Editor’s Note: This piece is a talk given at the Nigeria Baptist Convention Retreat in 2024. This retreat was a three-day meeting of members of the Board of Governors, presidents, and rectors covering all ten theological schools in the Nigeria Baptist system

Thank you for the invitation to share some thoughts about the mission and governance of schools of theology. My focus is on the context of theological education and governance challenges presented by those realities. This paper is intended for both school executives and board leaders, professionals ranging from educators and theologians to businesspeople, community leaders, and denominational guides. 

I draw on experience with dozens of schools of theology that I had the opportunity to serve and counsel as president of Scholar Leaders from 2010-22. In particular, I wish to draw on work conducted at Nigerian Baptist Theological Seminary (NBTS). And, as a trustee of Fuller Theological Seminary, I share directly in challenges that board members face. It is also important to note that my experience was enriched and shared with former colleagues and team members at Scholar Leaders. In Nigeria, these were Emmanuel Bellon, Evan Hunter, and Linzay Rinquest. In other contexts, they included Paul Cornelius, Taras Dyatlik, Wageeh Mikhail, Marcos Orison, and Lynn Simons. We learned a great deal from our thoughtful clients. 

Last time I checked, the project at NBTS with Scholar Leaders was viewed as a success, as Professor Emiola shared widely in Nigeria and I summarized for a global audience in this journal (Nihinlola 2020; Smith 2018). Coupled with intense support from the faculty and executive team, NBTS’s board of governors, the denomination, and many generous donors, our work at NBTS guided seven initiatives – including investments in facilities, the library, solar power, and education technology – that changed NBTS’s focus and trajectory. Along with the entire Scholar Leaders team, I am grateful to have served with the leaders of NBTS.

In this paper, I begin by describing my view of the mission of theological education, that it is twofold: first, of course, to form leaders for the church, and second, to host prophets who address the church and society. Each of these roles presents unique challenges for theological schools and their governance. I will then turn to other, more general and institutional considerations that bear directly on our governance responsibilities.

The Mission of Theological Education

The mission of a school of theology includes and is generally centered on ministerial training. I suggest, however, that there is even more to a theological school and that the entire package of roles demands oversight from the executive team and its board of governors. 

Like NBTS, many Majority World theological schools were formed by Western missionaries who devoted their lives to evangelism and church planting. As Jesus’s movement grew, those missionaries opened schools to train locals as pastors. They then trained some of the pastors to teach more pastors. Often, the Majority World church outgrew the availability of pastors because of shortages of teacher-trainers. That observation led to the creation of Scholar Leaders, Overseas Council, the Langham Partnership, and various projects within denominations. These organizations’ efforts focused primarily on one thing: training pastors.

In the past few decades, with the exception of guest faculty, most Western missionaries have left the field and turned schools over to local leaders. Those locals have matured as a well-educated and – due to being raised in the culture – uniquely-qualified and insightful faculty. Many are more effective in their context than any Westerner could hope to be. 

Meanwhile, national economies have grown and, with globalization, societies have changed. The church has matured, so that (for example) lay leaders are recognized as key leaders for small groups, and professionals who are interested in practicing their faith as doctors, businesspeople, lawyers, or public servants are recognized as legitimate audiences for theological training. Theological schools have a role to play in the formation of all these leaders, as well as in the formation of pastors and traditional congregational leaders.

The church needs thought leadership in addition to people leadership. A generation ago, many evangelicals shared a “finish-the-task” logic, which said that the church ought to preach the Gospel to every people group, convert many, equip leaders among them to inform and deepen believer commitment, count on believers to reform societies, and await Jesus’s imminent return. Preaching has occurred, the church has grown, and locals lead – but societies are not fully reformed and Jesus is not yet back. 

As Professor Emiola said to me on one of those Ogbomosho visits, reflecting on issues in the Nigerian church: “We are a majority Christian nation and the Nigerian church is growing. We Baptists are the largest denomination. Why is my country in the shape it is in?” He went on to discuss materialism and corruption, sexuality, creation care, peace-making, urbanization, and ministry among Muslim neighbors. (Please note: I am not singling out Nigeria for criticism. As an American living in Italy, I can raise comparable challenges about both of my countries.)

