I’m well aware that one could easily get lost in the blog-maze of Southern Baptist Convention reform. It seems everyone with a computer sees themselves as a reformer these days. Well, I am probably much less qualified than most to add a twist or turn to this confusing maze, but maybe you will find this helpful . . .

Having attended one of our great Southern Baptist institutions of higher learning, I have a few thoughts about the seminary structure in the SBC. There are many reasons that I would spend time thinking and writing about the need for SBC Seminary reform. I could discuss the high cost of seminary for the students. Not just the tuition, textbook, and housing costs, but many must leave jobs that provide well in order to relocate away from the support structure of their church, friends, and family. I could even discuss a culture that often births in seminary environments that are filled with pride, one-up-manship, name-dropping, and a striving for accolades. Even worse, seminary often leaves students with a disconnect between their newly acquired head knowledge and practical ministry leaving damaged churches that have been experimented on crippled, dead, or dying. Yes, I would imagine all of these and more problems are too common in any seminary’s life. But, in my opinion, these alone are not worth all the trouble to reform a massive beast like the SBC’s six seminaries.

The greatest problem that exists in today’s seminary structure is that, try as they may, they do not give attention to the priority of the local church. Christ has promised to build His church and though the gates of hell try to prevail against it, they shall never succeed (Mt. 16:18). We too often think that this applies to our particular extra-biblical ministry -a seminary, for example. Christ never promised to build a seminary, a youth ministry, a recovery ministry, a retreat ministry, a printing ministry, or any other extra-biblical ministry. He promised to build His church. I’m crazy enough to think that a way to seek the blessing of God in our ministries is to get in line with His plan to build His church. What are the purposes of a seminary? Are they not the same purposes that the Bible gives to the church? It is through the church, after all, that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places (Eph. 3:10). As Paul and Barnabas passed through Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, they did not send the leaders off to Jerusalem to learn from Peter, nor did they order them to accompany them so that they might go to Paul’s traveling missionary seminary. Instead, they appointed elders with prayer and fasting and committed them to the Lord (Acts 14:19-23). Paul and Barnabas did not look on the wall of these men’s homes for seminary degrees. Instead, they probably looked within the walls of their homes to see if they managed their own households well (1 Timothy 3:4-5) and outside of those same walls to see if they were well thought of by outsiders (v. 7). Our seminary degree culture in the SBC has blurred the lines of qualifications for eldership and removed the importance of a pastor being known in the area in which he is shepherding. I have a deep love and appreciation for those who serve faithfully in our denomination’s seminaries. I have profited spiritually from many of them. And most of them, I believe, probably have a deep love for the local church and this comes through in their labors. But I believe that we can do better. What follows are some suggestions.

1. Close 4 of the 6 seminaries. Think of the impact on our churches if the education is going on right in their midst rather than seeing their called and gifted young people leave to obtain their theological education. 2 Seminaries should remain open (SouthWestern or GoldenGate in the West and Southern or SouthEastern in the East) to ease logistics of suggestion #2. These remaining two campuses would be used to house offices, libraries, temporary student housing, host modulars, conferences, etc.

2. Offer only non-traditional classes. I am referring to on-location modular courses ranging from 1-6 wks at a time. I am referring to weekend simulcasts hosted churches, associations, or state conventions. I am referring to professors visiting these same venues once a week for the duration of a semester. I am referring to DVD and internet-based classes that students may take part in as a group at one of these venues or at home. I am referring to mail correspondence courses. Some, and maybe even all of these, are already being used by our seminaries, but there is no need for traditional classes in this day and age of technology and ease of transportation.

That’s pretty much it. Just 2 suggestions. Of course, this raises lots of questions. Questions, such as:

What about the other 4 campuses? There are any number of options. We could sell them and use the money to pay for expansion of the libraries at the remaining two locations, relocation costs, severance packages, purchasing new equipment to make the new class format necessary, or we could just give it all to missions. Another option would be to keep the buildings to use for ministry as another missionary learning center location, another retreat center, a hospital, or college.

What about the staff? Obviously, we would want to offer a healthy severance package for folks whose jobs have been eliminated. The professors would have plenty of options. Some would continue to teach full-time with modulars, internet, correspondence, and satellite locations. Others would opt for teaching part-time while teaching at another school (secular or Christian), writing for Lifeway, ministering vocationally at a local church or as a associational/denominational servant. Others may choose to teach full-time at a secular university.

There are surely other objections, like, “What about the importance of our tradition, heritage, history, etc?” “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” But I believe the benefits to the church far outweigh the difficult truths of these and any other objections.

Some of these benefits would include: Small churches located near the seminaries would be more likely to look for and find a long-term pastor. The minister as “professional” culture full of church-hopping, ladder-climbing pastors could conceivably diminish. Due to the professors’ and students’ involvement in more churches, local churches would have both better access to good teaching and more opportunity to see how God works in a church to raise up and develop leaders. These are just a few of the many benefits.

If Southern Baptists would seek a way forward, we must do it with the church leading the charge, not denominational servants, structures, or ministries. We must recognize that our commitment to voluntary cooperation, though solid must always be producing fluid and changing ministries. I once heard Al Mohler say that his goal was to work himself out of the job and put the job of the seminary back in the hands of the local church -I couldn’t applaud him louder. Now, let’s see some action.