Does the recent closure of King’s College in NYC, the collapse of TEDS, and the very recent announcement, “sudden” to many, of the closure of Spurgeon’s College,[1] signal significant changes in the mode of doing theological education?
Good post. I found the notion that educational institutions like seminaries belong to the whole church especially helpful. Our work with The Think Institute is closely tied to our local church, but we serve believers all over the world, and it's encouraging to realize that we are "permitted" to do this because we are "their" institution too.
An interesting connection to your point is the need for churches to partner together for the sake of mission - that is, a fellowship of churches can do more for mission together than they can do separately. In the same way, I think this is what must happen for theological education particularly in the future. Perhaps this would scratch the itch for some of the involvement of local churches, but provide the expertise needed given your points? Obviously this happens in certain denominations, but I think it must happen more frequently in other traditions.
Michael, interesting topic. Thanks for thinking this through. As someone invested in the type of degrees you can get from a bible college and seminary, it always seemed interesting that these organizations would choose to build out their infrastructure the way they have, that is, often as standalone entities instead of somehow connected to the local church. You are right, a local pastor, or a suite of pastors, cannot provide all the training necessary for future leaders, so why not situate theological education at local churches? Many of them have enough space and are often largely unoccupied throughout the week. It seems duplicative to say the least, and more memetic than anything that theological education should be situated on a standalone campus, with duplicative resources, overhead, cost, depreciation, etc.
Helpful discipline for my likely-incorrect idea that only local congregations are the church. I have said this--albeit half-heartedly--as a K-12 classical Christian school teacher. Something about it felt quietly wrong. Thanks for the correction.
I share your concern and, for the most part, share your perspectives. With you, I would certainly disagree with a "Landmark"-like understanding of the church. At the same time, I agree that theological education is, indeed, the responsibility of the church as the only entity Christ has established on earth to carry out the great commission and all that involves, including the raising up and training of men for the Christian ministry. However, I also agree that this responsibility does not lie with any one local church exclusively or independently, but is often and should ordinarily be shared by churches cooperating together. However, at the same time, I think it can be argued that too often theological seminaries have drifted from a governance structure in which they are truly accountable to the church (es), and that when this happens, theological drift often follows. The universal church militant on earth is not an ethereal, non-descript platonic entity, but the sum of all true local churches on earth or in a region at a given time in history. Therefore, to truly be a church ministry, a seminary needs to be accountable to a church or a fellowship of churches. I mean genuinely accountable and not just claiming to be.
I would add that I also agree that in the matter of theological education, there is a need for specialists in various disciplines for a full-orbed theological curriculum. There is a very important place and role in the universal church and the seminary for the research theologian or research professor etc..I am thankful for such men and how I have personally benefited from them both in my training and in my ministry. However, at the same time, I think this needs to be balanced with the recognition that training for the Christian ministry is not merely theological training. It is also vocational training. I know you would agree with that. When a man's entire theological training is given only by specialists in this or that particular field, especially if those men are not actively involved, or do not have significant and exemplary experience shepherding God's people and ministering God's word to real life sheep in a real life church, the danger is that the training can be overly academic and produce men who are academics but not pastors. When training someone to be a surgeon, the student is not just given books to read about surgeries or lectures on surgery to listen to; he is also trained by surgeons who actually do surgeries and have been successful at it. And he is given hands-on help actually doing surgeries himself with the trained and experienced surgeon's guidance. And you certainly would not assign someone the responsibility of teaching surgeons how to do surgery who lost his practice because he left a scalpel in someone's head (i.e., he was incompetent at what he was teaching other surgeons to be and to do). Likewise, when someone is being trained to be a carpenter, he is not just given books to read on carpentry and lectures on carpentry, he is placed in a context in which he can actually observe those teaching him doing what he is being taught to do and showing him how to do it. I say all of this to say that my personal opinion is that an ideal theological training is one that seeks intentionally to combine training from both experts in certain fields and from men with successful experience doing pastoral ministry, and who are also men of theological depth (pastor-theologians ,as were men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, many of the Puritans etc.). And I would argue that the training entity should be genuinely under the direct oversight of the churches it serves. Again, we probably agree about these things, at least mostly so. Regardless, I would love to talk about this together sometime and hear more of your thoughts on these things. I think your post is extremely relevant for our time. I am deeply grateful for your work and respect your many years of experience in theological education. Jeff Smith, Coconut Creek, FL
I would agree with all that you have said here. My concern was with the idea that we can simply dismantle seminaries and do all that they do in one local church. Church history uniformly speaks against such an idea. Blessings and thanks for commenting. Much appreciated.
