History of Theological Education and Ministry Training in New England

Emmanuel Gospel Center

New Beginnings: A History of Innovations in Protestant Theological Education and Ministry Training in New England

by Rudy Mitchell, Senior Researcher, Applied Research

Boston and New England have long pioneered innovative models for training pastors, Christian workers, and missionaries, exerting national and international influence on theological education. While some trends in this region have followed cultural and philosophical influences away from biblical orthodoxy, others have strongly supported world evangelism and church growth. By examining the enduring strengths of New England’s innovative approaches, one can discern key principles to guide the future of theological education in Greater Boston, ensuring it remains both adaptive and impactful.

The Days Before Harvard: Theological Education of Boston’s Early Pastors

Understanding the educational background of Boston’s early church leaders offers insight into their approach to differing views and how they designed Harvard College’s program. All first-generation Puritan pastors in Boston attended English universities, and most of the first-generation Boston-area pastors studied at Cambridge University, followed by some pastoral experience in England.

The first three leaders of Harvard all attended colleges at Cambridge University. Nathaniel Eaton and Charles Chauncey attended Trinity College, and Henry Dunster attended Magdalene College. Although Boston-area pastors attended several colleges at Cambridge University, a number of influential leaders, including John Wilson, John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, and John Harvard, attended Emmanuel College, founded in 1584 to train young men for the Protestant ministry. It had become an influential center of Puritan education. Cambridge University, therefore, became a fertile seedbed for the growth and education of a large cohort of future New England pastors and leaders.

Laurence Chaderton, a key figure in the Puritan movement, was the Master of Emmanuel College from 1584 to 1622, during which time almost all of the Boston-area graduates of Emmanuel attended. The pastors of the First Churches of Boston, Cambridge, and Charlestown all studied at Emmanuel College. A few pastors, namely the early pastors of the First Church of Dorchester, studied at Oxford University, which was quite similar to Cambridge University at this time. Typically, these early clergy also held a Master of Arts degree, which was conferred on holders of the Bachelor of Arts degree from Cambridge and Oxford after a period of three years, without any further prescribed coursework. Although students, such as John Cotton, spent additional time studying or teaching at the university, others mostly pursued independent study while serving in a parish, since there was no strict residential requirement.

“Boston and New England have long pioneered innovative models for training pastors, Christian workers, and missionaries, exerting national and international influence on theological education.”

The methods of learning at Cambridge were later followed by Harvard. These included lectures, recitations, disputations, declamations, formal sermons, meetings with tutors, and private study. All the formal parts of this education took place in Latin. Students also learned Greek and sometimes Hebrew for Old Testament study.

At Cambridge University, the lectures were organized around questions and articles, with topics and subtopics arranged in a hierarchy of ideas. Public lectures were delivered in the Old Schools,¹ and private lectures were given in the colleges. Lecturers were expected to give four lectures a week (although some seemed to be negligent in this).² The public lectures included theology, medicine, and civil law, among other subjects. Biblical studies, Greek and Latin classics, and mathematics were emphasized. “Lecturers in language, philosophy, dialectics, and rhetoric were held to five lectures per week.”³

Student recitations were oral exercises in which students recited memorized material from texts or previous lectures, translated texts, or explained and defended interpretations. Disputations were informal and formal debates between students. The formal debate sessions lasted four hours, Monday through Friday, during Lent, and were full of ritual, rules, and traditions. Each student was required to participate in four formal debates for the B.A. degree. Students also had to give “declamations” or set speeches in Latin. It was expected that these would exhibit good style and draw quotations from the Greek and Latin classics.

Emmanuel College, Cambridge, England (DAVID ILIFF via Wikimedia Commons. License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)

Students would keep notebooks called “Commonplace Books” with their selection of quotations and information on various subjects. Ministerial students would also deliver “Clerums,” formal sermons preached to the clergy on set days. Tutors played an important role in the educational system, providing academic and moral guidance and oversight.

A Cambridge education in this period “was dialectical, Aristotelian, and highly systematized. It was concerned with logic, logical formulations, and disputations.”⁴ This led to an eagerness “to divide truth from error” and to win debates with adversaries.⁵

One can see how the elements and tendencies of this educational background carried over to Boston, where disputations on doctrine and Christian practice were common. This educational experience also shaped Puritan leaders’ planning when they developed Harvard College. Some of the strengths of this education were its preparation of students to study the Bible in the original languages, to engage in clear and effective reasoning, and to speak in public.       

