Seminaries Welcoming More Women

Probably because of an influx of women, seminary enrollments are rising. Totals for the current year, based on fall enrollment, show 36,830 students in the 192 institutions accredited by the American Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. That is an 8.1 per cent increase over last year. It is more than double the 3.5 per cent rise in undergraduate college enrollment reported in the annual statistics compiled by the University of Cincinnati.

The preliminary AATS reports for 1974–75 speaks of the latest enrollment as a “substantial increase.” It notes that for the past several years enrollment has tended to rise only 1 or 2 per cent and goes on to say:

All of the increase and more is in professional programs, since graduate students (except for D.Min., which is classified “professional”) declined 126 persons. The precise data on program increases will not be available until the computer work for the Fact Book is finished, but the growth is apparently spread across several degree programs.

The Fact Book is an analysis published by the AATS on the basis of reports submitted by its member institutions. The AATS is the recognized accrediting agency for seminaries in the United States and Canada. Among its members are a number of Catholic and some Jewish schools.

A key factor is the growth of the Doctor of Ministry program, which enables working pastors to take courses part-time, do a thesis, and add a D.Min. to their basic M.Div. (Alternatively, new students can go straight through in a four-year program for the D.Min.) In 1972 twenty-nine schools reported D.Min. programs with 1,519 enrolled. In 1974 the totals had about doubled to fifty-seven schools with 3,176 enrolled.

Perhaps the most interesting statistic to look for in the new Fact Book is how many women are now enrolled in seminaries. Until recent years, there were few, and the AATS has been collecting data on the sex of theological-school students for only three years. Its analysis last year noted that for this reason “no trends may be reported” but went on to say:

The most obvious change is the sharp increase in numbers of women enrolled, up from 3,358 last year to 4,550. Even when a special non-degree program offered by one school and enrolling more than five hundred women is discounted, the increase is still quite evident. An additional 240 women are registered in the one and two year professional programs, as well as an even larger rise in the special and unclassified category.

The report last year said the largest change was in three-and four-year programs leading to ordination:

Here women increased from 1,077 to 1,484 candidates (plus 37.8 per cent). Even with the influx of D. Min. students (who are included in this category) there was an actual reduction of almost two hundred men preparing for ordination. The slight over-all increase is explained totally by the 407 additional women registrants.

Given the impetus of the recent controversy over ordination of women and the intensive women’s movement in general, new statistics are expected to reflect an increasingly greater percentage of female enrollment, particularly in theologically liberal seminaries. Evangelical seminaries, a small but growing minority in the AATS, have not been as responsive—or have not had as many female applicants. Some will not even admit women. Among these is Dallas Seminary, which is not accredited by the AATS but has regional accreditation and is highly respected for its academic standards within its avowedly dispensational orientation. Dallas recently opened summer sessions to women but reaffirmed its policy of not admitting them in fall or spring semesters or to programs leading to the Th.M., S.T.M., and Th.D. degrees. Its enrollment is nonetheless growing steadily.

Not many generalizations can be made about seminary enrollment over the last two decades—that is, after the post-war surge. About a third of the seminaries accredited by the AATS have had steadily declining enrollments. But some seminaries, especially among those known for their evangelical doctrinal stand, have experienced a long-term growth. Among these are Asbury, Fuller, and Gordon-Conwell. Yale and Harvard are also holding up well, the latter with more students now than it has ever had. Princeton and San Francisco, both leading Presbyterian seminaries, have also been growing. Union in New York, once a great citadel of liberal theological thought, has fallen upon lean days, one casualty of which was a forty-five-year-old school of sacred music. Its successor is an Institute of Sacred Music at Yale, an interdisciplinary venture based jointly in the university’s School of Music and in the Divinity School and aided by an Irwin Foundation endowment.