My point is that the church confronts substantial issues, unique to each context, and that good theology can guide our congregations and nations as we deal with those issues. The church needs prophets, those who can say, with Abraham Joshua Heschel, “not I love or I condemn, but God loves or God condemns,” those who “feel fiercely because they hear deeply” (Heschel 2021). Or, as N.T. Wright teaches us, “prophets are those who, from within the church, criticize those who also claim to be part of the church” (Wright 1992).

To sum up, at Scholar Leaders we learned, through work with dozens of theological schools, that the overall mission of theological education within the church is twofold: 

• to form leaders for the entire church, not just for congregations but for all those who are committed to and part of Jesus’ redemptive project, and 
• to host prophets who address the church and society with a divine perspective. 

These roles are becoming only more important. Recently, I developed this idea in an essay entitled “Mitered Seminaries?” (Smith 2023). My thesis there is that traditional oversight and guidance of congregations – most obviously by bishops – has lost ground. Yet Jesus’s people need active and constructive guidance on the issues that confront us each day. These range from practical matters like the role of the church in public education to human identity in the context of the LGBT+ movement. Words from the Book of Jobcome to mind: 

Where shall wisdom be found?
And where is the place of understanding? (28.12)

My challenge to leaders of theological schools is to supplement – certainly not to compete with – bishops and other formal church leaders by helping to shepherd God’s people. This effort includes, of course, the traditional role of forming leaders for ordination. It also includes prophetic roles classically associated with bishops: to resolve pressing theological issues for the church and society and to inspire and encourage church unity. Each school needs to choose its own mission and priorities, that to which it is called and which it is uniquely gifted to address. 

I will now turn to how definition, defense, and oversight of the mission can be reflected in the roles of a board of governors – the directors or trustees of the institution.

Mission #1: Form Leaders for the Church

Observing the wide range of roles within the church is not, of course, to suggest that every school should form students for every role. The mission of any single school will be narrower, as defined by the school’s executive leaders and board. They may ask:

• What sort of leaders do we intend to form for the church? Are we preparing pastors, community leaders, lay leaders, teachers for children and families, or school faculty? And for which part of the church?
• What do we mean by “form’? Is the intellectual challenge most essential? Are students in need of personal maturation? Spiritual guidance? Focus on a particular ministry? Do they understand how their calling fits within Jesus’s overall purposes? 

To answer these questions, contextual considerations are particularly important. First is the economic reality of theological education. School leaders often need to be reminded that – with few if any exceptions – a school loses cash on every theology student. On average, tuition at Majority World schools covers about 30% of costs (in the West it is typically 50-70%). The gap is filled by fundraising. Our institutions are economically fragile. Growth seems attractive until we have to pay for it.

A few years ago, before Russia launched its full-scale war, a Ukrainian school president observed that his school would accept almost anyone with basic qualifications and the ability to pay nominal tuition. After reflecting alongside the Scholar Leaders team, he began asking his admissions staff: “Are we willing to raise the money to pay for this student?” Framed that way, the question became much deeper than, “Can s/he do the academic work?” Instead, they considered the personal mission of the prospective student, their demonstrable aptitude for leadership, and the ability of the school to contribute to the student’s goals. Challenging economics highlight the need to select students who will benefit from the school’s limited resources for maximum impact in the church. 

Relatedly, I recall observing that NBTS hosted students from other denominations and asked Professor Emiola how NBTS thinks about subsidizing Anglican and Presbyterian students. My question was innocent, but he “received it as a sermon” and consulted with Dr. Ademola Ishola, then General Secretary of the Convention. They reflected on how NBTS could contribute to the church outside Nigerian and Baptist circles, affirming that, “Whatever we can do without over-stretching ourselves and weakening the home-front must be considered” (Ishola 2016). A challenge for boards and executive leaders is to balance stewardship with generosity. 

Another contextual challenge relates to changing congregational structures. Years ago, the church was often made up of congregations, each part of a denomination, not always but ideally led by a seminary-educated pastor. Now, growth in independent and loosely-defined Pentecostal movements challenges that model. Megachurches all over the world – Victory in Manila, Willow Creek near Chicago – overshadow traditional congregations in virtually every major city. These often feature a charismatic leader who may or may not have classical theological education. Megachurches typically have large and specialized staffs, with less need for each to have a general theology degree. As a result, demand for the traditional Master of Divinity and its equivalent is declining in favor of shorter, more focused programs. And everywhere there is concern about the cost and time required for theological education. A challenge for boards is to assure that programs offered by the school meet these kinds of congregations’ evolving needs. 

