When the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) catalogs its institutional strengths — its polity, its considerable financial reserves, its many sturdy congregations — the denomination’s theological schools are often omitted from the list. Yet the Presbyterian seminaries are, in the words of Ellis Nelson (eminent church educator who served as president of two of them), jewels in the denominational crown. Arguably, they form the strongest system of freestanding theological institutions in the world. They rest on a firm base of assets. When seminary endowments are listed in descending order, six of the ten institutions related directly to the PC(USA) are found in the top 20 best endowed in North America. Three PC(USA) seminaries are in the top 10. All the Presbyterian schools recruit and retain highly respected scholars and teachers as faculty members. Their administrators are recognized leaders in the world of theological education. The current president of the Association of Theological Schools, for instance, is James Hudnut-Beumler, a Presbyterian minister who first served as dean of Columbia Seminary before moving to become chief executive of Vanderbilt Divinity School.
What are the sources of strength of the PC(USA) network of theological schools? One major source, historically, has been the boards of the institutions. They have set a high academic standard and made policies that encourage faculty scholarship and excellent teaching. They have hired some of the most successful fundraising presidents in the history of theological education, and many board members have been major donors themselves. And they have kept the schools’ ties to the denomination and the wider church lively and strong. It is fair to say that Presbyterian theological institutions would not be leaders of the pack without their dedicated and competent boards.
A recent study of theological school governance identified some serious challenges for theological school boards. These challenges already weigh heavily on schools less strong than PC(USA) institutions. Amid fast changing conditions in church and society, Presbyterian schools must guard against the problems that already afflict many other seminaries. Among the most strenuous challenges:
Replacing current board members
Seminary board members are much older than the members of the boards of other institutions of higher education and of other nonprofit organizations. Only 17 percent are under the age of 50, compared with 31 percent for colleges and universities and 41 percent for other nonprofits. Though older board members often bring much wisdom and sometimes offer the promise of eventual bequests, most organizations look for younger trustees that are more likely to have contacts that are useful in fundraising and recruitment, and they have the prospect of longer service. Presbyterian schools have relied heavily on family ties to locate the next generation of board members. In a time of widespread religious switching and disaffiliation, it is less likely that family tradition will supply future trustees, so Presbyterian schools need to work hard to replace their current committed but aging governors.
Matching board members’ competence to schools’ most pressing needs
In response to surveys, board members say that their highest goals are to establish and maintain the financial stability of the institutions they govern and to insure adequate numbers and quality of students. At the same time, many identify fundraising and recruitment as the areas in which they and their board colleagues have least competence. Presbyterian boards tend to be an exception to this pattern: They have more commitment and ability than most in the financial arena. Most often, they have done an extraordinary job of managing assets and helping presidents raise funds while, at the same time, keeping a focus on church relations and educational quality. As the financial and enrollment pressures on all theological schools (including Presbyterian ones) increase, however, Presbyterian boards will have to give special attention to the challenge of keeping that balance of strengths.
Critical engagement
Theological school boards with distinguished presidential leadership are sometimes tempted to sit back and leave major decisions about direction and policy to the president. This is a serious mistake. Even the best presidents need to test their options in conversation with supportively critical board members. More important still: Only an actively engaged board knows the school well enough to select a worthy successor to a much-admired presidential leader. Presbyterian seminary trustees have, as noted, done an excellent job of recruiting superb presidents who not only raise funds and attract students but also embody the values of the schools. It is especially important that these boards develop a strong governance culture that so that they can lead the school into future.
Barbara Wheeler directed “Governance That Works,” a recent study of seminary governance. She was the founding director of the Auburn Center for the Study of Theological Education and is the former president of Auburn Seminary.
Editor’s note: A summary of the findings of the study, conducted by Barbara G. Wheeler and Helen Ouellette under the auspices of the In Trust Center for Theological Schools, Auburn Seminary and the Association of Theological schools, can be found at intrust.org/governance-report. The full research report can be found at auburnseminary.org/seminary-leadership.
