o
you have one principle or belief
that is head and shoulders above the
many values you employ in your daily life? What would you risk for that
belief; for yourself, your family, company or church? For the men and
women who followed Jacob Albright, founding and supporting the schools
that evolved into today’s
Albright College was fraught with risk.
Surely, the founding entities knew there was the possibility of failure. But people of vision have an interesting trait: the ability to focus on the end result, to envision the benefits in accomplishing their goals. They leave little room for failure, refuse to allow for exit strategies, and sometimes make things happen just by sheer will power and perseverance, so convinced are they of the outcome.
Clearly, Jacob Albright was a man of such vision, and so was William W. Orwig, the first principal of Union Seminary, which is con-sidered the earliest iteration of today’s Albright College. (Even though early schools were called seminaries, the term was then used to describe institutions of higher learning.)
Much has been said about the mistrust of higher education that early Evangelicals showed. It would more accurately be characterized as a love-hate relationship. Evangelicals in general had a mistrust of “the world” and worried that educating the mind would be detrimental to the spirit.
Imagine the dilemma of church leaders, beginning with Jacob Albright himself, who clearly understood the necessity of establishing institutions of higher learning. In their vision, such education would increasingly become a necessity. They felt that higher learning should be conducted under the auspices of the church, in order to maintain a spiritual balance and thus avoid the prideful pursuit of learning for its own sake. However, these institutions would depend on the support of the rank-and-file for their existence.
Beyond the issue of acceptance by the congregations was the consideration that the church was made up largely of people of German descent—people well known for their frugality. Would these people support a seminary they didn’t wholly believe in? Surely, early church leaders were not naive to the consideration that their church was comprised of individuals who, dissatisfied with their spiritual experiences with other denominations, had sought out another. To a church concerned with building a following, the aspect of losing congregants was a risk to be undertaken with care.
That growth was an issue that presented yet another paradox. Early preachers were not well educated. Some could barely read, while others had limited their reading to the Bible only. Where would the new preachers come from, if the Evangelical movement was to grow? If those preachers obtained their education at seminaries sponsored by other churches, there was a risk that they might leave the Evangelical movement entirely to remain aligned with their educators.
Then there was the laity. Church leaders felt strongly that higher learning was a necessity if the congregation was to prosper in a growing America. They felt that it was better to provide a faith-based course of study than to rely on secular institutions to provide that education.
The founders of the early seminaries were able to draw inspiration from Jacob Albright, as they did in many instances. Albright was known to be a great admirer of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement of Protestantism within the Church of England. While he disagreed with Wesley spiritually, Albright teaches us a lesson by his actions that holds as much value today as it did then. Simply put, in many instances the similarities we share with those we disagree with may far exceed the differences.
While Albright preferred his own brand of Christianity, he was a great appreciator of Wesley’s organizational abilities—he knew how to “grow” a movement and knew how to manage a church.
There are many examples where Albright borrowed directly from Wesley in the organization and conduct of the Evangelical Church. It was not lost on Albright that Wesley had been university-trained, and his persuasive writing skills were considered an important reason for his movement’s popularity.
Thus, Albright, when faced with a paradox—his intuitive mistrust of higher education versus the clear benefits–opted for the latter. Albright also appreciated that a growing organization needs written doctrine. It would take men of letters to author and publish that infrastructure.