Theological education in the church (congregation) needs to embrace the full-spectrum of how people learn, including ritual, instruction, indoctrination, investigation, interaction, missional experiences. Most churches embrace a single component and ignore or under-utilize the others.
While I agree theological education must be not downloaded completely to the local church, seminaries must find ways to become accessible (technology) and affordable (bi-vocational professors) with a re-formation approach to "equipping the saints."
fulltime is a barrier; we need to explore ways to hire/share bi-vocational professors - plus, the profile of a "professor" needs to be expanded beyond a scholarly person who lectures - we need instructors, facilitators, conveners, scholarly discussion leaders ...
What If the Closure of Seminaries Is the Move of the Spirit?
A Theological Reflection on the Collapse of Western Institutions of Formation
“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” —John 3:8, KJV
In recent years, a sobering pattern has emerged across the Western theological landscape. Institutions once considered pillars of Protestant theological education, such as The King’s College in New York City, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS), and Spurgeon’s College, are either shuttering, on the verge of collapse, or struggling to maintain institutional viability. These events have stirred not only grief and alarm but also calls to renew support and revive what many see as vital to the church’s future.
But perhaps the collapse is not merely a problem to be fixed. Perhaps it is a question to be discerned.
Might it be that these closures are not simply institutional crises, but manifestations of the movement of the Spirit? What if the dismantling of theological seminaries, particularly those enmeshed in Western models of academic abstraction and financial precarity, is not a sign of decline but of divine disruption? What if the Spirit is not only whispering but roaring through the rafters of collapsing halls, calling us not backward to rebuild, but forward into the wilderness?
1. A Change in Mode, or a Divine Pruning?
Much commentary on this moment suggests that theological education is merely changing delivery: from in-person to online, from centralized to local. And indeed, some transitions are technological. But underneath the surface may lie something far more spiritual.
In Scripture, when the people of God place their hope in systems rather than in the presence of God, judgment follows, not always in punishment, but in the withdrawing of divine favor. Ezekiel saw the glory of God depart from the temple (Ezek. 10:18–19), and Jesus, grieved over Jerusalem’s hardened heart, declared, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38, KJV). These were not merely historical laments; they serve as paradigms for discernment in every age. If the glory of God has left certain institutional frameworks, the problem is not simply operational; it is theological. The Spirit may be pruning dead branches (John 15:2), stripping us of dependence on infrastructure to re-root us in the presence of Christ.
2. Theological Formation Beyond the Walls
Critics have argued that local churches cannot carry the weight of theological education, that outsourcing doctrine to house churches or bivocational pastors risks diluting the faith. But this assumes a model foreign to the New Testament. The early church did not arise from accredited institutions. The apostles, we are told, were “unlettered and ordinary men” (Acts 4:13), yet the religious authorities were astonished because “they had been with Jesus.” Their authority flowed not from credentialing bodies, but from intimacy with Christ.
Paul formed Timothy not through seminary lectures but in the furnace of shared ministry, often amid persecution, hardship, and communal life (2 Tim. 3:10–11). Jesus did not construct classrooms; he walked the dusty roads of Galilee with twelve unlikely men. As He Himself said, “One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8, KJV). To insist that formal institutions are the only legitimate path to theological formation is to forget how the Church began, and may also obscure how it must be reborn.
3. The Uneven Partnership: Seminaries and the Church
The idea that seminaries and churches should function in symbiotic partnership is appealing, and in theory, commendable. Yet, in practice, seminaries have often drifted from the church’s heartbeat. Many have become top-heavy with academic abstraction, prioritizing scholarly reputation over spiritual discernment. Some are geographically and ideologically distant from the margins where the Spirit is most actively moving, in refugee camps, urban storefronts, house churches, and persecuted communities.
Moreover, the economic model of theological education in the West frequently saddles aspiring ministers with debilitating debt. To require impoverished pastors to acquire degrees they can scarcely afford in order to serve communities that can scarcely pay is to perpetuate a system divorced from the economy of grace. If God is raising up Spirit-empowered preachers in the alleys of Lagos or the barrios of São Paulo, dare we say their formation is second-rate?
