people.
Interesting things evolved from this pattern of education. A summer
supervised ministry course in a parish, a placement in Grady
Hospital's chaplaincy program during the middle year for ten hours
a week of supervised pastoral care, and even the yearlong internship,
produced a new interest in the academic courses. After these experi-
ences, students could see the point in the seminary's rigorous re-
quirements. The process included learning to respond positively to

73

serious and sometimes critical evaluation, which I believe helped
students to learn as nothing else would.

The negative aspect of this learning by doing under supervision
method was that students were prone to look upon leading worship
or doing counseling as a performance. The question, "How did I
do?" was asked in the hope that someone would say, "You did very
well," a response that can be fatal if it is the only one a minister
receives from acts of ministry. In the long run, the students became
stronger preachers and pastors as they came to understand how
people learn and grow as a result of preaching, teaching, and
counseling.

Even in the pastoral area courses such as church administration,
students who had had actual experience guiding and administering
programs in a local church had a different attitude when they came
back for their senior year, or later on for continuing education.
Instead of thinking of it as "something the officers would take care
of," they "shared the experience and finally came to see the meaning."

The learning in the pastoral area is a comprehensive opportunity
to understand the actual practice of ministry in different settings.
The whole program of the church including worship and preaching,
evangelism, stewardship, education, polity, and pastoral care and
counseling is crucial to ministry in today's world and today's church.
The large majority of students go into parish settings either as a staff
associate or as pastor. Even those who go into other opportunities of
ministry find that the experiences of seminary in all of these fields are
of vital importance.

The final result of a theological education is to help people learn
how to learn. From my own experiences as the years went on at
Decatur Presbyterian Church, I found that the annual effort to go
somewhere for continuing education was vital to my own personal
faith and ministry. I had the opportunity through the action of the
session, long before it became the normal practice in the call, to
receive a grant each year for continuing education. The church
seemed willing to encourage anything that would improve their
pastor's preaching and administration! It was not nearly so expen-
sive then as it is now to go overseas to St. Andrews, Scotland; the
University of Edinburgh; Canterbury, England; or Frankfurt, Ger-
many, or to places here in the United States.

The first overseas seminar Kay and I experienced was at Mansfield
College in Oxford, England. My friends at Agnes Scott College,
President Wallace M. Alston and Professor Mary Boney Sheats, had
attended a three- week seminar led by professors there. They strongly
recommended it to us, and it was a wonderful experience. Dr.

74

George B. Caird presented a series of brilliant lectures. Chairman of
New Testament studies at Oxford and a Presbyterian in training and
ordination, he gave himself freely in lectures and in extensive discus-
sions everyday. So intense was this experience that an occasional
day off to do some touring around was welcomed.

Professor Caird lectured on the Book of Revelation for one of the
courses. I still remember a time when he was asked about the
meaning of Satan in the New Testament. Forty-five minutes later, he
not only had given us all the important biblical material but also had
traced it through history and even to the present day. Amazing!

One of my longtime members at Decatur said to me after I'd been
back a month or so, "I don't know what happened over there or what
you did, but it has made you a better preacher/' The hope of all
continuing education is to help us grow. Through James D. Newsome,
Douglas W. Hix, Robert S. Smith, and Sarah C. Juengst, Columbia
Seminary has developed a program of learning for both ministers
and laypersons. It is for credit or personal enrichment. All four
professors brought to their work a strong commitment to the parish
church from significant experience with it. They had personal
experience in demanding graduate work beyond their Columbia
degrees. Their vision and competence were of crucial importance in
this great program which nurtures the leadership of the church.

Learning over a lifetime can be done in different ways. Many
persons at the local church or presbytery level, as well as groups of
ministers, meet regularly for various programs of discussion and
support. Gathering early Saturday morning for breakfast and a brief
period of Bible study and prayer with ten ministers was very
nurturing for me, and made a difference. We each have to choose our
own way, but choose we must if we are to continue to discern the
meaning of the experiences of life and especially our own.

Teaching

What qualifies a person to teach at a theological seminary?

Columbia's plan of government summarizes the various qualifi-
cations and commitments which are needed. Ordinarily, a professor
or administrator must be an ordained minister in the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.). The profile of qualities needed calls for strong
commitments to the church's theology, polity, and mission, to Co-
lumbia Theological Seminary and its mission, to colleagues, and to
students. It requires participation in the governing bodies of the
church and particularly the presbyteries of our supporting synods.
Qualities of personal integrity are obviously a requirement. The

75

ideal is a person who has deep theological and personal faith
commitments, the ability to work together with colleagues and
students in this great task of preparing persons for a lifetime of
ministry, and one who shares fully in a community of faith and life.