Subsidies For Students

Most evangelical theological seminaries in Europe and North America have some scholarship aid to offer nationals from overseas, but not nearly enough to meet the need. Many overseas evangelicals who want theological training must get financial help from other sources and are directed to seminaries where their evangelical beliefs are likely to be undermined if not destroyed. When graduates of non-evangelical seminaries return home, they often take with them views that help to push national churches to the left of the theological spectrum. With this there usually goes a loss of evangelistic zeal and the substitution of political and social action for gospel proclamation.

No one can blame students for accepting scholarships to non-evangelical schools when no alternative is available. They are not likely to realize the subtle ways in which they can be educated away from their orthodox beliefs. There is a need for evangelicals of wealth to make enough money available to theologically orthodox seminaries that they can accept competent students who cannot pay their own way. Now, with the effects of inflation, the need is greater than ever.

A Threatening Citation

One of America’s independent Christian colleges was cited recently by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly refusing to hire an applicant because he was not a Christian. Basically the charge springs from the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although an executive order signed by Richard Nixon when he was president may well become an integral part of the problem too.

Sections 702 and 703 (e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act specifically exclude educational institutions that are “in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association or society.…” But now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is arguing that the language of the act is too general and too vague and that it contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment. It apparently wishes to choose this argument over against the clear language of the First Amendment, which says that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.

The college is fighting the case vigorously, since the commission’s stand involves the separation of church and state and threatens the theological integrity of every Christian institution. If the decision prevails, no Christian school could refuse an atheist, an agnostic, a Buddhist, or a Hindu a place on its faculty on the grounds of incompatible beliefs.

President Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order that guarded the hiring rights of religious institutions against governmental interference even if the institutions were contractors or sub-contractors with the government. Nixon countermanded this order with his own providing that if an institution has any kind of contractor or subcontractor relation with the government it cannot discriminate in its employment practices by refusing to hire a person to its faculty or staff because of his religious beliefs. This executive order and the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission go far beyond the Civil Rights Act or its intention and become legislative action by fiat.

President Gerald Ford should immediately return to the Johnson view by issuing his own executive order, and the Congress of the United States should amend the Civil Rights Act to guarantee that no agency will be permitted to defeat the intention of the Civil Rights Act, which frees religious institutions to hire only people of their own persuasion. This is their intrinsic right under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

For The Love Of Life

An unexpectedly large turnout for the second annual “March for Life” in Washington last month gave lawmakers first-hand evidence of the growing public resentment of the U. S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision against anti-abortion statutes. More than 25,000 persons risked winter weather hazards to come to the capital and let the government know how strongly they feel the need for corrective legislation.

The growth of the pro-life movement has been striking; if you doubt that, just ask the opposition. But what is perhaps even more encouraging than the numerical increase of the active pro-life ranks is the way their approach to the abortion problem has been maturing. No longer can they be dismissed as a group of cold-hearted Catholics simply taking orders from the Pope. Events connected with this year’s march reflected a scope of concern far beyond the fetus. The focus is still upon the rights of the unborn child, but Protestants and Jews are joining with Catholics in taking important new initiatives to deal with the moral pressures that are influencing many to condone abortion.

Pro-life people are now taking a much more active interest in the problem of hunger, for example. A spokesman for American Citizens Concerned for Life announced that enough money had been raised in the first three weeks of 1975 to purchase five tons of rice for starving people in the sub-Sahara. At an interdenominational prayer breakfast that ACCL helped to sponsor, Senator Mark Hatfield announced that he and Senator James Buckley were reintroducing a resolution extending the “right of life … to all human beings including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development irrespective of age, health, function or condition of dependency.”

The point is that those who argue that the fetus must be allowed to live also need to involve themselves with the problems that the individual may face after birth. That’s when “pro-life” really comes to mean what it says.

Scientific Fakers

“Until recently,” says the noted microbiologist Ernest Borek, “cheating was a rare blemish on the generally high code of ethics among scientists.” But with the advent of the nuclear age and space travel vast sums have become available for research, and with these great new temptations for doctoring data. In a recent New York Times column Borek cited two incidents of unethical conduct in medical research laboratories—one at the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and one at Harvard. He commented, “Unfortunately, those of us in the biological sciences know that these two cases are but the tip of the iceberg.” More and more scientific chicanery is finding its way even into first-rate journals.