The Spirit of the Father, said Jesus, will give them words when they stand before rulers (Matt. 10:19–20). That promise was not made to the well-pedigreed, but to the willing and obedient.
4. Misusing Matthew 16:18: Propping Up Systems Jesus May Be Dismantling
Some defenders of seminary education invoke Matthew 16:18, “Upon this rock I will build my church”, as though it endorses contemporary institutional frameworks. But this is exegetically irresponsible. Jesus did not say, “I will build my seminary,” nor did he speak those words from the heart of Jerusalem’s temple. He said them near Caesarea Philippi, a region fraught with pagan shrines and imperial symbolism, signaling that His Church would be born in contested spaces, not protected ones.
To quote Christ’s promise of ecclesial endurance in defense of academic institutions is to confuse the organism with the organization. We must not become like the religious leaders whom Jesus rebuked for searching the Scriptures but refusing to come to Him (John 5:39–40). If Jesus is moving outside the structures we’ve built in His name, the right question is not, “How do we save the structure?” but “Are we still following the Lamb?”
5. “Faithful” Seminaries and the Presence of God
To say that “faithful seminaries are part of the Church” is only meaningful if we first define what faithfulness means. Institutional continuity does not equal divine presence. Solomon’s temple once housed God’s glory, but that glory departed (Ezek. 10). Jesus was raised in synagogues, but was ultimately rejected by them (Luke 4:29). The most transformative moments in early Christian history, Pentecost, Antioch, the missionary journeys, occurred not in centers of power but on the fringes.
A seminary may continue to offer courses in theology, ethics, and exegesis. Still, suppose it is animated more by accreditation boards and donor expectations than by the breath of the Spirit. In that case, it may retain form without power (2 Tim. 3:5). The question is not whether seminaries exist, but whether the Spirit abides within them.
6. Theological Education Is Thriving in the Wilderness
Ironically, while Western institutions decline, theological formation is flourishing globally, though not always in recognizable forms. In underground churches in China, among house gatherings in Iran, in oral communities throughout the Global South, and through digital platforms accessible from the most remote regions, discipleship is alive and well. These are not signs of decay but of divine creativity.
Jesus did not command His disciples to establish degree-granting institutions. He told them to make disciples (Matt. 28:19). That command is being fulfilled with fervor by Spirit-filled leaders who may never walk a seminary hallway. They preach, plant, and shepherd not because they’ve passed exams, but because they’ve been called and equipped by God.
7. Rethinking Stewardship: The Cost of Maintaining Systems
To assert that there is no better use of Christian wealth than the funding of seminaries is to raise urgent questions of stewardship. What if those funds were redirected to support indigenous pastors, translate Scripture into unreached languages, or feed the poor and disciple the broken-hearted? What if, like Jesus, we took nothing for the journey, no gold, silver, or copper (Matt. 10:9), and trusted God to supply what we need?
Jesus never sought endowments. He poured Himself into fishermen, tax collectors, and sinners, sending them out to heal, proclaim, and suffer for the kingdom. To follow Him is to loosen our grip on earthly securities, including institutions.
“Go, sell what you possess and give to the poor… and follow me.” —Matthew 19:21, ESV
Conclusion: Let Us Go to Him Outside the Camp
We may well be living in a moment when the Spirit is saying, “Leave the Temple.” That is not a call to nihilism or theological anti-intellectualism. Rather, it is a summons to discernment. When the Spirit moves, altars may fall, not in punishment, but in purification. The dismantling of certain seminaries may be God’s mercy, not His judgment.
Hebrews 13:13 beckons us: “Let us then go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured.” If Jesus is on the move, outside the gates, beyond the walls, among the least and the lost, why do we persist in shoring up what He may be leaving behind?
The question before us is not, How do we preserve the seminary? The question is: Where is the Lamb going, and will we follow Him?
Selected Bibliography
Holy Bible. King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987.
Holy Bible. English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Faith in Community. Translated by John W. Doberstein. New York: Harper & Row, 1954.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.
Tanner, Kathryn. Theology and the New Materialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2024.
Willimon, William H. Pastor: The Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002.
Interesting conundrum. We need seminaries to produce the scholars we need, while needing scholars to join the seminaries to do the work of producing them.
Thank you, Michael. More than half a century ago there was the song, Where have all the flowers gone? Today, it is Where have all the seminary students gone? In some ways, they have gone after one ideology or another. Talbot seems to be attracting students today.