Third, as we all know, the Covid pandemic accelerated adoption of technology in theological education due to the obvious need for non-residential alternatives. It led to investments in internet networks and in educational techniques that are suited to distance education. At first, the need to work at a distance coupled with improved availability of new technology overwhelmed faculty and stirred student resistance. But now all leading schools offer something substantial online, up from only half of schools before Covid. Moreover, technology enables schools from one country to offer accredited, advanced programs entirely online to students in other countries. And institutions like Third Mill can disseminate curricula globally. Are these programs competitive with one another? Or are these options a tool, like books, for use by local faculties? And if so, how does this change the role of faculty? These factors present challenging questions for executive leaders and boards. 

Distance learning also challenges traditional approaches to the holistic formation of faculty and students.Cognitive learning – biblical theology, history, ethics, church practice, denominational distinctives – can readily be provided at a distance, facilitated by technology. The cognitive fits neatly within the self-concept of every school. Holistic formation, however, must consider not only the cognitive but:

• personal formation: maturity, wisdom, security, an accurate sense of one’s God-given gifts, weaknesses, psychological health; 
• spiritual formation: discernment, engaging oneself and others with theological insights and guidance, perception of how God is moving, experience of the Spirit’s fruits; and
• ecclesial formation: an understanding of how the calling and vocation of the leader and his/her community fits within Jesus’s global project. 

In residential programs, at their best, holistic formation has been the result of an intimate faculty-student-community relationship. At distance and over time, however, the formative community must be redefined, somehow facilitated by the student and/or the faculty. Much remains to be explored in this area, so boards must ensure not only that technology is available but that faculty and students are using it productively and that they are learning how to encourage holistic formation as they employ it.

Finally, because formation is for lifelong service, it requires continued development. The idea is captured in frequent references among educators to lifelong learning. NBTS recognizes this need in its annual gathering of graduates for encouragement, fellowship, and training. However, in our experience most schools define enrollment by degree program rather than by some measure of its historical community. Few have active alumni program; many do not even have an up-to-date alumni list. This leads to an obvious question: Is lifelong learning just a slogan or is it an objective? If we are serious about the practice of church leadership, will it not be reflected in a lifelong commitment to students and faculty?

Mission #2: Host Prophets Who Address the Church and Society

I will illustrate the principle of the theological institution hosting prophets with the unfolding story of our friends in Ukraine. In the midst of Euromaidan (2013) and the Russian aggression that followed (2014), the Ukrainian Evangelical Theological Seminary (UETS) focused on developing a robust Biblical theology of citizenship and national identity. Research, curricula, and guest lectures reflected the emphasis. When Russia began its full-scale invasion in February 2022, the faculty and administration – along with others of a similar spirit, consistent with their developing theology – spoke boldly and truthfully about events as they ministered to civilians and soldiers. 

Because we are friends and long-time colleagues, I am one of many who receive postings each day from these modern prophets. They share vivid stories of fear, death, and destruction, ranging from soldiers leaving their families as they go to war, to the death of children, to concern for those at risk of hunger. Russian evil – including dishonest rhetoric, indiscriminate attacks, violations of the vulnerable – is shared and clearly labelled, as are “Russian World” theological distortions and the hypocrisy of those who defend the invasion by referring to Russia’s focus on “traditional Christian values.” Photos of Russian Orthodox priests blessing missiles about to be fired at Ukraine remind us of Isaiah’s sarcastic references to those who carve their own gods. As readers, we are called to prayer each day and even encouraged by the Scriptures (Isaiah 44; Psalm 126). Through it all, these Ukrainian leaders reflect theologically as they teach students, viewing their conditions as raw material for formative theology. Their theologically-informed prophetic voice is devastatingly specific to their context.

For obvious reasons Ukraine is very much on my mind, but there are other inspiring examples. In Lebanon, the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary works with Muslims for the common good, a mission reflected in everything from publications to faculty recruiting. In Brazil, the faculty of South American Theological Seminary encourage, guide, and celebrate student ministries to outcasts ranging from prostitutes to politicians. In each case, school leaders follow their prayerfully-informed view of Jesus’ purposes in their context. 

So school leaders must ask: What prophetic challenges face the church where I am working? Every context is uniquely challenged, of course, but in my experience two themes recur consistently in the Majority World (Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America). 