Here from what some would consider an unexpected quarter comes fresh corroboration of the biblical truth that the love of money is a root of evil. According to Borek, competition for grants and rewards has fostered not only cheating but “ambulance chasing” in science. “Some scientists who lack the originality or self-confidence to make discoveries on their own scan a field like so many predators and pounce on someone else’s discovery and with rapid publication try to make it their own.”

Situation ethics is a likely culprit in this evil trend. A scientist can logically argue that by breaking the “rules” against deceit he is showing his profound love for humanity: greater research funding will alleviate human suffering, and so why not waive the code to open the purse?

True biblical ethics challenges such reasoning. New Testament teaches equality before the law. No one is free to engage in wrong-doing.

Measuring Change

One of the evils that forever lurk in the hearts of men is the longing for progress, progress usually being synonymous with change.

Quite apart from the possible merits of the metric system, it seems likely that its present promotion in North America gains strength from this longing for change. A public school that is in the process of moving to the metric system has chalked on a blackboard:

Foot by foot and yard by yard

We find old systems in discard.

Giving way to metric meters

Kilograms and milliliters.

The clue to this trochaic doggerel lies in the word old. We’ll have only the latest … nothing old-fashioned for us … everything must be new, efficient, easy … clear away the rubbish of the past.

It was this spirit in part that gave us some of the theological wonders of this century: a God too great to help anyone, too good to interfere with evil, and too remote to matter.

Unfortunately, truth has a way of being old, cumbersome, and hard. Justification by faith is as old as Abraham, and monotheism is older. Trinitarian theology is hard by any accounting. And it would be difficult to conceive of anything more cumbersome than the Church—yet it is the body of Christ, the very creation of our Lord for doing his work on earth.

Sift carefully the rubbish of the past. It may have treasures unmatched even by the promises of the future.

Rice Is For Eating

Roman Catholic archbishop Jaime L. Sin of Manila has issued a simple reminder: rice is a basic food, and there is not enough of it to go around, so why waste rice by showering it on newlyweds? Forgoing the custom would not save much rice but it would help a little in consciousness-raising. Unless the well-fed get under the burden of the fact that millions are starving, little improvement in the food problem can be expected.

Hatfield On Hunger

United States Senator Mark Hatfield is calling upon fellow Christians to undertake extra measures of compassion during the current Lenten season. In a twenty-four-point action program, he specifically suggests periods of fasting and acts of service. “Skip at least one meal a week,” Hatfield urges, “and give instead at least one dollar for that meal to a relief agency involved in feeding the hungry.… Feed pets more table scraps instead of commercial pet foods.”

In view of the worldwide food shortage and the fact that approximately 60 per cent of Americans are overweight, we commend the senator’s proposals. They represent, as he puts it, “another way of teaching ourselves how to identify with the poor.”

American Christians should be careful not to presume, however, that they will have fulfilled their obligations with a bit of Lenten sacrifice. The long-term solutions are very complex, and sometimes short-term measures simply make problems worse. An example is the wave of unemployment that resulted when people started buying fewer cars. Indeed, the situation can get so confused that we are tempted to do nothing, and that is the worst of the alternatives. Senator Hatfield has shown some leadership in the hunger problem, and his suggestions merit support and action.

The Cia In The Spotlight

First it was Watergate; then it was the FBI; now it is the CIA. The New York Times broke the story, charging the Central Intelligence Agency with spying on American citizens and collecting dossiers on thousands of them illegally and beyond the limits laid down for the agency by Congress.

It is by no means clear how far the CIA may have gone in simply collecting material on American citizens nor whether the thousands of people the Times refers to were actually spied on. The President has appointed a committee to investigate the matter; human nature being what it is, after the report is issued people will probably continue to believe what they want to believe as they did at the time of the Warren Report on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The friends of the CIA won’t believe a bad report, and its foes will reject a good one.