Good post. I found the notion that educational institutions like seminaries belong to the whole church especially helpful. Our work with The Think Institute is closely tied to our local church, but we serve believers all over the world, and it's encouraging to realize that we are "permitted" to do this because we are "their" institution too.
An interesting connection to your point is the need for churches to partner together for the sake of mission - that is, a fellowship of churches can do more for mission together than they can do separately. In the same way, I think this is what must happen for theological education particularly in the future. Perhaps this would scratch the itch for some of the involvement of local churches, but provide the expertise needed given your points? Obviously this happens in certain denominations, but I think it must happen more frequently in other traditions.
Totally agree.
Michael, interesting topic. Thanks for thinking this through. As someone invested in the type of degrees you can get from a bible college and seminary, it always seemed interesting that these organizations would choose to build out their infrastructure the way they have, that is, often as standalone entities instead of somehow connected to the local church. You are right, a local pastor, or a suite of pastors, cannot provide all the training necessary for future leaders, so why not situate theological education at local churches? Many of them have enough space and are often largely unoccupied throughout the week. It seems duplicative to say the least, and more memetic than anything that theological education should be situated on a standalone campus, with duplicative resources, overhead, cost, depreciation, etc.
Toronto Baptist Seminary has done it this way: it has pluses and minuses. Thanks so much for your response.
Excellent
Helpful discipline for my likely-incorrect idea that only local congregations are the church. I have said this--albeit half-heartedly--as a K-12 classical Christian school teacher. Something about it felt quietly wrong. Thanks for the correction.
Dr. Haykin,
I share your concern and, for the most part, share your perspectives. With you, I would certainly disagree with a "Landmark"-like understanding of the church. At the same time, I agree that theological education is, indeed, the responsibility of the church as the only entity Christ has established on earth to carry out the great commission and all that involves, including the raising up and training of men for the Christian ministry. However, I also agree that this responsibility does not lie with any one local church exclusively or independently, but is often and should ordinarily be shared by churches cooperating together. However, at the same time, I think it can be argued that too often theological seminaries have drifted from a governance structure in which they are truly accountable to the church (es), and that when this happens, theological drift often follows. The universal church militant on earth is not an ethereal, non-descript platonic entity, but the sum of all true local churches on earth or in a region at a given time in history. Therefore, to truly be a church ministry, a seminary needs to be accountable to a church or a fellowship of churches. I mean genuinely accountable and not just claiming to be.
I would add that I also agree that in the matter of theological education, there is a need for specialists in various disciplines for a full-orbed theological curriculum. There is a very important place and role in the universal church and the seminary for the research theologian or research professor etc..I am thankful for such men and how I have personally benefited from them both in my training and in my ministry. However, at the same time, I think this needs to be balanced with the recognition that training for the Christian ministry is not merely theological training. It is also vocational training. I know you would agree with that. When a man's entire theological training is given only by specialists in this or that particular field, especially if those men are not actively involved, or do not have significant and exemplary experience shepherding God's people and ministering God's word to real life sheep in a real life church, the danger is that the training can be overly academic and produce men who are academics but not pastors. When training someone to be a surgeon, the student is not just given books to read about surgeries or lectures on surgery to listen to; he is also trained by surgeons who actually do surgeries and have been successful at it. And he is given hands-on help actually doing surgeries himself with the trained and experienced surgeon's guidance. And you certainly would not assign someone the responsibility of teaching surgeons how to do surgery who lost his practice because he left a scalpel in someone's head (i.e., he was incompetent at what he was teaching other surgeons to be and to do). Likewise, when someone is being trained to be a carpenter, he is not just given books to read on carpentry and lectures on carpentry, he is placed in a context in which he can actually observe those teaching him doing what he is being taught to do and showing him how to do it. I say all of this to say that my personal opinion is that an ideal theological training is one that seeks intentionally to combine training from both experts in certain fields and from men with successful experience doing pastoral ministry, and who are also men of theological depth (pastor-theologians ,as were men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, many of the Puritans etc.). And I would argue that the training entity should be genuinely under the direct oversight of the churches it serves. Again, we probably agree about these things, at least mostly so. Regardless, I would love to talk about this together sometime and hear more of your thoughts on these things. I think your post is extremely relevant for our time. I am deeply grateful for your work and respect your many years of experience in theological education. Jeff Smith, Coconut Creek, FL
I would agree with all that you have said here. My concern was with the idea that we can simply dismantle seminaries and do all that they do in one local church. Church history uniformly speaks against such an idea. Blessings and thanks for commenting. Much appreciated.
