It had been my hope when I wrote “The Best of Times the Worst of Times for the LCMS Seminaries,” that it would start a Synod-wide dialog on how best to organize our residential seminaries to ensure that they continued to be a source of academic pride for the Synod. Sadly, despite initially hopeful responses[1], the discussion quickly devolved into defensiveness about why one seminary or the other should stay open and the overall benefits of residential seminary education versus non-residential education.

Even those misguided arguments have now run their course with a joint statement released by the president of synod, the presidents of each residential seminary, and other pastoral education leaders.[2] The talk of “closing a seminary” had apparently become detrimental to the financial support of our residential seminaries and, as such, they write, “We desire that the speculation referenced above would end and that all in our Synod would continue to support our seminaries in Fort Wayne and St. Louis with prayer, prospective student referrals, and monetary offerings.” Only the Synod in convention can close a seminary. There are no plans for this to happen. The status quo of two residential seminaries should continue. Discussion over.

As one who first publically raised the issue of “closing” a residential seminary, I cannot help but feel a sense of disappointment at this response given by our synodical leaders. While it is certainly important for our synod’s leadership to continue to call for the support of each of our residential seminaries, to dismiss any talk about how best to provide residential seminary education as “detrimental to the mission of our seminaries,” misses the point. Failing to fully explore whether the current structure of two residential seminaries is the best way of providing residential seminary education simply because of the potential damage it might cause to the status quo is mad-hatterish in its logic.

My proposal was not to close one seminary diminishing by one-half our capacity to provide residential seminary education, it was to consolidate the two seminaries into one healthier institution which could better provide the high-quality residential seminary education that our Synod and its members deserve. Moreover, it was a call for our synod to recognize the changing nature of residential seminary education[3] and to investigate how best to meet those challenges before finances ultimately limit the options available to us. In short, it was a call to assist our residential seminary education in fulfilling its mission to not simply be the best that our current fiscal or organizational circumstances will allow, but to be the best that we can be regardless of structure of the institution.

I strongly believe that our seminaries are doing the best job that they can in educating the future pastors of our church, given the resources that are currently at their disposal. Our church should certainly be proud of both of our seminaries and their leadership. But at what point are two residential seminaries no longer sustainable? How many cuts of faculty can be made before the quality of education begins to suffer?[4] How much deferred maintenance can be put off before the quality of the institution begins to suffer? How much can faculty be overworked both as seminary professors and teachers/leaders for the wider church before we diminish their capacity to provide genuine theological leadership both in teaching and in publishing in an age where this is more critical than ever? At what point are the cuts no longer sustainable? A balanced budget is not always an indicator of institutional health or of faithfulness to an institution’s mission.

Given the challenging  climate of higher education and the exponential rise in cost of providing residential seminary education, at what point do the cuts reach a level where we say two bare-bones seminaries are no longer better off than one fully staffed seminary? To ask the question now is not to be disloyal to synod, our seminaries, or their overworked faculties– it is the opposite. It is to show genuine, real concern for our continued capacity to provide high-quality residential seminary education. The question should not be how to keep our two seminaries open, it should be how to provide high-quality residential seminary education. If it is with two residential seminaries - great. If not, then alternatives should be explored. But the focus should always be upon the mission of the institutions rather than upon the perpetuation of the institutions themselves.