I am disturbed by much of the talk these days about being “post-denominational.” I certainly see the need to re-think the ways in which we structure our denominational lives, but I take seriously our Presbyterian insistence on connectionalism. For that reason, I am glad that before I came on the scene, the past leadership of Fuller Theological Seminary insisted on describing our school as “multi-denominational.” And the “multi-” phenomenon is a visible reality for us. Our student body, numbering well over 4,000, represents more than a hundred denominations — with the largest single group coming from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
To be sure, this multi-denominational character does not distinguish Fuller from seminaries that have more official links to specific denominations. All of our PC(USA) seminaries, for example, are multi-denominational, with several of them drawing half or more of their students from other ecclesial traditions. Those of us who are committed to providing theological education for denominations face some important challenges today. The much-publicized 2008 American Religious Identification Survey revealed a dramatic decrease in the number of people identifying with mainline denominations: in 1990 it was 18 percent of the American population, but since 2001 it has fallen to 13 percent. Furthermore, the members of the mainline denominations are significantly older than those in other churches. During the same period the “non-denominational” evangelicals have increased their share of the population from 5 percent to 11.8 percent. When combined with the numbers from Baptist and Pentecostal churches, evangelicals outnumber mainliners two-to-one. The survey suggests that this will likely increase to a three-to-one ratio in the next decade.
Since our founding in 1947, Fuller has been committed to serving folks in denominations as well as those who are active in the world of independent churches and para-church ministries. But we must all face a simple fact of life. The churches that require a seminary degree for their ministers are decreasing in membership these days, and those that are growing often do not require —sometimes they are even actively opposed to — graduate theological degrees. This means that increasingly we must make the case for the importance of theological education. And that case is closely linked to the defense of denominations as such.
Denominations are the repositories of the church’s theological and spiritual memories. I must confess that as a Presbyterian, I sometimes worry that The Book of Confessions too often functions in our circles as a museum piece — something to be visited once in while to see what people like us once believed. But for all of that, at least we have a Book of Confessions, and it does on occasion become for us a living voice that speaks to us in new ways.
The “independent” and “emergent” types who bash denominations need to be convinced that they must stay in dialogue with those who take confessional identity seriously, lest they simply repeat the mistakes of the past out of theological ignorance — to say nothing of missing out on some important wisdom. But it is also necessary for us in the traditional denominations to be willing to learn from those who are beyond our borders, and beyond the borders of what is often mapped out as “the” ecumenical movement. We would do well to see the new, and non-“connectional,” patterns of church life as experimental workshops from which we can learn to be more effective in our own ministries.
At Fuller we are trying to facilitate that mutual learning. And our efforts are enhanced by other “multi” realities. We have flourishing programs in African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American ministries, and our students come to us from more than sixty nations. The fact that, having begun in 1947 with an entering class of 39 students, we are now the largest theological school of any kind in the world, is simply a matter of numbers. More important is the profound opportunity we have to experience the gathering together of students from the “tribes, tongues, peoples, and nations” of the global Body of Jesus Christ.
This also points to another crucial challenge for present-day seminaries.
We have taken it for granted in the past that the normal pattern of theological education is the “gathering together” of students on a single campus. Fuller began to question this assumption several decades ago, by beginning to offer extension courses in diverse locations. We now have eight regional campuses, an outreach that allows women and men, many of them already active in ministry, to pursue theological education closer to home, without having to re-locate to Pasadena.
But the even more urgent challenge today is how we can harness new technologies — online, DVD, streaming — in a way that maintains the integrity of the theological calling. New educational delivery systems pose both difficult questions and exciting opportunities.
My favorite image for theological education draws on the distinction between the emergency room and the medical school. In those TV dramas about emergency rooms, the medical personnel have to make split-second decisions in order to save lives. In making those decisions, they have no time to go to the library and check out a medical journal. But the ability to make those emergency decisions presupposes the resources provided by medical schools, where folks quietly and systematically go about the business of studying the issues of human health and disease.
Our churchly ministries are often like emergency rooms, where urgent human realities must be addressed with quick-mindedness and skill. But that can happen effectively only when those in front-line ministries can draw on the resources of those who quietly and systematically explore the questions and answers that deal with matters of eternal significance. That in itself is an urgent challenge for all of us in theological education today!
Richard J. Mouw is president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif.