I totally agree, dear brother.
Theological education in the church (congregation) needs to embrace the full-spectrum of how people learn, including ritual, instruction, indoctrination, investigation, interaction, missional experiences. Most churches embrace a single component and ignore or under-utilize the others.
While I agree theological education must be not downloaded completely to the local church, seminaries must find ways to become accessible (technology) and affordable (bi-vocational professors) with a re-formation approach to "equipping the saints."
Phil
Reimagine.Network
Agree re becoming accessible. Affordability is a challenge if you are going to have fulltime profs.
fulltime is a barrier; we need to explore ways to hire/share bi-vocational professors - plus, the profile of a "professor" needs to be expanded beyond a scholarly person who lectures - we need instructors, facilitators, conveners, scholarly discussion leaders ...
What If the Closure of Seminaries Is the Move of the Spirit?
A Theological Reflection on the Collapse of Western Institutions of Formation
“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” —John 3:8, KJV
In recent years, a sobering pattern has emerged across the Western theological landscape. Institutions once considered pillars of Protestant theological education, such as The King’s College in New York City, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS), and Spurgeon’s College, are either shuttering, on the verge of collapse, or struggling to maintain institutional viability. These events have stirred not only grief and alarm but also calls to renew support and revive what many see as vital to the church’s future.
But perhaps the collapse is not merely a problem to be fixed. Perhaps it is a question to be discerned.
Might it be that these closures are not simply institutional crises, but manifestations of the movement of the Spirit? What if the dismantling of theological seminaries, particularly those enmeshed in Western models of academic abstraction and financial precarity, is not a sign of decline but of divine disruption? What if the Spirit is not only whispering but roaring through the rafters of collapsing halls, calling us not backward to rebuild, but forward into the wilderness?
1. A Change in Mode, or a Divine Pruning?
Much commentary on this moment suggests that theological education is merely changing delivery: from in-person to online, from centralized to local. And indeed, some transitions are technological. But underneath the surface may lie something far more spiritual.
In Scripture, when the people of God place their hope in systems rather than in the presence of God, judgment follows, not always in punishment, but in the withdrawing of divine favor. Ezekiel saw the glory of God depart from the temple (Ezek. 10:18–19), and Jesus, grieved over Jerusalem’s hardened heart, declared, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38, KJV). These were not merely historical laments; they serve as paradigms for discernment in every age. If the glory of God has left certain institutional frameworks, the problem is not simply operational; it is theological. The Spirit may be pruning dead branches (John 15:2), stripping us of dependence on infrastructure to re-root us in the presence of Christ.
2. Theological Formation Beyond the Walls
Critics have argued that local churches cannot carry the weight of theological education, that outsourcing doctrine to house churches or bivocational pastors risks diluting the faith. But this assumes a model foreign to the New Testament. The early church did not arise from accredited institutions. The apostles, we are told, were “unlettered and ordinary men” (Acts 4:13), yet the religious authorities were astonished because “they had been with Jesus.” Their authority flowed not from credentialing bodies, but from intimacy with Christ.
Paul formed Timothy not through seminary lectures but in the furnace of shared ministry, often amid persecution, hardship, and communal life (2 Tim. 3:10–11). Jesus did not construct classrooms; he walked the dusty roads of Galilee with twelve unlikely men. As He Himself said, “One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8, KJV). To insist that formal institutions are the only legitimate path to theological formation is to forget how the Church began, and may also obscure how it must be reborn.
3. The Uneven Partnership: Seminaries and the Church
The idea that seminaries and churches should function in symbiotic partnership is appealing, and in theory, commendable. Yet, in practice, seminaries have often drifted from the church’s heartbeat. Many have become top-heavy with academic abstraction, prioritizing scholarly reputation over spiritual discernment. Some are geographically and ideologically distant from the margins where the Spirit is most actively moving, in refugee camps, urban storefronts, house churches, and persecuted communities.
Moreover, the economic model of theological education in the West frequently saddles aspiring ministers with debilitating debt. To require impoverished pastors to acquire degrees they can scarcely afford in order to serve communities that can scarcely pay is to perpetuate a system divorced from the economy of grace. If God is raising up Spirit-empowered preachers in the alleys of Lagos or the barrios of São Paulo, dare we say their formation is second-rate?