The first relates to corruption within the church and society and its detrimental impact on human flourishing. Within the church, the so-called prosperity gospel – pray and give and God will bless you materially – is a prominent example. Although rooted in a constructive call for disciplined lives and the hope that such discipline will lead to steadily improved economic conditions, it too-often involves a transactional mentality encouraged by pastors who take advantage of parishioners. More generally, any development economist can demonstrate that corruption has locked in haves and have-nots all over the Majority World. People are not inherently more corrupt in these states than in the West, but Western law is better developed, and the human consequences of misappropriating millions in Lagos or Lahore is simply more severe than in London or Los Angeles. 

A second recurrent theme relates to religions. The Majority World is home to 97% of Muslims, 99% of Hindus, about 98% of Buddhists – and 60-65% of Christians, often as a numerical minority. About half of Scholar Leaders’ partner schools are in contexts in which religious expression is legally restricted and/or related to civil unrest, such as Egypt, India, Kenya, Lebanon, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and parts of Nigeria. Through extensive experience in Muslim-Christian exchange, we have witnessed the ability of gifted Christian theologians to encourage Jesus-followers and advance the common good in challenging environments. However, in the Majority World we can count on the fingers of two hands well-qualified Christian-Muslim interlocutors  – those who are grounded in their faith, motivated by love for neighbors, and deeply understand a very different faith. 

Within Christianity, ecumenical relations in the Majority World typically seem even more limited than in the West. We often learn that local Evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders do not know one another. When Orthodox are in the mix, as in Eastern Europe, Egypt, and Ethiopia, the situation is similar. If we are serious about church unity, leaders must be able to bridge within-the-faith divides. Professor Emiola rightly emphasizes “preservation of evangelical identity, [including] personal conversion and a vigorous moral life, the Bible as the true revelation of God to guide conviction and behavior, zeal to disseminate the Christian faith, and emphasis on the crucifixion of Jesus and resurrection… so that we can stand against the growing liberalism, materialism, nominalism and post-modernism of our age” (Nihinlola 2020). But those gifts and distinctives do not prohibit cooperation with other communions.

In the Majority World, another prophetic challenge is to be very careful about importing Western issues. Creation care, for example, poses very different questions to a subsistence farmer in Guatemala than to a software engineer in California. Gender and sexuality issues, now predominant in the West, have been pushed by Western descendants of missionaries to Ethiopia, where the issue is not prominent. Exporting Western concerns is at worst a new form of colonialism, to be resisted. 

As a positive example, consider Professor Emiola’s list for NBTS: materialism and corruption, sexuality, creation care, peace-making, urbanization, and ministry among Muslim neighbors. If executive leaders and boards agree, these priorities will be reflected in faculty recruitment and development, research and writing, student recruiting, curriculum and student formation, guest lectures – and in the agendas of board meetings.

A few general words about strategy and competitive context

For about thirty years, before leading Scholar Leaders, I was a business consultant to multinational corporations. My focus was on strategy, a term used for many things these days but originally a military term to denote development and placement of assets before engagement. That is how I would like to use it here to ask: How do we intend to develop and deploy our assets to advance Jesus’s redemptive purposes? 

Effective strategy demands first that we understand our markets and competitors. If we provide value to a market and do so in a manner that is meaningfully differentiated from other suppliers, all other problems can be overcome. On the other hand, if value is low or our offer is not unique, we will not succeed no matter how hard we try. These are universal principles, applicable to theological education as well as to business. 

Allow me to illustrate strategic focus with something a little dated: vaccinations for Covid. The first vaccine to be available in quantity in West Africa was from Astra-Zeneca in March 2021. Next came new technology vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, then one from Johnson & Johnson. Astra Zeneca is highly effective, its side effects are significant but manageable, it requires two injections, and it can be preserved in a refrigerator. Pfizer and Moderna also require two injections, are slightly more effective with milder side effects, but must be preserved in special freezers at low temperature. Johnson & Johnson is slightly less effective than the others, can be preserved in a refrigerator, and requires only a single injection. Sputnik was also available but with weak clinical support; it required two injections and freezing. In sum, Astra-Zeneca was the first available; Pfizer and Moderna seemed superior but required special handling available only in major cities; and Johnson & Johnson provided easiest administration especially for remote locations. It is not surprising that in Ghana, for instance, by the summer of 2022, Astra Zeneca had been administered over 10 million times, to about half of those who were vaccinated. Of the remainder, Pfizer and Moderna split the vaccinated population evenly with Johnson & Johnson (Ghana Health Services 2022).