I came to feel that these commitments and qualities are basic for
good teaching at Columbia. For example, we looked once at a person
with impeccable academic credentials. Everything was there, the
degrees, the publications, and letters of recommendation from edu-
cators. Somewhere in the midst of all of it, though, as the committee
and I reviewed all these things, one or two questions arose in our
minds about the teaching ability of the person. "Can this person
really teach? Can he or she teach these students in this curriculum and
can this person participate fully in this community of 'faith and
learning' ?"

Of course, this issue is not unique to theological seminaries. One
educator, Martin Anderson, has written a rather scathing book
called, Impost ers in the Temple. His point of view is that students are
being charged $20,000 a year in America's best colleges and need to
ask, "What kind of teaching does $20,000 buy?" His conclusion:
"The answer is too often teaching of a scandously, substandard kind.
The problem is not so much that professors don't teach very well,
although in some cases that is certainly true, but that a great deal of
teaching at the university level has been handed over to people who
are unqualified. They are misleadingly called 'teaching assistants/
They, in fact, play a major role in the university classrooms across
America. The work they do in the place of real professors is the
shame of the academic intellectuals, a shabby secret they are loathe
to discuss publicly." He goes on, "A famous professor was critical of
his colleagues for 'resenting' teaching since it interfered with re-
search." 7

And that's just the introduction! Needless to say, many educa-
tors have responded with equally scathing rejections of his analysis.
At Columbia Theological Seminary students are largely taught by
senior professors from the beginning; professors who, except on rare
occasions, grade their own papers. There is every opportunity for
personal dialogue and interaction with professors at every level of
the learning experience at Columbia.

During my time at Columbia I occasionally taught an elective
course in New Testament, at the request of the dean of the faculty, I
hasten to say. Ordinarily, it was either the Corinthian correspon-
dence, the Letter to the Philippians, or the Book of Revelation. I
enjoyed this. The classes usually had no more than twenty enrolled,
so there was an opportunity for very real and personal interaction.

76

Time was short, two hours once a week, but it was good for me to
have that experience. During summer sessions I led ministers'
seminars on "Preaching in Advent and Lent," "Evangelism," and
"Ministry in Large Churches."

The purpose of teaching is not just to learn the Bible, theology,
and church history, as essential as that may be, and as scandalous as
the ignorance of these areas is among some ministers. For example,
in Bible, Walter Brueggemann and Charles Cousar; in theology,
Shirley Guthrie, George Stroup, and Ben Kline; and in history,
Catherine Gonzalez and Erskine Clarke, have intense interaction
with students beyond lectures. Thus, students are able to articulate
an authentic, relevant message in response to the age-old questions.
The fortunate students are those who learn how to study the Bible,
how to use the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and
especially how to use the commentaries.

Dr. Ludwig Dewitz, now retired, was a professor who gave
energy and creativity to the teaching and nurture of students. While
never wavering in his expectations that ministers should know the
Bible in the original languages, he was a nourishing participant in the
life of the seminary community, and in the individual lives of
students. His influence was particularly strong among international
students, who welcomed him as a guest in many scattered parts of
the world. We used to say that Dr. Dewitz travelled well and never
once stayed in a hotel! Dr. Dewitz grew up in Germany during the
late 1930's as Hitler came to demonic power. Reared in the Lutheran
church, baptized and confirmed in it, Dr. DeWitz was a devoted
Christian. It was, therefore, a great shock to learn that the Nazis put
him in the category of "Jews" because of Jewish ancestry. Though
torn by the decision to leave Germany, Dr. Dewitz accepted the
invitation of a British missionary training school principal to come to
Britain. In so doing, he doubtlessly escaped imprisonment and God
only knows what else. He later received his Ph.D. from Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore, working with Professor William F.
Albright, and came to Columbia during Dr. Richards' tenure.

Together with his colleague, Professor James Gailey, Dr. Dewitz
taught courses in the languages of the ancient Near East to a number
of Ph.D. candidates from other institutions. Professor Gailey, after
guiding generations of students through the intricacies of Hebrew
and Old Testament exegesis, retired in 1981.

There was good teaching and learning in the extension seminars
developed throughout our area, when groups of ministers from
several presbyteries came together monthly, over a period of nine
months, for an intensive two and one-half day seminar. I conducted

77

the last seminar and learned that such an experience is a good
response to the deep desires of many ministers to keep growing in
faith, knowledge, and effectiveness. Careful evaluations showed
that new learning had taken place that would make a difference in
the ministry of these persons in the days ahead.