A Theological School for the Commonwealth: Harvard College (later Harvard Divinity School)

Harvard was established to make sure New England had a well-educated clergy. In 1636, Harvard was founded to “advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity: dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches, when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.”⁶

Henry Dunster, a graduate of Emmanuel College, Cambridge University, became president in 1640 and developed a course of study adapted from his alma mater. Since instruction and discourse were in Latin, students were required to know Latin before admission. They could prepare for college through private tutoring or at one of the early Latin schools: Boston Latin School (1635), Charlestown School (1636), Mather School in Dorchester (1639), Roxbury Latin School (1645), or Cambridge Latin School (1648).

Greek and Hebrew studies were emphasized in the first two years by daily classes. The purpose of this rigorous language study was to enable students to study the classics and exegete Scripture. The overall curriculum was still centered on the Trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) and the Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music theory, astronomy), along with a focus on biblical studies and theology (using The Marrow of Theology by William Ames as a text).

Massachusetts Hall, Harvard University, built in 1720 (Daderot via Wikimedia Commons)

In the first two years, students studied basic mathematics and ethics, as well as logic, using the textbook The Dialectics by Peter Ramus, and rhetoric, using examples from Cicero and Quintilian, to prepare for “declamations” (set speeches in Latin). As they advanced to their third and fourth years, students studied Calvinistic theology, natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysics. They engaged in weekly “disputations” (debates), prepared sermons, and studied some practical theology.⁷

Once the first college building was completed, teachers and students lived together, sharing meals, prayers, and recreation. Although there were fewer tutors or teachers, the teaching methods were similar to those at Cambridge University, with disputations, lectures, daily recitations, declamations, and discussions with tutors. Students were expected to engage in daily prayers and devotions, and to learn the catechism.

“After God had carried us safe to New England and we had builded our houses, provided necessaries for our livelihood, reared convenient places for God’s worship, and settled the civil government: One of the next things we longed for and looked after was to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches, when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.”

— New England's First Fruits

By 1654, Harvard had 50 students. Further ministerial preparation took place after students received their Bachelor’s degrees. “A few students remained at Harvard to read for the Master’s degree, while most apprenticed with local ministers,” and continued independent study. “About half of Harvard students entered the ministry until about 1720.”⁸

In 1805, Henry Ware was chosen as the Hollis Professor of Theology, signaling a shift toward Unitarianism and theologically liberal views at Harvard. Since the Hollis Professorship of Theology was a key influential position, this was a watershed moment. This change played a role in the founding of Andover Theological Seminary and in the establishment of other later seminaries. In 1816, Harvard Divinity School became a separate school of the university.

Carrying the Torch: Yale College

In 1701 the Collegiate School, known as Yale College after 1718, in Connecticut was founded with a clear purpose: “The founding, suitably endowing & ordering of a Collegiate School within his Majesties Colony of Connecticut wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts & Sciences who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment in both Church and Civil State.”⁹

Divinity College at Yale before 1870 (Wikimedia Commons)

Ten ministers, led by James Pierpont, took the initiative in bringing the plan to found Yale to the general assembly of Connecticut. They were given funding and the authority to direct its affairs. All but one of these ten founders of Yale were Harvard graduates. During the first several years under the leadership of the Rev. Abraham Pierson, students met together at his church, and instruction was not unlike pastoral mentoring taking place elsewhere during the eighteenth century.