It may seem odd to focus on vaccines, but theological education is similar. The overall need is great because there is nothing more important than drawing people into Jesus’s redemptive project and equipping them to contribute to it. No school can provide all the formative education and host all the required prophets. Therefore, we need to look carefully at our context, discern its most pressing needs, consider what the church offers or can offer, and then decide on the unique role of our institution. This is hard work. 

My favorite proverb seems made for executive and board leaders: 

Wars are won by skillful strategy,
and victory is the fruit of detailed planning. (24.5-6)

Once more, UETS provides a dramatic example as its faculty and staff are pressed into intense, hands-on service by the war. Two additional examples come immediately to mind: Colombo Theological Seminary in Sri Lanka and the Evangelical Theological Seminary of Cairo in Egypt. All three schools have developed strategies that reflect a unique context and the specific gifts of their faculty. 

Colombo was formed to train pastors after a movement of the Spirit in Sri Lanka led to rapid church growth in the 1970s. Their model is part-time education for full-time, employed pastors. General Sri Lankan educational levels are low, which is reflected in curricula and pedagogical styles. They involve senior pastors in the holistic formation of junior pastors. Instruction is in English, Sinhala, and Tamil. Furthermore, as is appropriate for their context, popular Buddhist preachers provide a contextual model for Christian preaching. And in the wake of war and unrest, a theology of peace-building is a priority. 

The school in Cairo was founded by Presbyterian missionaries in 1863 as a floating school on the Nile. Now located in central Cairo, it is rooted in formal, residential education, especially for pastors for the Upper Nile. Considering growth in Cairo and the varied interests of younger students, the school has extended its programs to non-residential students and included non-formal education. Reflecting their context, many faculty focus on the history of Christianity and Christian-Muslim relations in Egypt.

Concluding thoughts 

From experience and with this framework, I recommend that Nigerian executives and boards of theological schools ask the following questions as they consider how to form Christian leaders and how to host Christian prophets: 

• For the system: Where should we be forming faculty in various disciplines? Where should we be forming pastors? chaplains? Where and how should we be contributing to the formation of lay leaders who wish to reflect their faith in professional practice? Are there specific challenges we should be addressing on behalf of the church? 
• At each school: What are primary challenges in this region? What are other schools doing related to those challenges? Which faculty are capable of contributing in new and powerful ways to those challenges? How might the most promising faculty be encouraged and developed? Who are the prospective students we most hope to reach?
• Technology: How might it best be deployed in the system? Does technology offer new opportunities for cooperation between schools regionally, nationally, or even globally? 
• Holistic formation: How might we develop our pedagogical practices to encourage holistic formation of faculty and students, especially considering use of technology?
• Lifelong learning: How might we continue to contribute to the development of faculty and alumni? What challenges are they facing, and what would they most value?
  

All these comments relate to the mission of the school as part of the church, as arms and legs for Jesus’s redemptive project. Schools are part of the church, not simply in service to the church, with a specific mission within the church. Schools are not opposed to the secular academy but do have a specific mission within the academic guild. Throughout, the church is primary because Jesus’s redemptive project is primary.

Author Bio: Larry A. Smith is president emeritus of Scholar Leaders. He is a board member of the Institute for Religion & Public Life, publisher of First Things, and a trustee of Fuller Theological Seminary. He and his author-wife, Victoria, live in central Italy.

References

Ghana Health Services. “COVID-19, Ghana’s Outbreak Response Management Updates.” July 31, 2022.

Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Thunder in the Soul, To Be Known by God. Plough Publishing House, 2021. 27-32.

Ishola, Ademola. “NBTS, A Gift to Other Evangelical Churches.” January 10, 2016.

Nihinlola, Emiola. “NBTS VSI Experience”, for the gathered presidents of theological schools in Nigeria, March 2020.

–. “Evangelical Theological Education in Africa: Some Critical Issues and an Agenda.” A talk for school leaders gathered by ACTEA. March 2020. 

Smith, Larry A. “In Pursuit of Sustainability: Strategy & Planning for Theological Education.” InSights Journal for Global Theological Education 4.1 (November 2018).

–. “Mitered Seminaries?” Now to God Who Is Able: Vocation, Justice, and Ministry: Essays in Honor of Mark Labberton, ed. Presa and Zaki. 2023. 117-28.

Wright, N.T. The New Testament & The People of God. Volume 1. Fortress, 1992. 283.