Kevin Bauder on the future of fundamentalist education

I appreciate this article. I have evolved over the past nearly eight years I’ve been on SI. I am now comfortably in the conservative evangelical phase of my metamorphesis. But, I qualify this by noting that, by “conservative evangelical,” I really mean something like “historic fundamentalism.” But, because that term is meaningless, I’ll own the conservative evangelical label.

I find this ironic, because I’m a graduate from Maranatha Seminary and a DMin student at Central Seminary. I chose to go to Central for a DMin shortly before I wrote the linked article, above. Why would I do that? Pretty simple; I know some of the folks at Central on a superficial level and felt comfortable learning more from them. I think we’re on the same general page.

This brings me to another question = what does a balanced, fundamentalist institution offer that a conservative evangelical one does not?

• I gave my son a short list of universities we could afford and assist him with payments for in pursuit of a BA in elementary education. On the list was Boyce and Faith Baptist Bible College. Both are regionally accredited. I’d prefer Boyce, but I’d be perfectly happy if he took Faith.
• He plans to go to Seminary afterwards. For a variety of reasons, he’s ruled out Maranatha. He’d be comfy at Faith. I’d prefer he went to Western Reformed Seminary, the local Bible Presbyterian institution for the Northwest that’s 30 mins away from our home. Why? The short answer is that, if you’re gonna have an “issue” that’s important for you, I’d prefer my son get graduate theological training from an institution where “the thing” is the sovereignty of God in a Reformed context rather than a particular expression of dispensationalism. And, Western Reformed’s president pastors the church across the street from mine and I’ve preached in their chapel.

Is there a compelling reason, beyond “separation,” that I ought to encourage my son to choose Faith, Central or Detroit instead of SBTS or MBTS? What are fundamentalist institutions offering that conservative evangelical ones are not?

That’s a very difficult question to answer. I think that’s one reason why fundamentalist institutions are dying. If you attempt to broaden the base, you face cries of “compromise” from a constituency that was likely nurtured in an environment where conservative evangelicals were often “the enemy.” So, you can’t win.

[TylerR]

This brings me to another question = what does a balanced, fundamentalist institution offer that a conservative evangelical one does not?

A more conservative dress code and student handbook.

They offer many things: smaller class sizes, more personalized attention, lower tuition costs, etc. But most importantly, they offer in-depth teaching on the distinctive ecclesiology of independent (or Regular) Baptists and an introduction into the larger world of independent Baptist leaders, churches and institutions—connections that will become really valuable later on.

If you want to be a Bible Presbyterian pastor or missionary, then by all means, go to one of their schools. If you want to spend the rest of your life ministering in the SBC, then go to one of their schools. But if your desire is to become an independent or Regular Baptist pastor or missionary, you need to go to one of their schools.

Brandon wrote:

smaller class sizes, more personalized attention, lower tuition costs, etc.

Not necessarily. Boyce is substantially more affordable than Clarks Summitt or Cedarville. The small class size may be a creative euphamism for low enrollment. I’m certain they’d take higher enrollment if they could get it.

But most importantly, they offer in-depth teaching on the distinctive ecclesiology of independent (or Regular) Baptists

There is no distinctive ecclesiology about Regular Baptists. None. Can you think of something other than separation, which is really not a thing in the GARBC but is an emphasis in the FBGFI-esque schools?

and an introduction into the larger world of independent Baptist leaders, churches and institutions—connections that will become really valuable later on

You can get much of this by being active in the local Baptist association. This last selling point you mentioned may be the best that can be said. But, is brand loyalty enough? I doubt it. I suspect this is one reason for the decline of fundamentalist institutions. Young men see they don’t have to stay in their own orbit in order to get a conservative biblical education.

Let me ask the same question another way = is there any reason for fundamentalist institutions to exist, today? If so, what is that reason(s)? I think that is the real question.

Clarks Summit (aka Baptist Bible Seminary) has been bleeding seminary students for a while. They are choosing to go to SBTS and other conservative evangelical seminaries instead.

I must say that, despite the impression I may be giving in my posts above, I think it’s important to support the institutions in your orbit. I will be very happy if my son chooses Faith, in Iowa. I want to support Regular Baptist institutions. I think we’re stronger if we support one another. I want to support Regular Baptist institutions because I value the association and how it leverages the resources of local churches as we work together. I love Regular Baptists because they have a forward-looking ethos; they aren’t about separation but about fostering fruitful local churches. That’s outstanding.

Clarks Summit is somewhere I’d love to have my son go, but it’s just too expensive. Much of this may have to do with geography and forces quite beyond Clarks Summit’s control. I understand. I’m choosing to do four Hebrew courses through them beginning this Fall, because I value Regular Baptist institutions.

Maybe, maybe not. The first thing that comes to mind is that if indeed the main reason (per Brandon) is to get connections in the IFB/GARBC world, then the argument for fundamental colleges and universities really boils down to “tribalism”. With Tyler, I really don’t see that much difference in terms of ecclesiology between the two camps, as they’re both broadly congregational associations with two ordinances, two offices, etc..