Furthermore, the ministers found these off-campus seminars
significantly less expensive than those held on the seminary campus.
One young woman who had graduated early in my presidency told
me that it had been worth the time and money involved just to be a
part of a group of peers meeting regularly to think, learn together,
and nurture each other. She was determined to try to continue that
experience throughout her ministry. There is a great loneliness
among ministers in the parish, particularly when they are without
other ministers on the church staff. We must take the total experience
of theological education and evaluate it in light of many needs. What
is good teaching and what is authentic learning? That is the question.
A much-expanded Columbia Forum provided teaching and
learning. Not only were there outstanding lecturers drawn from
throughout the world, and many opportunities for discussion with
them, but also inspirational worship services. Without the resources
of Columbia Presbyterian Church's sanctuary and fellowship hall,
none of this would have been possible. Choirs from Atlanta churches
came in to assist in worship leadership. Among the preachers were
Ernest Campbell, Jim Forbes, and Fred Craddock, each of whom had
a different style of preaching. Candler School of Theology Professor
Craddock, a popular author and speaker, brought a New Testament
specialty as well as one in homilitics. He began his first sermon at the
Forum by calling attention to his short stature. He said, "I used to be
six feet, six inches tall until I went to teach in a theological school, and
they beat me down to five feet, four inches!" Joan SalmonCampbell
had a fervent, evangelical note in her preaching and invited us all to
come forward and pray with her at the close. I was very proud of
some of our senior faculty, who in spite of their reserve at the
moment, were among the first to go forward.

The lecturers from around the world varied in style and content.
A few were dull, to be honest, but some were most effective. Austin
Lovelace in music, Frederick Buechner on the spiritual pilgrimage,
and John Leith on Reformed theology were greatly appreciated.

"It'sYoulLike"

The old philosophers concern with the meaning of life has been
developed in many different directions throughout all of the history

78

of the Christian church. The meaning of life for a minister is a
significant issue. More important is insight into the meaning of all
the challenges and experiences through which human beings are
passing today. Even while we search to know ourselves as God
knows us, we need to remind ourselves that to know others, and the
meaning of their lives, is also important work of the ministry.

Jean Marie Laskas recently did a feature article in Life magazine
called, The Good Lifeand Works of Mr. Rogers. It is a study of Fred
Rogers, a Presbyterian minister and graduate of Pittsburgh Theo-
logical Seminary, who has developed a long-running program for
children on public television called Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. He had
an amazing insight into the meaning of childrens' lives which could
be summarized as, "You're special, no matter what you are on the
outside/ 7

Once I observed the hold he has on children as he communicates
to them. He was asked to serve on the commission of Greater Atlanta
Presbytery to install his friend, the Reverend Dr. George B. Wirth at
First Presbyterian Church of Atlanta. He led the pastoral prayer that
day. Proceeding with the commission down a long corridor, we saw
a four-year-old boy standing and waiting with his mother, obviously
hoping to meet Mr. Rogers. As we passed by, we heard him say, "But
Mother, I wanted to speak to Mr. Rogers." Mr. Rogers stopped the
procession immediately, got down on his knees in front of the boy,
and had a nice, quiet, brief conversation with him. Then we pro-
ceeded to the mission at hand.

Mr. Rogers refers to his ministry as "just tending soil," the soil of
human experience. He was asked to speak, and also to receive his
twenty-fifth honorary doctorate, at Boston University during the
1992 commencement. "What, in the end," asks the author of the Life
magazine article, "was Fred Rogers' message to the Boston Univer-
sity class of 1992?" At the baccalaureate service, he quoted from
Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince: "What is essential is invisible to the
eye. It's not the honors and the prizes and the fancy outsides of life
which ultimately nourish our souls. It is the knowing that we can be
trusted, that we never have to fear the truth, that the bedrock of our
very being is good stuff." He went on to ask, "What is essential about
you that is invisible to the eye?" He paused for a long time and then
recited a song from his program called, It's You I Like: "It's you I like.
It's not the things you wear. It's not the way you do your hair, but
it's you I like. The way you are right now. The way deep down inside
you, not the things that hide you not your diplomas, they're just
beside you, but it's you I like, every part of you."

The reporter wrote of that moment, "A stillness fell over the

79

crowd. The people seemed to travel inward looking for some part of
themselves that they had long since forgotten or some part they had
not yet found or something else entirely. Whatever it was, a lot of
them cried/' 8

In a far different and yet strangely similar way, we have an
opportunity to help people in ministry and in life to "travel inward,
looking for some part of themselves they had long since forgotten or
some part they had not yet found." By the grace of God and the love
of God through Jesus Christ, they may find it and in some insightful
way, weep for joy. In worship, in pastoral care, and in administrative
leadership, we help people find meaning for life in the gospel of
God's action in Christ for the world.