Once the school was firmly established, the early curriculum followed Harvard’s curriculum of the latter 1600s and emphasized theology, the biblical languages, and Bible study. In its early years, Yale was largely focused on training ministers, and even later, when it broadened its focus, the school still trained many influential pastors and theologians: “Whereas almost three-quarters of the early graduates entered the ministry, that proportion fell to around one-half from the 1720s onward.”¹⁰

“By examining the enduring strengths of New England’s innovative approaches, one can discern key principles to guide the future of theological education in Greater Boston, ensuring it remains both adaptive and impactful. ”

Those influencing the founding of the college were interested in maintaining the pure Calvinism of the earlier Puritans, since some believed Harvard was becoming liberal in its theology. However, in the decades to follow, Yale would be influenced by revivals and new intellectual currents from England and elsewhere. Jonathan Edwards, a very influential graduate (1720), was a key leader in the First Great Awakening, and Lyman Beecher (1797) was a leader in later revivals in Boston. Jonathan Edwards’ grandson, Timothy Dwight, served as President from 1797 to 1817. His talented and spiritual leadership led to major growth of the college, curriculum improvements, spiritual revival, and influential theological movements, such as the New Divinity and New England Theology under Nathanael Taylor.

A separate Theology Department, which later became Yale Divinity School, was founded in 1822, and Nathaniel Taylor became the professor of theology.

A Broader Table: Brown University

In 1764, Brown University was founded as Rhode Island College. Although the school was open to students of any religious belief, the Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches had appointed Baptist minister the Rev. James Manning to be President, and Baptist leaders revised the Rev. Ezra Stiles’ draft of the charter for Rhode Island College to ensure Baptists had majority control of the school’s governing bodies.

University Hall at Brown University (Wikimedia Commons)

While the college was not designed specifically to train ministers, 43 of its early graduates did become pastors.¹¹ In the early decades, Latin was the common language in most classes and discussions. While theology was not specifically taught, future ministers benefited from Brown’s emphasis on public speaking, orations, and composition. Other parts of the curriculum relevant to their ministerial preparation included logic, Greek and New Testament study, moral philosophy, rhetoric, and general philosophy.¹² The educational methods included recitations from texts, lectures, preparing and delivering orations, and disputations (debates) on various theses. Most of the students ate and lived together in the college hall with the tutors and were required to attend morning and evening prayers in the chapel. This learning environment contributed to a sense of community.

A More Personal School: Pastoral Mentoring in New England

Although some mentoring of young prospective pastors occurred throughout New England’s history, this mode of ministerial training seemed to flourish especially after these early colleges were founded and before the establishment of graduate seminary programs such as Andover Theological Seminary.

New England Christian leaders, such as Jonathan Edwards, provided a model of mentoring young graduates in their homes and churches. Typically, when students who felt called to ministry graduated from college, they would seek to study personally with a prominent pastor who would take in a few students to mentor and guide in their further training for the ministry. For example, in 1736, Joseph Bellamy came to study theology with Edwards and live in the family household. Other students followed Bellamy in the Edwards’ household, including Samuel Hopkins in late 1741. Through their study of theology under Edwards, both Bellamy and Hopkins would later become very influential in New England.

Jonathan Edwards by Henry Augustus Loop (1831-1895) after Joseph Badger (Princeton University Art Museum, Public Domain)

This method of study also enabled the students to grow spiritually and learn from the example of their mentor and his wife in handling family life and practical church concerns. When Hopkins was spiritually dejected, Mrs. Sarah Edwards encouraged him, and her “counsel and example in his early spiritual formation had a lasting impact… Hopkins also admired her ‘excellent way of governing her children,’ bringing them to obey cheerfully… Jonathan also showed the greatest calmness as well as the greatest firmness in his discipline, and as ‘a consequence of this, they revered, esteemed, and loved him.’”¹³ This personal interaction and observation of mature Christians in daily life could be invaluable.

Students mentored in this holistic way received much more than academic information. The Rev. Joseph Bellamy, after settling into a pastorate in Bethlehem, Connecticut, in turn started mentoring many future pastors using questions on theology, evening discussions, and talks. His students would write papers on the questions, and he would respond with corrections or critiques. He had his students give sermons, and they would receive feedback on how to improve. Bellamy strongly encouraged the spiritual life of his students and discussed the joys and trials of ministry with them. Students could observe the pastor in his pastoral duties and could help perform various services in the church. Bellamy served in this way in the latter 1700s and likely had the second-largest number of students of any pastor.¹⁴

“This method of study also enabled the students to grow spiritually and learn from the example of their mentor and his wife in handling family life and practical church concerns.”