The Spirit of the Father, said Jesus, will give them words when they stand before rulers (Matt. 10:19–20). That promise was not made to the well-pedigreed, but to the willing and obedient.
4. Misusing Matthew 16:18: Propping Up Systems Jesus May Be Dismantling
Some defenders of seminary education invoke Matthew 16:18, “Upon this rock I will build my church”, as though it endorses contemporary institutional frameworks. But this is exegetically irresponsible. Jesus did not say, “I will build my seminary,” nor did he speak those words from the heart of Jerusalem’s temple. He said them near Caesarea Philippi, a region fraught with pagan shrines and imperial symbolism, signaling that His Church would be born in contested spaces, not protected ones.
To quote Christ’s promise of ecclesial endurance in defense of academic institutions is to confuse the organism with the organization. We must not become like the religious leaders whom Jesus rebuked for searching the Scriptures but refusing to come to Him (John 5:39–40). If Jesus is moving outside the structures we’ve built in His name, the right question is not, “How do we save the structure?” but “Are we still following the Lamb?”
5. “Faithful” Seminaries and the Presence of God
To say that “faithful seminaries are part of the Church” is only meaningful if we first define what faithfulness means. Institutional continuity does not equal divine presence. Solomon’s temple once housed God’s glory, but that glory departed (Ezek. 10). Jesus was raised in synagogues, but was ultimately rejected by them (Luke 4:29). The most transformative moments in early Christian history, Pentecost, Antioch, the missionary journeys, occurred not in centers of power but on the fringes.
A seminary may continue to offer courses in theology, ethics, and exegesis. Still, suppose it is animated more by accreditation boards and donor expectations than by the breath of the Spirit. In that case, it may retain form without power (2 Tim. 3:5). The question is not whether seminaries exist, but whether the Spirit abides within them.
6. Theological Education Is Thriving in the Wilderness
Ironically, while Western institutions decline, theological formation is flourishing globally, though not always in recognizable forms. In underground churches in China, among house gatherings in Iran, in oral communities throughout the Global South, and through digital platforms accessible from the most remote regions, discipleship is alive and well. These are not signs of decay but of divine creativity.
Jesus did not command His disciples to establish degree-granting institutions. He told them to make disciples (Matt. 28:19). That command is being fulfilled with fervor by Spirit-filled leaders who may never walk a seminary hallway. They preach, plant, and shepherd not because they’ve passed exams, but because they’ve been called and equipped by God.
7. Rethinking Stewardship: The Cost of Maintaining Systems
To assert that there is no better use of Christian wealth than the funding of seminaries is to raise urgent questions of stewardship. What if those funds were redirected to support indigenous pastors, translate Scripture into unreached languages, or feed the poor and disciple the broken-hearted? What if, like Jesus, we took nothing for the journey, no gold, silver, or copper (Matt. 10:9), and trusted God to supply what we need?
Jesus never sought endowments. He poured Himself into fishermen, tax collectors, and sinners, sending them out to heal, proclaim, and suffer for the kingdom. To follow Him is to loosen our grip on earthly securities, including institutions.
“Go, sell what you possess and give to the poor… and follow me.” —Matthew 19:21, ESV
Conclusion: Let Us Go to Him Outside the Camp
We may well be living in a moment when the Spirit is saying, “Leave the Temple.” That is not a call to nihilism or theological anti-intellectualism. Rather, it is a summons to discernment. When the Spirit moves, altars may fall, not in punishment, but in purification. The dismantling of certain seminaries may be God’s mercy, not His judgment.
Hebrews 13:13 beckons us: “Let us then go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured.” If Jesus is on the move, outside the gates, beyond the walls, among the least and the lost, why do we persist in shoring up what He may be leaving behind?
The question before us is not, How do we preserve the seminary? The question is: Where is the Lamb going, and will we follow Him?
Selected Bibliography
Holy Bible. King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987.
Holy Bible. English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Faith in Community. Translated by John W. Doberstein. New York: Harper & Row, 1954.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.
Tanner, Kathryn. Theology and the New Materialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2024.
Willimon, William H. Pastor: The Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002.
Interesting conundrum. We need seminaries to produce the scholars we need, while needing scholars to join the seminaries to do the work of producing them.
Thank you, Michael. More than half a century ago there was the song, Where have all the flowers gone? Today, it is Where have all the seminary students gone? In some ways, they have gone after one ideology or another. Talbot seems to be attracting students today.