It is a great thing to be a minister of Christ. Difficult, complicated,
demanding, and yet dealing beyond experience with the meaning of
God for those whom He created, whom He loves, and whom He
redeems. And even in the classrooms and settings of ministry, that
search goes on, shaped, developed, and nourished in the experience
we call learning and teaching.

80

Finances

The January /February 1986 issue of Southeast Presbyterian Life, a
publication of the Synod of the Southeast, summarized the increas-
ing financial support of Columbia Theological Seminary in this way:
"In his ten years as president, Dr. Philips has seen the seminary's
enrollment increase from 182 students to 485. The faculty has grown
from twenty members to twenty-nine. The number of degree pro-
grams has increased from four to six. Columbia's endowment which
stood at $6.2 million in 1976 is now almost $30 million. The seminary's
annual budget rose from $1 million to this year's $3.7 million."

These accomplishments sound easy, but they were achieved
only by a growing partnership with ministers and congregations in
our synods. In a demanding and yet rewarding partnership as we
campaigned together, hundreds of meetings were led by volunteers,
and hundreds of congregations responded. Believe me, it was one of
the experiences which improved my prayer life! The budget, of
course, and the endowment have increased even more dramatically
under President Oldenburg's administration.

The needed, indeed, the essential development of these re-
sources required:

1 . A growing commitment by pastors, presbyteries, synods, and
churches in our constituency to the priority of the seminary's
mission.

2. Generous annual giving from graduates and individuals.
Annual giving is a kind of living endowment that supplements the
money received from synod budgets. It has been imperative in a time
when gifts for the seminary from governing-body budgets have
been in decline, and inflation has continued to erode the value of
money.

3. The support by the presbyteries and the synods of occasional
capital fund campaigns. These campaigns have been of enormous
help in building up endowment, developing new buildings, and
providing scholarships for students who have financial needs.

4. Support from graduates of other institutions. The synod
ownership and control of Columbia Seminary has produced signifi-
cant support from persons who had graduated from other institu-
tions. While our own graduates have played critical roles in fund

81

raising, this support by graduates of other institutions has been very
much appreciated.

5. Faculty and students who become increasingly involved in
presenting the seminary throughout our constituency. Often travel-
ling in buses to distant presbyteries for a Seminary Sunday service,
faculty, administrators, and students have helped accomplish what
was needed.

6. Grants from foundations. During my presidency four founda-
tions provided lifesaving grants. These challenge grants required
matching funds, and in every campaign in the Synod of the Mid-
South, the Synod of Florida, and the Synod of the Southeast, they
were essential to help meet our campaign goals. In addition, one
foundation's pledge of one million dollars required nine other
similar gifts before it would be awarded. It took time to raise the
additional millions, and involved gifts of both money and real estate.

7. The president's participation. This is, of course, vital. I quickly
discovered that my participation as president in the planning phases,
in getting the approval of governing bodies, and in the development
of leadership, could not be fully delegated. During our three major
campaigns, there was invaluable help in the development office of
the seminary through Richard A. Dodds and James F. Dickinson,
directors of development. Two loyal graduates, retired ministers
Bonneau Dickson and Donald B. Bailey, helped to organize presbytery
and synod campaign groups. They also knew how to use the
president and to keep me on the run! In the midst of the largest and
most essential of these campaigns, that in the Synod of the Southeast,
Atlanta Presbytery asked me to seek the moderatorship of the
Presbyterian Church, U.S. This involved nomination by the
presbytery and an intensive period of preparing for the election. It
would also have taken me out of our most important campaign at its
most crucial period. After consideration, I made the decision not to
run. If I had been elected that year, it would have been great to serve.
However, what is past is past, and I think I made the right decision.

8. Hundreds of Presbyterians to serve in campaign organiza-
tions. Often, these volunteers were involved in such efforts as the
campaigns in synods, presbyteries, and congregations. Presbyteri-
ans worked, prayed, and raised millions of dollars in thousands of
gifts, and consequently Columbia Seminary's faculty, students, and
administration had the resources needed. Buildings such as Campbell
Hall and the library were renovated and refurbished. Student
apartments, faculty homes, and classrooms were provided. Early in
my administration the chapel was extensively renovated and refur-
bished. It had become rather drab and worn through years of almost

82

daily use. Erskine Love remarked after an evening convocation,
'The light in here is so bad, everybody looks like they are just up from
the flu!" Among the improvements was using the large Gothic
window, which was in the back of the chapel, as the new setting for
the chancel. Stained glass with bright colors was placed in it. New
pews, a new floor, and, of course, new lighting were installed. The
old Hammond organ was replaced with a Shanz pipe organ espe-
cially designed for worship and for congregational singing. It all
revitalized worship and the various gatherings using the chapel.