Others, like the Rev. Smalley, one of Bellamy’s students, followed a similar pattern of ministerial training. One of the Rev. Smalley’s 30 students was Nathanael Emmons, who became an influential proponent of the New Divinity system of theology and mentored nearly 90 students over the years in Franklin, Massachusetts.¹⁵ Several of the other prominent pastoral mentors of the period from 1750 to 1810 included the Rev. Samuel Hopkins, the Rev. Timothy Dwight, the Rev. Titus Barton, the Rev. Joseph Lathrop, Dr. Charles Backus, and Dr. Asahel Hooker.¹⁶

The pastoral mentoring process had some limitations, including time constraints due to the teacher’s pastoral responsibilities, limited access to books, and the limits of the pastor’s teaching ability and educational background. Nevertheless, this method of ministry training was very important during the period discussed, and has some very valuable elements for any time period.

The Beginnings of the Modern Seminary: Andover Theological Seminary

As Unitarianism gained increasing influence at Harvard and in New England churches in the early 1800s, orthodox Congregationalist leaders grew concerned about the future of sound ministerial training. The appointment of Henry Ware, a Unitarian, as Hollis Professor of Theology at Harvard in 1805 proved to be a watershed moment, prompting several prominent church leaders to pursue the founding of a new school committed to Calvinistic, biblical orthodoxy. Just as Harvard, Yale, and Brown had each been founded in response to a perceived need for faithful Christian education, so this new institution would arise from a similar conviction, and would go on to become the prototype for scores of seminaries founded across America over the next two centuries.

In Andover, Massachusetts, in association with Phillips Academy, the kind of pastoral training that had been flourishing under ministers such as Jonathan Edwards was supported by a scholarship fund. The Rev. Jonathan French mentored groups of students from 1797 to 1808. The Phillips family, who founded Phillips Academy in 1778, planned for the school to teach orthodox Christian doctrine and promote piety and virtue. Although the academy was only a preparatory school, its campus would, in a few decades, become host to Andover Theological Seminary.

The Academy’s first principal was Dr. Eliphalet Pearson. He later became Professor of Hebrew and then interim President of Harvard in the early 1800s. He was opposed to the growing liberal theological and Unitarian movement; therefore, when Henry Ware, a Unitarian, was appointed Professor of Theology at Harvard, Pearson resigned. He returned to Andover and helped spearhead a group seeking to establish a new Calvinistic, orthodox school to train ministers. This Founders Group working in Andover included the Rev. Jedidah Morse, a Charlestown pastor; Mr. Samuel Abbot, a wealthy potential donor; Mrs. Phoebe Phillips and her son, John Phillips, who committed to fund two buildings; Samuel Farrar, a lawyer; the Rev. Jonathan French; and several others.

Andover Theological Seminary by J. Kidder (1813-1823) (Yale University Art Gallery, Public Domain)

Meanwhile, a second group, led by Dr. Samuel Spring of the North Congregational Church in Newburyport, had developed a vision for an orthodox ministry training school. Dr. Spring and potential theology professor, Leonard Woods, had gathered the support of three wealthy “Associate Donors”: Moses Brown, William Bartlett, and John Norris. After lengthy negotiations involving theological differences, financial arrangements, and authority structures to ensure doctrinal fidelity, the two groups merged their vision into one new school at the Phillips Academy campus—the Andover Theological Seminary. Dr. Woods, who was friends with both Dr. Spring and his former teacher, Dr. Pearson, served as a bridge-builder, bringing the two groups to agreement, and was appointed to the important post of Professor of Theology.¹⁷

Founded in 1807, this was the first Protestant graduate-level seminary in America, and it became the prototype for scores of seminaries founded over the next 200 years.

Andover’s approach was a three-year curriculum for college graduates who would live on campus and learn from highly qualified professors in residence. Initially, donors even sponsored and built houses for specific professorships. Early professors besides Dr. Leonard Woods included Moses Stuart (Biblical studies, languages, and exegesis), Dr. Edward Dorr Griffin (rhetoric and preaching), the Rev. Ebenezer Porter (preaching), and Dr. Pearson (natural theology). Students studied Hebrew and Greek, hermeneutics, and the principles of exegesis under Dr. Moses Stuart, who “had a powerful influence in promoting in our country the study of the Scriptures in their original languages.”¹⁸ Other subjects included church history, theology, preaching, rhetoric, and pastoral duties.