Separation? Well, maybe, but we might note that conservative evangelicals separate as well—and on both sides of the spectrum. They’ll separate from KJVO advocates and theological liberals, which is how it should be, in my view. We might quibble over precisely where the boundaries of fellowship ought to be, but those boundaries are there for conservative evangelicals.

Tom really nails the major differences that I see; differences in applications. You’ll get somewhat different views on music, attire, permissible enjoyments, and the like between the two (very broadly defined ) “camps”, and there are two huge issues with this.

First, Colossians 2:23 makes it clear that rules like “do not touch” and “do not taste” do not bring about holiness. Second, it often seems that dogmatism about these rules, especially in light of often contrary Biblical evidence, is the tip of an iceberg of teaching students what to think instead of how. Either one can be tremendously harmful to faith.

….is the thought that a “slow time” for those schools who have the prospect of surviving tough times gives them a bit of available time to figure out which things really are important, and which are not, and how to make important changes without totally alienating their support bases.

Personally, I’m persuaded from my observations—admittedly only anecdotal evidence—that there are a fair number of young people interested in ministering to their friends and neighbors, but by and large, they’re not terribly interested in following the fundamental models they’ve seen. Perhaps it is a matter of persuasion, or perhaps it is a matter of admitting that Scripture doesn’t really say what we’ve been saying for a while. Either way, no time like the present to start thinking things through. As Deming noted, survival is not mandatory.

What would attract outside students to such an institution? That question has many answers. Smaller classes. Personal attention and care. Professors who combine pastoral experience with rigorous academics. Course structures that are designed for the convenience of students and not administrators. Genuine devotion to God. Commitment to Scripture. Theological sobriety. Prioritizing the local church and its ministry. In short, excellence.

Bauder’s specific question here, however, focuses on how fundamentalist institutions could attract students outside of fundamentalism.

Looking through his list, I see some excellent features… that aren’t going to work.

If you want hands-on experience, you’ll choose apprenticeship, maybe with supplemental community college study or distance learning. If you want the credential, you’ll choose a school in your own orbit, or an institution with greater brand recognition. It’s just the sensible thing to do in the current job climate. Much as I love my Northland experience, the subsequent credential has been more “knife in a gunfight” for me than “key to open all doors.“

Sorry, I think that ship has sailed.

[TylerR] Clarks Summit is somewhere I’d love to have my son go, but it’s just too expensive. Much of this may have to do with geography and forces quite beyond Clarks Summit’s control. I understand. I’m choosing to do four Hebrew courses through them beginning this Fall, because I value Regular Baptist institutions.

I’m not familiar with Clarks Summit’s undergrad programs, but I would no longer consider their seminary a good option. First, they lost their most respected scholar, Dr. Rodney Decker, to cancer in 2014. Thankfully, I had already completed all my Greek courses with Decker or his protege, Dr. Dan Fabricatore, before he passed. His replacement, Wayne Slusser, was not a good choice. Although, the seminary may not have had any better options given the seminary’s declining residential enrollment. In fact, after I graduated with my M.Div. in 2016, the seminary went through a significant restructuring. Mike Stallard, who was the dean of the seminary, left BBS for Friends of Israel (he currently serves as an adjunct prof). The seminary sold their nice building and moved several full-time faculty to part-time / on-line instructors. Currently, the seminary only has four full-time faculty.

If I go on for my Th.M. or D.Min, I’ll most likely attend SBTS or another conservative evangelical seminary that offers non-residential classes.

The first thing that comes to mind is that if indeed the main reason (per Brandon) is to get connections in the IFB/GARBC world, then the argument for fundamental colleges and universities really boils down to “tribalism”.

Thanks for interacting with my comment, Bert, but you are really missing my point if you think I’m talking about tribalism! It’s not about that at all. It’s about answering the question, “what kind of church do I hope to pastor one day?”, and then finding the training institution that is most likely to get you there.

I know a man who is wrapping up his MDiv at BBS, sings praises for the Hebrew prof, and loves the education he received. I don’t think they’re dead and gone. At least, I hope not.

To add more irony to the mix, I’ve committed to do a ThM at a fundamentalist institution once I finish my DMin. Why? Again, it comes down to connections. These are the people I know, so I’m comfortable with attending institutions from the same general ecclesiastical ecosystem.

The Fundamentalist Pipeline:

• Christian Day Schools. Declining
• The Bible Colleges: Contracting & Closing

Limited Fundamentalist Prospects:

• Small Churches
• Bi-vocational
• Low, near poverty salaries

Reality Bites

Because I have a good, fulltime government job as a bi-vo pastor, I’m paying for the DMin and then the ThM in cash as I go. Most pastors couldn’t do that.

[TylerR]

I know a man who is wrapping up his MDiv at BBS, sings praises for the Hebrew prof, and loves the education he received. I don’t think they’re dead and gone. At least, I hope not.

To add more irony to the mix, I’ve committed to do a ThM at a fundamentalist institution once I finish my DMin. Why? Again, it comes down to connections. These are the people I know, so I’m comfortable with attending institutions from the same general ecclesiastical ecosystem.

I loved the education I received at BBS as well. My Greek, Hebrew, and theology instruction was excellent. To your point, the Hebrew profs are the same as they were when I was there.