9. That every effort to present the cause of theological education
focus on making the need and the mission personal and visible.
Students were most effective in this effort.

10. The support of a wonderful group of women in the Columbia
Friendship Circle. This was and is of great assistance to the mission
of Columbia. In addition to their regular gifts to the scholarship
fund, these women interpreted the mission and importance of Co-
lumbia to churches in our supporting synods. They prayed regularly
for students and faculty. Begun as Friends of Columbia in 1 949 by the
women of Atlanta Presbytery, the name was changed to Columbia
Friendship Circle in 1954 when the group expanded to include
members from the five supporting synods. Led by able, devoted,
and creative officers, this support was essential to our work.

"We have not because we ask not." Believe me, we asked and
often pleaded, but only after the mission of Columbia Seminary had
been clearly perceived as of first priority in the church. Once a
Presbyterian viewed Columbia as a place of genuine commitments
in faith and life to the One who sends us to proclaim the Good News
of God, a gift was made.

Thank God and God's people for these investments of time
and money.

83

Final Thoughts

As I reflect on my last days at Columbia, these are the things
which stand out. Following the election of Douglas W. Oldenburg as
Columbia's seventh president in November 1986, 1 immediately felt
that the end of my leadership there was at hand. Between the middle
of November and the end of the year, I said the usual good-byes to
faculty, staff, students, and constituents and made preparations to
move my office. Fortunately, most of the files which had accumu-
lated would remain in the president's office since they dealt with
issues and organizations which were ongoing.

During the period between January 1 and June 1, 1987, however,
significant relationships with Columbia were maintained. The fac-
ulty invited me to preach at the 1987 baccalaureate service, and, of
course, I was pleased to do so. In addition, I had an opportunity to
teach a course on the Book of Revelation in the Lay Institute during
January.

The board and the seminary community planned a remarkable
retirement dinner on January 29 through a joint committee. I was
very much moved by the words of my good friend, H.G. Pattillo, the
master of ceremonies that evening, and from board representatives,
Ann Cousins and J. Erskine Love, Jr. Mr. Love's voice was gone
because of laryngitis and his words were read by his wife, Gay.
(Within a few weeks, Mr. Love died unexpectedly. I still grieve for
such a loss.) Charles Cousar spoke for faculty, and Brad Smith and
Walter Jones for students and alumni /ae.

I believe the person most affected by my retirement, Peggy
Matthews Rowland, was the most widely applauded speaker at the
retirement dinner. Among her comments were, "Many of you think
Dr. Philips' hobby is golf. It is not. It is writing letters!" We had
served together for thirty-one years, and she knew me better than I
thought. At Decatur Presbyterian Church and at Columbia Semi-
nary, Peggy was able to do good work in the midst of ringing phones,
visits from faculty, and students needing appointments or informa-
tion. Her influence and service went far beyond writing letters and
producing a flood of reports for faculty and board meetings. A
person of faith, commitment, and competence to an exceptional
degree, she was a warm and effective ambassador for Columbia. I

84

am greatly in her debt. She has continued her service to Columbia as
President Oldenburg's secretary, and he once told me that she was
the best thing I left for him at Columbia.

Of course, there was very special meaning for me at the retire-
ment dinner when our son, Jim, spoke for the family. He remem-
bered things I had forgotten. At Montreat, supposedly on vacation,
I was often on the porch working over sermon ideas and planning a
preaching schedule for the next year! My attendance at football
games when any of our three children was involved was a command
performance. One very moving and encouraging part of Jim's talk
was an affirmation of future ministry taken from Tennyson's Ulysses,
"Strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield.... Something
ere the end, some work of noble note, may yet be done." Jim went on,
"Unlike executives who retire, ministers can't just clean out their
desks, turn in the restroom key, and go home. Your church and
certainly your family, from your wife Kay to her namesake Kate, all
feel that you will have noble things left to do."

There were twelve different speakers who were to use three
minutes each. Some of them had a strange sense of time! Only my
mother and I wanted the program to go on when I rose to speak of the
significance of the tremendous mission of Columbia Theological
Seminary which had united us. The most inspiring thing about the
dinner was that all those who came together, more than five hundred
in number, had had a vital role in that mission during my presidency.
They will never be forgotten, nor will the many ways in which they
nurtured the seminary during some critical times.