“Just as Harvard, Yale, and Brown had each been founded in response to a perceived need for faithful Christian education, so this new institution would arise from a similar conviction, and would go on to become the prototype for scores of seminaries founded across America over the next two centuries.”

Professors experimented with various teaching methods, including recitations followed by the teacher’s explanations, lectures with free discussions and questions, and writing papers.¹⁹ However, Dr. Woods believed the most valuable learning time was the weekly Wednesday evening discussion. These were open discussions on theology and “all matters relating to Christian experience, duty, and comfort.” Moses Stuart led these with Dr. Woods, who said, “We poured out the feelings of our hearts to our beloved students.”²⁰

Professors met with students one-on-one to talk about their spiritual lives, encouraged them to read devotional works, and, in general, placed a high priority on their spiritual growth. Once each term, the seminary would hold a fast with prayer and discussions. Professors such as Dr. Woods would take walks with students, or take groups of six at a time home to a social meal with their families after prayers in the chapel. The professors’ homes were on or near the campus and thus accessible. Andover’s new three-year training process provided extended time for deeper study, access to library resources, housing, and classrooms, while still facilitating personal interaction with the best teachers, who could now devote nearly full-time to their students.

Over the school’s first 38 years, it admitted 1,500 students, and its graduates became pastors, missionaries, and educators, some of whom became presidents, leaders, or founders of other colleges.²¹ During those early years, the faculty and students played a central role in the founding of the pioneering American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) and in the growing American missionary movement. America’s first foreign missionaries were ordained at Tabernacle Congregational Church in Salem, Massachusetts, on February 16, 1812. Those five pioneering missionaries—Adoniram Judson, Gordon Hall, Luther Rice, Samuel Nott, and Samuel Newell—were all graduates of Andover Theological Seminary, which had nurtured their missionary zeal and supported their efforts to establish the ABCFM.

The First Baptist Seminary: Newton Theological Institute

Under the leadership of Dr. Thomas Baldwin, pastor of the Second Baptist Church of Boston, area Baptists founded the Massachusetts Baptist Education Society in 1814 to help financially support students called to the ministry. This organization advanced the idea that Baptist pastors would benefit from more education.

By May 1825, the Society’s executive committee and Baptist ministers were ready to found a theological school “where the combined powers of two or three or more men of experience, and men of God, can be employed in instructing and forming the manners and habits and character of pious young men for the work of the ministry.”²² From this statement, one can discern the important goal of students’ spiritual formation, not just intellectual instruction.

Colby Hall, Newton Theological Institute (John Phelan, 2011, via Wikimedia Commons)

The planning committees moved rapidly, purchasing the 85-acre Peck Estate on a hill in Newton for the campus and hiring the Rev. Irah Chase as Professor of Biblical Theology. The Rev. Chase, who was a graduate of Andover Theological Seminary, began teaching in November at the new Newton Theological Institute.²³ The following year, Dr. Henry J. Ripley, also an Andover graduate (1819), became Professor of Biblical Literature and Pastoral Duties. Since both professors were products of Andover, it is not surprising that this new school developed a three-year curriculum and educational process somewhat like that of their alma mater.

The students took courses in Biblical literature, church history, Biblical theology, and pastoral duties. One of the central goals for students was to understand the Bible clearly and teach its lessons effectively. “Newton became the first freestanding post-graduate Baptist seminary to be established in North America, the first Baptist graduate school of any kind.”²⁴ In 1849, Dr. Alvah Hovey began his long and influential career as a professor and later as President of Newton. He continued to defend orthodox theology throughout the last half of the nineteenth century.

A New School for Congregationalists: Hartford Theological Seminary

As the New England Theology was gaining ground, an opposing Pastoral Union group of “Old Calvinist” pastors in Connecticut founded the Theological Institute of Connecticut in East Windsor in 1834. This seminary would later move to Hartford and change its name to Hartford Theological Seminary.

