Presidents of Presbyterian seminaries are often asked, “How is the seminary getting along?” The answer most presidents give includes two observations.
The first observation is that the school is doing rather well. This is followed by comments such as: enrolment is either stable or increasing, the faculty is making a fine contribution to the church through teaching, writing, lecturing and serving on church committees, and the students, 30-ish in age, are settled in their decision to become pastors. Each president adds some special event that honors the school, such as a foundation grant for a new project, the use of technology for instruction in the classroom or in a distant city or a particular concern of the school. This assessment by seminary presidents is true.
With few exceptions the second observation seminary presidents would make is that their school needs additional funds. In times past Presbyterian governing bodies provided half or more of a seminary’s income. Today the General Assembly provides from 3 to 5 percent of a seminary’s budget. Seminaries have learned how to raise money, but this situation requires presidents and a staff of development officers to devote an enormous amount of time and energy to this work.
Do Presbyterian seminaries have unresolved issues? Yes, but the issues are well known and schools are trying to resolve them. The General Assembly in 1988 appointed a Special Committee to Study Theological Institutions. This study, reported to the 1993 General Assembly, is an excellent analysis of our seminaries and a realistic assessment of issues. One issue, for example, the gap between seminary education and the pastoral leadership of a congregation, is more than 100 years old. All our seminaries are actively engaged in ways to resolve this issue, and the gap is becoming narrower.
A major issue in the Presbyterian Church is usually stated in this question, “Do we need 10 theological seminaries?” Various aspects of this matter were considered by the Special Committee’s 1993 report. That Committee concluded, “The General Assembly does not have either the legal or financial leverage to move, merge, close, or create theological schools.” Since 1993 the Presbyterian School of Christian Education and Union Theological Seminary, on their own initiative, have become one institution.
Having 10 seminaries can become increasingly important for the future of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) if the informal cooperation that has been developing among our schools becomes formal and expands. Several seminaries have jointly sponsored a conference on evangelism. A group of schools is now involved in a special program in spiritual formation using the resources of each of the schools. A few months ago it was announced that for the first time all Presbyterian seminaries are collaborating on a nationwide program to interest college students in the ministry as a vocation.
This development whereby our theological schools consider ways they can work together to serve the general welfare of the denomination as a part of their mission, holds great promise for the future. The General Assembly’s Committee on Theological Education (COTE), made up of church representatives as well as seminary presidents, is the agency that could plan and administer such an endeavor. The following three areas of theological education may be the ones through which seminaries could increasingly serve the theological welfare of the church.
Our seminaries sponsor continuing education events at the schools’ locations. Some schools have conducted short-term courses in distant cities, but there has been no effort to plan courses nationwide so ministers could attend with little loss of time. With planning and the cooperation of seminaries, many cities not near a Presbyterian seminary could hold seminars for pastors.
The Doctor of Ministry degree (D.Min.) has proven to be an important program for the advanced training of pastors. Each school’s D.Min. degree has special features, but many of these programs contain common elements, usually courses in theology, ethics or Bible. These common elements can be identified and offered in cities throughout the United States. These credit courses could be used in a D.Min. program in any of the participating schools. Ministers uninterested in the degree program could take the courses for the value of disciplined study.
Seminaries, by reason of location or the interest of the school’s leaders, often develop special programs that enrich the whole denomination. Programs to train pastors for congregations of people with a common ethnicity or urban churches, youth leaders or church musicians are examples of such specialization. These programs are expensive, and the denomination may not need more than one or two. Presently seminaries are free to start whatever special programs they believe are important. The informal communication among schools tends, however, to regulate the expansion of special programs.
It would be a better use of the resources of our theological institutions if special programs were approved by COTE with the understanding that if another school wanted to duplicate one, approval from COTE would be needed. As COTE gains experience in helping our seminaries develop a national education system, it may find the need for a special program not now offered. COTE could then help identify the school best suited to develop such a program.
Response by Sara Little — Some Room for Further Exploration
Response by Robert Wood Lynn — A Promising Point of Departure
Posted Sept.. 23, 2002
C. Ellis Nelson is research professor of Christian education, Austin Seminary.
Send your comment on this report to The Outlook. Please give your hometown.