Unfortunately, because our retirement house was rented and we
had to give one month's notice, we very much complicated the move
of Doug and Claudia Oldenburg to the president's home. We moved
the day after Christmas, but the necessary renovations and redeco-
ration on the president's home took several weeks. Within those
weeks, the new president had already shown dynamic leadership as
he continues to do in the life and work of Columbia.

For the first time in our ministry, Kay and I moved into a home
that we owned. We had lived in manses and in the president's home.
This was, indeed, a new experience. In 1983, in preparation for
retirement, we were fortunate to purchase a home from a friend, Mrs.
Laurence E. Mansfield, when she moved to a retirement home. It was
a house on a quiet street near downtown Decatur.

It was not easy to decide to stay in Decatur. There were many
reasons why we should move to a new place to be totally out of
involvement either in the seminary or Decatur Presbyterian Church
or even Greater Atlanta Presbytery. In choosing to stay in Decatur,

85

I made a commitment to avoid, at all costs, meddling in the work of
my successors. On the other hand, it was a great pleasure to be able
to support them with genuine enthusiasm and to withdraw into
being just another retired minister.

Kay was at her best planning the move, arranging our furniture,
and decorating the new home. During the first year, we installed a
new furnace and air-conditioning system. It made the upstairs
bearable during the summer, including a small bedroom used as my
office.

Not long after moving, I succumbed to the clarion call of the
computer age and bought an IBM PC Junior. Largely self-taught, I
gradually became proficient in it to the extent of word processing
and filing. If I needed help, I could always call my daughter, June,
or my daughter-in-law, Donna, or even my eight-year-old grand-
daughter, Kate. They were full of authentic information and words
of encouragement.

One of the great losses of retirement is not having a secretary. The
seminary had been thoughtful enough to say that when I was under
great pressure, I could have access to the student secretarial pool.
This was not necessary, and it certainly would not have been advis-
able considering the nature of a lot of correspondence.

That upstairs office turned out to be a quiet place to prepare
sermons, write letters, and talk on the telephone. With the exception
of attending the Forum lectures, and on occasion teaching courses in
the Lay School, and other noncredit classes, I only went to the
seminary for the enjoyable ceremonial events such as graduation,
opening convocation, the inauguration of a professor, or a coffee
hour after a special chapel service. The Columbia Forum, which
brought many graduates back to the campus along with other
ministers, was always a special delight.

Better than anyone else, I knew the things which seemed to be
most satisfying to a president. They included all the basics: the
enrollment of students who gave promise for a committed ministry,
the appointment and development of faculty and administrative
staff, and the enlisting of tremendous support in the church, particu-
larly in the area of our supporting synods. Worship as a community
and also throughout the church gave me spiritual resources. Most
encouraging was the obvious indication that God was not finished
with Columbia as a servant of the Presbyterian church but had even
greater and more expanding opportunities for it.

I was certainly no exception when it came to doing the things
retired people like to do. We visited family and especially the five
grandchildren. We travelled. The board of directors offered Kay and

86

me a wonderful gift of travel at my retirement. Langdon and Bobbie
Flowers, Joe and Jerry Patrick, and Kay and I toured together
through Ireland and Scotland, playing golf on famous courses in
both countries. I still remember a twelve-year-old junior caddy in
Killarney, Ireland, whose name was Mark. Since it was obviously a
New Testament name, I asked him, "Where are Matthew, Luke, and
John?" He stunned me by saying that they were all at home! He had
ten brothers and sisters with biblical names. They were all devout
Catholics.

We visited old friends in Scotland and took the sentimental
journey to New College up the Mound from Princes Street. The last
surviving professor of my graduate school days was Dr. James S.
Stewart, and it was a pleasure to visit with him. When Kay and I tried
to say again how much he meant during those days and especially as
one of the supervising committee on my doctoral dissertation on The
New Testament Concept of Faith, he would always divert attention
from himself as though he were embarrassed by any expression of
praise or gratitude. He asked, "Well, what about young James?"
How he remembered that he baptized our son in 1947, 1 do not know.
Remarkable!

Perhaps the most surprising factor in this project of recollecting
my years as president is that I have a whole cluster of items under the
general concept of not what I remembered, but what I learned! I
believe I learned to be a better minister of Jesus Christ by being
immersed in the preparation of ministers. My commitments as a
minister of Jesus Christ in the Presbyterian church were strength-
ened. The sovereignty of God, the authority of scripture, the reality
of Jesus, Lord and Saviour, the unity of the church, and the nurturing
experiences of prayer, worship, and sacrament were central to my
life and work at Columbia.