Hosmer Hall, Hartford Theological Seminary (1889) (Wikimedia Commons)

Like Andover, the new seminary, led by Dr. Bennet Tyler, offered a three-year course of study for college graduates. They came from several different states, but were often graduates of Amherst College, Williams College, and Yale College. Tuition, rooms, and the library were free, and by 1843, the school building had rooms for 52 students. By that year, 62 students had graduated and gone on to become pastors or missionaries.²⁵ Although students studied several subjects each year, including church history, the first year emphasized Biblical interpretation, the second year systematic theology, and the third year sacred rhetoric and pastoral theology.²⁶

Ministry Training for Methodists: Boston University School of Theology

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, most Methodist pastors did not attend a college or seminary for ministerial training. They basically learned on the job with some guidance from the presiding elder, or district superintendent, and in some places, a list of books to read.

Although Wesleyan College (later University) of Middletown, Connecticut, was originally Methodist, it was not founded to specifically train pastors: “From 1831 to 1870 Wesleyan was a local evangelical enterprise promoted by a town that provided land and buildings and by a few Methodist clergy and laymen who extracted very limited support from a denomination having only a nascent interest in higher education.”²⁷ The school did have Christian objectives, and undoubtedly some Methodist leaders did receive a general college education there, although not specialized ministerial training.

After several years of debate, Methodist leaders at a convention in Boston in 1839 were ready to propose the establishment of a theological school. This group approved the establishment of a seminary and decided to work with and support a new program to be part of a school in Newbury, Vermont. Under the leadership of Osmon C. Baker, the program, called the Newbury Theological Institute, trained pastors until 1847.

“It is intended that the student shall do something more than merely memorize text-books. Whenever a branch of science or a portion of a branch, can be best taught by a fresh original handling...the professors will not shrink from the additional labor which such methods necessarily involve.”

— Annual Report of the School of Theology of Boston University, 1873

At that time, the students, finances, and library were moved to Concord, New Hampshire, and under a new charter, the school became independent with the new name, Methodist General Biblical Institute (also called the Concord Biblical Institute). John Dempster, a former missionary, became the President, while Osman Baker moved and continued to teach.²⁸ Even in this early period, the seminary had some emphasis on missionary work.²⁹ With the rapid growth of Methodism and the development of a more robust program, the Institute flourished in Concord over the next 20 years.

In 1867, the school relocated to Boston and reorganized as the Boston Theological Seminary. Meanwhile, over the next few years, Methodist leaders were working to establish Boston University, with plans to create four professional and graduate schools. In 1871, the seminary became part of the new university as its first professional school.

The school was designed to have a regular three-year ministerial course and also a three-year course in missionary work. The curriculum had four major sections: exegetical theology, historical theology, systematic theology, and practical theology. Exegetical theology included the study of Hebrew, Greek, exegesis, and archaeology. Special studies were offered in various other languages—including Spanish and Asian languages for missions—plus music, German theology, and medical topics for missions.

Boston University Marsh Chapel (John Phelan, 2011, via Wikimedia Commons)

Teachers were encouraged to use fresh and varied methods of instruction: “It is intended that the student shall do something more than merely memorize text-books. Whenever a branch of science [knowledge] or a portion of a branch, can be best taught by a fresh original handling in the way of written lectures, or by free exposition, or by black-board exercise, or by a Socratic method, or by a combination of any or all of these, the professors will not shrink from the additional labor which such methods necessarily involve.”³⁰

Spiritual life was encouraged by three prayer meetings each week and morning and evening devotions. Missions was generally emphasized, and students were encouraged to attend the meetings of the Missionary Association. The school was a pioneer among seminaries in admitting women. Anna Howard Shaw and Helen Magill White were among the early graduates in the 1870s.

The school was innovative in setting up two divisions. The First Division would only accept students who had earned a B.A. degree. After three years of coursework and passing an examination, they would receive a Bachelor of Divinity degree. The Second Division opened access to students who had completed a secondary education but, for various reasons or due to age, had not been able to earn a B.A. degree. These students could receive a diploma after completing the course of study.

While the Boston University School of Theology followed the basic pattern of other three-year residential seminaries, it introduced several innovative policies and was the first theological seminary of the Methodist Episcopal Church. By 1871, it was the largest seminary in New England. Much later in the 1930s, the seminary, along with the university, moved from Beacon Hill to a new campus along the Charles River.

