The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1921-04-05
Nicholson Submits Statement
on Earlham College Teachings

telling the truth and were attempting
to mislead the committee by giving
false impression, or We had to say, as
We did say, that Earlhanis position
had been misunderstood. or that the
differences between complainants and
the college involved technical theo-
logical matters which Gid not endanger
vital spiritual doctrine. ..
1t is a case where the majority OF
the committee is convinced that the
Earlham teachers are the more cred
ible witnesses as to what they actually
believe and teach. and the weight of
the evidence, as we believe, was de-
cidedly with those who have affirmed
specifically and in large numbers that
the teachings at the college have
either melted interest in the Christian
life or strengthened their faith in
Jesus Christ.
1t is your right to dissent from our
conclusions as to the weight of the
evidence. but to charge the committee
with ignoring testimony and being I'm.
just to the compliments is quite an
other matter
8. You state that the chairman was
the only one of the committee present
who said he favored the Evolutionary
and Historical method of interpreting
the Scriptures, etc" With the evil
dence before US. I could not have
reached any other conclusion than
did, no matter what might be my per-
sonal theological beliefs. If we were
to be guided by our own personal be-
liefs, we made a mistake in receiving
any testimony at all, but we should
have proceeded to write our report
in harmony with our own beliefs.
4. do not understand at all the ref
erence to the desire that our report
was to be sugar-coated, and about
which you quote the scriptural pass
age about covering sins. l think some
body proposed that what we said in
discussion should not be reported as
means of insuring frankness and
freedom in expression. AS I remem-
Der it, there was more than one refer
ence to the probable publication of the
| report by the college board.
5. Adelbert Wood argues that the
committee of ten proved their case by
the admissions of the college profess
ors. The compliments might have
charged many things about Earlham
cations about the teachings were ad-
uiltlSu, Oul IL WdS Tie CUUCluSlOuS Vi
the compliments that we're refuted
These conclusions were that "the
integrity and authority of the Holy
Scriptures have been discredited at
Earlham college," and that the teach
ing tends to destroy faith in the char
acter of the Lord Jesus Christ, and
| his testimony relative to the Holy
Scriptures. and the great funda-
mentals contained in them"
The majority Of the committee found
that these charges were not sustained
by the evidence. Charges are not
proof. and the weight of the testimony
certainly refutes the charges
6. l note the statement of S. Adel-
! bert Wood to the effect that ito be
unjust to the committee of Ten is to
be unjust to Indiana yearly meeting"
am not able to subscribe to that SEN
| timent. viewed from any angle of con-
sideration. Neither the committee of
Ten, nor any other self constituted
committee, can presume to represent
Indiana yearly meeting. The role of
prosecutor, which the committee of
Ten assumed, was wholly voluntary
and se!f-determined. But even if they
did represent the yearly meeting, and
! even if they reflect the views of eighty
pei Gent vi Inc pdSIoIo duu the larger
part of the congregations, which upon
the basis of my personal belief great
| ly question, it would give no warrant
to our committee to bring in a report
which in the judgment OF a majority
of our committee, did not accord with
the facts about the college. We were
not appointed to make a finding in
harmony with the views of any group,
whether a few or whether a majority.
Our obligation was to find out the
facts about the college, and report
them. You may dissent from our
findings, but it can be no argument