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