Ministry Beyond the Pulpit: New England Deaconess Training School

In 1889, the Methodists initiated another training effort, the New England Deaconess Training School (and Deaconess House), located at 45 East Chester Park in Boston’s South End. This was part of a larger movement, beginning in Europe, to revive the formal lay ministry of deaconesses. The program was designed to educate young women for missionary and service work, especially in the city. Mary E. Lunn, the first superintendent, also advocated for a hospital, and in 1896, she founded New England Deaconess Hospital in a South End brownstone.

“Anna E. Hall, circa 1900”. Anna E. Hall Collection. Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12322/auc.119:0077.

The training school offered courses in theology, church history, and other subjects, including sociology in cooperation with Simmons College after 1900. The school’s first African American graduate, Anna E. Hall, became a missionary educator in Liberia, serving for 24 years as director of a girls’ school and home.³¹ Other deaconesses went on to study at the nursing school associated with the hospital.

In 1918, the Deaconess Training School became a part of Boston University and was renamed the School of Religious Education and Social Service.

An Episcopal School for the Commonwealth: Episcopal Theological School (later Episcopal Divinity School)

In the early nineteenth century, New England Episcopalians who felt called to ministry would often go to New York City to study at the General Theological Seminary. However, a significant number of these students stayed in the New York area after graduation rather than returning to serve in New England. This situation led church leaders in Boston to start planning an Episcopal seminary in Massachusetts. Beginning with a resolution passed at the 1831 Massachusetts Episcopal Convention, several efforts were made over the years to found a theological school in the Boston area.

These efforts failed to bear fruit due to a lack of finances until, finally, in 1867, Benjamin Tyler Reed, a wealthy Boston businessman, committed $100,000 to endow what soon became the Episcopal Theological School.³² He did not want the school to become embroiled in controversies that might arise within the denomination, and so he sought to make it independent of the diocese, its conventions, and its bishop, in part by establishing its trustees as laymen only. They would control temporal matters, while the faculty would have some oversight of theological and academic matters.

Reed called on Dr. Francis W. Wharton, rector of St. Paul’s Church of Brookline, who was a brilliant legal expert, to draw up the school’s constitution, develop its organization, and help gather the first group of faculty. Wharton is thus often considered the founder of the Episcopal Theological School. With his legal background, he emphasized apologetics and Christian evidences in the curriculum. He also taught liturgics, polity, canon law, homiletics, and pastoral care.

Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Wikimedia Commons)

The Rev. John Seeley Stone, a leader among evangelicals and one of the great preachers of the time, became the dean and professor of systematic divinity (theology). Other courses in the three-year curriculum included Hebrew, Greek, Biblical interpretation, and church history.³³ Dean Stone “opposed what he called the ‘rationalistic tendencies of our time,’ and meant the school to stand as a bulwark of evangelicalism.”³⁴

At the end of the school year, professors conducted oral public examinations of students in all classes. During the first 10 years, a chapel and other buildings were completed at the Brattle Street campus in Cambridge. The student body at that time averaged only about 12 to 15 students. The school followed the general pattern of other seminaries in establishing a three-year, post-college course on a residential campus, but its governing structure was innovative for a seminary serving a specific denomination but outside its power structure.

To the Ends of the Earth: The Bible School and Missionary Training Institute Movement

After experiencing urban revivals in 1842, 1857-58, and 1877-78, Boston contributed to other growing Christian movements, including the Foreign Missions movement, the Holiness or Higher Life movement, and the Faith Cure or Divine Healing movement. Involvement in these movements led to the founding of other training schools. In addition to Boston University School of Theology, other schools with an emphasis on foreign missions included the Faith Training College and the Boston Missionary Training Institute (eventually named Gordon College after its founder).

Charles Cullis (Wikimedia Commons)

One major new development in Christian ministry training was the Bible School and Missionary Training Institute Movement. These schools offered a shorter course of study, emphasizing Bible study, practical ministry training, and spiritual life to prepare men and women for home and foreign missionary work. Although short-lived, the Boston Faith Training College could be considered the pioneering American institution in what became the Bible College Movement (followed by A.B. Simpson’s Missionary Training Institute [Nyack College] in 1882; Moody Bible Institute in 1886-7; and the Boston Missionary Training Institute [Gordon College] in 1889). A. B. Simpson and his institute became very influential in the Bible College Movement and in missions. Simpson, in turn, was greatly influenced by Charles Cullis. “Probably the American educator with the greatest influence upon A. B. Simpson was Dr. Charles Cullis…. Cullis’ Faith Training College convinced Simpson that he could successfully launch a missionary training college.”³⁵ D. L. Moody was also influenced by his Boston contacts and background.

