Just how are our seminaries stacking up these days?

When I visited seminaries back in 1978 prior to enrolling, I went to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary which was touted as the largest seminary in the world. Put together bold-talking Southern Baptists and tall-tale Texans and you've got a recipe for some heavy, heavy trash talking. Largest IN THE WORLD! Largest IN HISTORY!

Impressive, tough I chose not to attend.

How are things looking these days? Well, it depends on the measure but let's look at graduates and compare our six seminaries of 2003 with those of 2012:

                        SBC SEMINARY GRADUATES

                                       2003         2012
Golden Gate                      180          249
Midwestern                          80          141
New Orleans                      448          617
Southeastern                     333          333          
Southern                            409          556
Southwestern                     649          455

One wonders exactly what they are touting out at Southwestern these days, the seminary not being the world's largest, not even the largest in the SBC, not even the second largest in the SBC by this measure. Still, over four hundred grads is a huge seminary; nonetheless, although graduates may vary from year-to-year, SWBTS clearly is a declining seminary. In contrast, Southern is a growing seminary. Someone can play the Calvinist card here if they wish.

I admit to being out of touch with seminaries (see the note below about these figures) and there may be some wrinkle in this of which I am unaware but any way you slice it Southwestern is a declining seminary and New Orleans and Southern are growing seminaries. There are other measures to use in looking at seminaries.

One figure I would like to see is how many graduates of each of these institutions receive a graduate level degree and how many receive an undergraduate degree or diploma.

[Note on source: The source for these figures is the SBC annual reports. I was given the figures by a researcher and have not fact-checked them all. I did check a few by the SBC annuals that I have in my possession. If there are errors or omissions, perhaps a number-geek reader would inform me.]

Memo to Midwestern Seminary CEO Search Committee

Brethren,

I see where you have selected a candidate whom the entire trustee body will, presumably, confirm to be the new president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

[Baptist Press story: Jason Allen Nominated to Lead Midwestern]

No doubt all of the committee and trustees are aware that with two failed leaders in the recent past, Midwestern, occasionally described as the weakest of our six seminaries, is suffering more than necessary. If not for the North American Mission Board's spectacular leadership failures, MWBTS would easily be our most troubled institution. NAMB has fixed their problems. One hopes that you are on the road to fixing yours.

You are aware that some Southern Baptists are offering early, gentlemanly criticism of your candidate.

[Peter Lumpkins: Courting Disaster: The Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and No Questions Answered About Presidental Candidate Dr. Jason K. Allen Until After Trustees Vote
Tim Guthrie: Don't Ask, Trust Us! We are in trouble!]

Yes, these are bloggers, but I would speculate that as many Southern Baptists have read their articles as have read the news article of our denominational press.

The questions that are raised are surely things the search committee has spoken of: age, experience, academic background, churchmanship, church affiliation record, and probably most importantly calvinism.

I understand your chairman's desire to be tight-lipped about all of this until the trustee meeting on October 15th and no one questions that Southern Baptists have trusted this process to autonomous trustees, but it might be helpful for you to consider a few things between now and the trustee meeting.

First, Calvinism is the issue of our day. Perhaps you are aware that there are some prominent Southern Baptists individuals and churches who have pulled their funding from two other seminaries on this basis. Perhaps you know that there are Associational Missionaries and others who look askance, rightly or wrongly, at graduates from these two seminaries on the basis of their perceived Calvinistic bent. Do you really think it advantageous to your nominee for the committee not to respond to this? Surely not. If you say nothing, others will define your candidate. You know him best. You have discussed these things. Speak up, please.

Second, this is a different day than ten or twenty years ago. It is not that we do not trust the trustees (even though their past presidential selections have been demonstrably poor ones), we live in a time when Southern Baptists have more access far more quickly to information. You cannot afford to keep silent and let only those who have objections color your candidate for the next few weeks.

Third, I read where prominent SBC leaders (Paul Pressler, Al Mohler, Tom Olliff, and others) have praised your candidate. Good, but general praise from SBC luminaries is insufficient. No doubt the two failed leaders were highly praised as well. More is needed than this. In the absence of information, Southern Baptists in the past have looked to leaders for their signals on how to think on some issues. Such is not so much the case today. More is needed.

Finally, almost all SBCers want to see stability and ethical Christian leadership at our seminary, things that have been missing in the recent past. We pour a lot of Cooperative Program money into MWBTS and deserve more success there for what we are spending. I surmise that most of us make no presumptions about your candidate but legitimate questions have been raised. If you rely on the processes of the past and ignore them, you may harm his chances for success.

You have my prayers.

Three outrageous suggestions for the Cooperative Program

Plodder is beholden to no man, woman (save my wonnerful wife), or animal (save my beloved pooch) and feels no compunction to hold back on possibilities for improving the Cooperative Program. Here are three suggestions:

1. Close a seminary. Shut down, shutter, and sell either Midwestern or New Orleans. We do not need regional seminaries and have not for some years. Regional seminaries are a relic of the mid-twentieth century. We could have closed NOBTS after the hurricane. MWBTS lacks the economies of scale that Southwestern, Southeastern, and Southern have, besides Southern Baptists have started and supported from scratch, without the Cooperative Program, a seminary in that area that is thoroughly SBC but independent of the CP – Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary.

Golden Gate has made it by selling fabulously expensive real estate but that golden goose may be about dead. The idea of an SBC seminary in California was/is good. How much are we willing to devote to it?

This idea doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Gehenna of being implemented, since both MWBTS and especially NOBTS have substantial allies. Would the SBC be able to educate ministers for the foreseeable future without either or both of them? Sure.

2. Set an informal standard for elected leaders, trustees, and executive employees. If you want to be elected SBC officer, trustee, or employee you have to have been a member or pastor of a church that gives at least X% to the Cooperative Program and/or X% in Great Commission Giving. If we are serious about the CP and SBC entities, prove it by telling pastors who want a job, or want to be trustees, or their laypeople that if they don’t give a minimum percentage to the CP/GCG then they should not expect to be employed or elected as a trustee of an SBC entity.

The Executive Committee through the new consortium of Cooperative Program specialists could implement this. Even if it is only a suggestion and does not, indeed cannot, force the SBC in annual assembly or the Committee on Committees or the Nominating Committee to nominate or vote for folks who met the threshold standard it could be a powerful factor in future elections.

3. Ask all SBC entities – the mission boards, the Executive Committee, the seminaries – to reduce the number of trustees and trustee expenses. The IMB has 96, count ‘em, trustees. I believe I saw an annual trustee expense figure of about a million dollars for that mob. NAMB doesn’t seem to have prospered the last decade or so with a huge number of trustees. Save the money and maybe get a better result with less, I say. Someone commented that Golden Gate seminary has more trustees than it has faculty. Why? We all know the reasons that there are so many trustee slots – we SBCers love positions, titles, and perks. The savings would be in the millions.

Any other irreverent and outrageous suggestions?