Every great nation maintains a spy network, and all of them interfere, one way or another, in the internal affairs of other nations. The reason for this is, of course, that each nation has its own national interests, and these sometimes conflict with the national interests of other nations. It is the business of a nation to preserve its sovereignty and maintain its position and role in the world, but with as little aggressiveness as possible.

In a world ruled by force and governed by unregenerate men, men and nations do not act the way the Sermon on the Mount says they should. There are Americans who have trafficked with the enemies of the nation and in their operations have worked outside the United States. Why the CIA should not involve itself with people of this sort is not clear. But if it spied on Americans who have had no such connections, then it overstepped its boundaries.

However, an agency needed by the nation in a wicked world should not be eliminated because it has made mistakes. We are especially concerned with the attitude of some churchmen who would like to see the CIA killed off. They suggest that interference in the affairs of other nations to support governments or to bring them down is wrong. These same people, however, openly interfere in the internal affairs of other nations for precisely the same reason, although they may be on opposite sides from the CIA. It is regrettable that the nation needs an agency like the CIA, but it does, and the CIA has a congressional mandate. Churches, on the other hand, have no mandate from God to do the same kind of thing some churchmen blast the CIA for doing.

Giving Do’S Their Due

Christians are often accused of being “legalists.” This accusation is not normally intended to fault them for trying to be law-abiding citizens; presumably, most Americans are fed up with illegal behavior, whether on the streets or in high levels of business and government. “Legalist” as applied to the Christian has to do with behavior as it relates not to the law of the state but to the law of God. Those who disapprove of most or all of such practices as gambling, profanity, smoking, drinking, extra-marital sexual relations, abortion, divorce, and theater attendance are common targets for the charge of legalism.

It is noteworthy that much of the Apostle Paul’s writing is concerned with keeping—or reclaiming—Christians from legalism. Yet these same writings are appealed to as a divinely inspired basis for refraining from the kind of activities mentioned above! We need to recognize, and learn to live with, the paradox in Paul’s appeal.

Consider, for example, Galatians 5:1–23. Paul begins by warning the Christians against giving up their freedom by becoming legalists: “Do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (v. 1). But before long we find Paul exhorting, “Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be slaves of one another” (v. 13). Paul condemns one kind of slavery but commands another kind. Similarly, legalism—in the sense of strong concern for obedience to God—is not wrong: the error comes in our understanding of what laws are really God’s laws, and in the attitudes with which we attempt to keep his laws. Paul, following his and our Lord, declares emphatically that “the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ ” (v. 14).

In the well-known passage that follows, Paul does not shrink from providing an incomplete list of “don’ts” or taboos: “immorality, impurity, licentiousness … jealousy, anger, selfishness … envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like” (vv. 19–21). The Apostle himself would doubtless be a “legalist” in the eyes of most of those who hurl the charge at Christians today. Yet at least three aspects of Paul’s teaching distinguish it from the “legalism” that he warns against. First, obedience to God’s law, though important, is in no way the basis of our acceptance as righteous by God. We are saved by grace through faith, not by law-keeping (vv. 4, 5). Second, the Pauline taboos include not only specific practices, such as fornication or drunkenness, but attitudes, such as jealousy, anger, and selfishness. Often Christians show far more concern about the former than the latter. And some make matters worse by claiming biblical sanction for questionable taboos (such as a prohibition against card-playing). Third, Paul is more concerned with the positive side, what a Christian does in the course of displaying love of neighbor, than in the negative side of what a Christian does not do. Consider the well-known list of the fruits of the Spirit: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (vv. 22, 23).

Christians probably cannot avoid the epithet of “legalist” altogether if they want to be obedient to God’s revealed standards. But they can certainly blunt the charge if, with the Apostle Paul, they are as eager to avoid wrong attitudes as wrong deeds, and are even more eager to display the positive fruits of the Spirit in both attitude and action.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.