By Donald Gilpin

About 100 Princeton Theological Seminary students and supporters rallied in front of the Miller Chapel on the Seminary campus on Tuesday afternoon, January 18, demanding that the Seminary remove Samuel Miller’s name from the Princeton Seminary Chapel and also establish a renaming process for all buildings on campus named after people associated with slavery.

Carrying signs calling for “Decisions not Discussion” from the Seminary Board of Trustees and for the board to “Remove Miller Now” and to “Follow Through on What You Said You Would Do,” the demonstrators chanted, sang, and cheered on several different speakers.

“We want to have the community’s support in understanding that it is preposterous to ask students to worship in a place that is named after a slave owner,” said Tamesha Mills, moderator of the Association of Black Seminarians (ABS), which has led the name-changing initiative.  “If the Board of Trustees does not decide to remove the name, we will not be worshiping here.”

Miller (1769-1850), the Seminary’s second professor, employed slave labor, worked against abolition, and supported the colonization movement to send freed Blacks back to Africa, according to the 2018 Princeton Seminary Slavery Audit report.

“For too long the Seminary has held on to Samuel Miller’s name on this chapel,” Mills continued. “For too long students have felt uncomfortable worshiping in a space like this. We’re here to reclaim a sacred space. It’s not just about Samuel Miller. It’s about the students who are here now. It’s about the legacy of this institution. It’s about what we believe the gospel teaches us. So that’s why we’re here.”

The ABS initiative has already resulted in discussions with the Seminary administration. The Seminary Board of Trustees will be discussing the issue at its January 25 meeting, according to a statement issued by Princeton Theological Seminary President M. Craig Barnes.

“We are committed to addressing the uncomfortable parts of the Seminary’s history as we seek faithfully to repent for the Seminary’s ties to slavery,” he wrote in a January 18 statement. “We began this process knowing that the road to repair would be collaborative and ongoing, and we are committed to that process. We value the many voices in our community, and there is room for them to express their convictions. The Board of Trustees will take up these important issues during their meeting next week.”

The Seminary Board of Trustees on October 18, 2019 adopted a plan to repent for the Seminary’s relationship to slavery.

The ABS demands state, “If the Seminary does not officially remove Miller’s name from the Chapel by January 30, members of ABS, as well as allies throughout the student body, will not worship in the Chapel beginning spring semester January 31.”

The ABS press release goes on to call for establishment of a renaming process for other Seminary buildings as well as a public announcement from the president of the Seminary providing details of the removal of Samuel Miller’s name. 

“Miller’s efforts against abolition and enforcing colonization of freed Black slaves does not reflect the theological imagination and pioneering spirit of this institution,” the ABS statement continues. “If the Seminary is truly a covenant community, aimed to be antiracist, just, sacred, and uplifting with our chapel at the spiritual epicenter, then the name on the Seminary chapel must reflect these principles.”

ABS reported that it had received close to 300 signatures of support on a petition, as well as letters and endorsements from a number of student groups on campus.

“For too long the Seminary has held on to his [Miller’s] name on the chapel and for too long students have been uncomfortable worshiping in a space that holds a name of someone who did not value and recognize their human dignity AND their identity in Christ,” Mills wrote in a January 17 Facebook post. “The Seminary has made a commitment to repentance for its entanglement with slavery and removing Miller’s name is an action step toward that repentance.”

Mills continued, “Miller is not a representative of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ, nor does he represent the theological imagination of current students and faculty at this institution.”