Georgia Harkness, one of Methodism's great theologians, is an
example of one who suffered because her spiritual life was under-
nourished. Unlike many other ministers, she concluded that her ten
years of what she called "The Dark Night of the Soul," was induced
by spiritual pressures. She says, "Sometimes persons of deep spiri-
tual sensitivity, earnestly desiring to trust their lives to God's keep-
ing, find they must cry out as did our Lord, 'My God, why has thou
forsaken me?'" Rosemary Skinner Keller, author of Georgia Harkness,
For Such a Time as This, writes, "Coming to grips with the spiritual
depression at the heart of her physical and emotional problems, she
realized that her inward relationship with God had been neglected.
She did not confront the fragility of her personal response to God
until she was forced to do so by the continued downward movement

87

of the dark night of her soul." 9 1 can understand her anguish because
the stress of schedule and responsibility in my ministry would have
been debilitating if I had tried to make it a do-it-yourself project.

I learned much about education which I did not know when I
became president. Perhaps I thought I knew, because I had served
on Columbia's Board and also on the Boards of Trustees of Presby-
terian College and Agnes Scott College. The Presbyterian flavor of
Agnes Scott and Presbyterian College led to a special relationship
with their presidents. Wallace M. Alston, Marvin B. Perry, and Ruth
Schmidt of Agnes Scott, and Mark Weersing and Kenneth B. Orr of
Presbyterian College all became close friends and all helped me as I
learned to be a president. They confirmed the concept of a president's
power as the power "to appoint, to budget, to plan, and to persuade."

The University Center of Georgia was an unexpected learning
opportunity. I was chairman of the board for several years, and
learned from the presidents and deans as well as from association
with the fourteen educational institutions that were members of the
Center. All were in metropolitan Atlanta with the exception of the
University of Georgia. I became knowledgeable about the large
concentration of Black colleges in the Atlanta University Center, the
difference between Georgia Institute of Technology and a liberal arts
institution such as Agnes Scott, the nature of Georgia State, the
largest commuting university in our region, as well as something
about the character of Oglethorpe University and the University of
Georgia.

I also learned a great deal from being with ministers in their
parishes as an occasional preacher or a special speaker for Lenten
and Advent services. I learned that when a minister rises and says,
"Let us worship God," or "Let us hear God' s Word," or "Let us pray,"
or even "Let us bring our gifts to God," that something significant
happens in that church and in that city which cannot be duplicated
in any other way.

I learned more about the pressures on pastors and their families
and their deep commitment to be faithful in ministry in the name of
Christ where they are called. I learned more about the tremendous
need to nurture them and continually help them to learn and to grow.
I learned more about Presbyterians. A few were, as they used to say
in North Florida, "pretty sorry." The majority, however, are trying
as best they know how to be faithful and loyal to Christ through the
church and to serve in and through it in the world.

From time to time, I was overwhelmed by unexpected financial
support for the seminary and especially for students. A widow in
Decatur who had always lived with very limited financial resources

88

was forced to sell her home when the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit came through her street enroute to Avondale. She called to
say that she was sending $500 to be used to help with a scholarship
for a student, because she tithed the proceeds she received from the
sale. I was also very moved by persons who had great demands
made upon them for gifts, yet who looked at this small educational
institution as having priority in the long list of their contributions.
They understood the importance of preparing good and faithful
ministers of Jesus Christ for today and for the next rapidly approach-
ing century with all of its challenges and changes. For the first time
in her history, Columbia received single gifts of one million dollars
and more.

I learned what it means to work creatively together with a staff
of sixty-five persons. Those who taught in the classroom, those who
worked in the offices, those who kept the buildings in repair, the
water and the electricity working and the campus functioning, and
those who cooked the food all had important roles in the mission of
Columbia.

I learned how to deal with disappointment in people. This
included one or two persons appointed to teach or an occasional
board member who was indifferent to the responsibilities involved.
Other disappointments included a student who wasted most oppor-
tunities, becoming very self-serving and anything but a servant in
the New Testament sense. I was astonished when a neighbor angrily
protested the building of four faculty townhomes, because it would
compete with apartments and homes in Decatur. And, of course, if
one is honest, there are disappointments in one's own performance.
In the mad rush of schedule and draining activity, there seems to be
so little time to think, to prepare lectures and sermons, or to do justice
to various meetings. I learned, however, that the grace of God covers
all human failure and that "goodness and mercy" follow us all the
days of our lives.

After viewing the inauguration of President Clinton, I remem-
bered my own taking of vows in November 1976. Those vows were
probably one hundred years old:

In reliance upon the grace and wisdom of God,

In obedience to the call of God through His Church,

I, James Davison Philips, assume the office of president of

Columbia Theological Seminary.
I promise to fulfill the responsibilities thereof
In the strength and pattern of the ministry of the Lord of the

Church.

89

In the presence of God and these witnesses, I do solemnly

subscribe

The Confession of Faith, catechisms and the other stan-
dards of government, discipline, and worship of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States,

As a just summary of the doctrines contained in the Bible

And promise and engage not to advocate

Any doctrine contrary to the scriptures as interpreted in these
standards

While I continue as president in this seminary.

I pray that to some degree, by "the mercies of God," the record will
show that I kept these vows.

By the grace of God and the call of the Presbyterian church, April
1993, marked the fiftieth anniversary of my ordination to the minis-
try of Word and Sacrament. It is, indeed, a great opportunity to
invest a life in ministry in obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ.

I remember times of great challenge and pressure for me at
Columbia when the old promises of God would surface in my mind.
I would hear them, not as trite and empty words, but as God's word
to me. Jesus said, "Go, and make disciples of all nations... and lo, I am
with you always." "Let us not grow weary in well doing, for in due
season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart." "The Lord is my light
and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of
my life, of whom shall I be afraid?" "Be steadfast, immoveable,
always abounding in the work of the Lord knowing that in the Lord
your labor is not in vain." Even the most familiar of all verses took
on new meaning, "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.... He
leads me.... He restores me.... Surely, goodness and mercy shall fol-
low me all the days of my life."

In the great tradition of New Testament apostles, I remembered
that it is by the grace of God that men and women are called into
ministry. I could resonate with the words of Paul, "Therefore, since
it is by God's mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not
lose heart!" And, I never did, even in the most stressful times.

You couldn't ask for more than that, could you?

90

Endnotes

1 Frederick Buechner, Now and Then (San Francisco: Harper and Row,l 983),
2.

2 William Childs Robinson, Columbia Theological Seminary and the Southern
Presbyterian Church (Decatur, Georgia: NP, 1931), 11.

3 Much of the material in this section is from Louis C. LaMotte, Colored Light
(Richmond, Virginia: published for the author, Presbyterian Committee of
Publication, 1937), and George T. Howe, "History of Columbia Theological
Seminary" in Memorial Volume of the Semi-Centennial of the Theological
Seminary at Columbia, South Carolina (Columbia: Presbyterian Publishing
House, 1884).

4 Lamotte, Colored Light, 219.

5 Henri J.M. Nouwen, The Wounded Healer (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1972), 43.

6 Buechner, Now and Then, 4ff.

7 Martin Anderson, Imposters in the Temple (Simon and Schuster, 1992), 47ff .
Cf. "What! Me Teach? I'm A Professor," Wall Street Journal, 8 Sept. 1992.

8 Jean Marie Laskas, "The Good Life-and Works-of Mr. Rogers," Life, Nov.
1992, 72-82.

9 Rosemary Skinner Keller, Georgia Harkness, For Such a Time as This (Nash-
ville: Abingdon Press, 1992).

91

For Reference

Not to be taken from this room

931863

JOHN BULOW CAMPBELL LIBRARY

COLUMBIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

DECATUR, GEORGIA 30031

Davison Philips came to the presidency
of Columbia Theological Seminary as
one who had been an outstanding student,
a loyal leader among the alumni, a faithful
and effective member and chairman of
the board of directors, and above all a
distinguished pastor and church leader.

His eleven years as president were marked
by growth and change in the size and
composition of the student body, in the
number and diversity of the faculty, and
in the budgets, endowment, and other
resources. The degree programs for min-
isters in preparation and for ministers
already in service were enhanced and ex-
tended. The relationship of Columbia to
the reunited Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
and to the church around the world was
strengthened.

Davison evidenced throughout his
presidency a serious commitment to the
academic excellence of the seminary,
a lively concern for the enlistment and
education and continuing support of the
best women and men for the ministry
of the church, a tireless devotion to the
building of the financial strength of the
institution, and a dedication to the well-
being of the church and the community.

His account of his life at Columbia is a
welcome reminder of his lasting influence
in the life of the Presbyterian church and
in the lives of countless people who have
been enriched by his ministry. His service
to the seminary and to the cause of theo-
logical education has been extraordinary.

C. BENTON KLINE
Professor and President Emeritus
Columbia Theological Seminary