Faith Training College

Dr. Charles Cullis, the leader of a large network of ministries in Boston, the U.S., India, and China, founded the Faith Training College on Beacon Hill in 1875. The Faith Training College described its efforts as “…to train for Christian work such consecrated men and women as are unable to pursue an extended and thorough course of theological study in the various denominational seminaries, but are desirous of fitting themselves for the highest efficiency in the widening fields of lay activity, which the Head of the Church is wonderfully opening in our age, such as Sunday School instruction, Christian Association work, Bible exposition, exhortation, lay preaching, lay evangelism, home and foreign missionary labor” (1875 Annual Report, p. 90).

The Bible college model emphasized a shorter course of study, a focus on the Bible, practical ministry, witness, and missions. Faith Training College was co-educational and tuition-free.

Dr. Cullis, the founder, had also founded the Boston Consumptives (tuberculosis) Home, the Spinal Home, and the Cancer Home, and he was the most prominent national leader of the Divine Healing Movement. Among the college’s teachers was William Boardman, Professor of Christian Life. He ministered throughout Europe and England, spreading the Higher Life Movement and, along with Robert Pearsall Smith, inspiring the Keswick Conference movement. Boardman was a graduate of Yale University and Lane Theological Seminary. Daniel Steele, a graduate of Wesleyan University, was professor of systematic theology, and A. B. Earle was professor of revivalism, a position that was probably unique to Faith Training College. Another professor was Charles Wesley Emerson, the founder of Emerson College.

Boston Missionary Training Institute: Gordon College and Gordon Divinity School (later Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary)

In 1889, Dr. A. J. Gordon, pastor of the Clarendon Street Baptist Church in Boston, founded the Boston Missionary Training Institute to help train Christian men and women for missionary work. Pastor Gordon had been inspired by Dwight L. Moody’s months-long evangelistic campaign next door to his church in 1877 and by the great London conference on foreign missions in 1888.

In 1884, Dr. and Mrs. Grattan Guinness, the directors of the Livingstone Inland Mission in the Congo, had offered the mission to the American Baptist Missionary Union. The Rev. A. J. Gordon became the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Missionary Union and, therefore, was concerned with the Congo mission’s great need for funds and missionary candidates in the late 1880s.³⁶ This was one of the major motives for starting a missionary training school with a short course of studies. Dr. Guinness and the Rev. M. R. Deming of the Bowdoin Square Tabernacle church were also involved in founding the school. Dr. Gordon’s work with Dr. Guinness also would have familiarized him with the details and model of the East London Missionary Training Institute that Guinness had founded in 1873.

“Although many students came from the Boston area, some came from as far away as Kansas, Indiana, and New York.”

Pastor Gordon, like Dr. Cullis at the Faith Training College, saw a need to provide access to ministry training for those who could not follow the rigorous academic path of four years of college and three years of seminary. The school charged no tuition, admitted both men and women, and did not require a high school or college education to enroll. The normal course of study was two years, with classes during the day, but the school also began offering public evening lectures and Bible courses taught by Dr. James M. Gray and Rev. F. L. Chapell. These were attended by hundreds of people.³⁷ Dr. Gray became one of the best-known Bible teachers in the country and later served as President of Moody Bible Institute. Dr. Chapell taught the majority of the core courses during the school’s first ten years.

In some of the early years, women students were in the majority in the daytime classes. Women were also serving as teachers and administrators. Mrs. Maria Gordon served as secretary, treasurer, and a teacher at the school. Other women teachers were Dr. Julia Morton Plummer, Mrs. Susan G. Gray, Mrs. Chapell, and Miss Blanche Tilton.

Adoniram Judson Gordon (Library Company of Philadelphia)

The school emphasized the consecrated spiritual life of the students with daily devotional periods, including testimonies and singing. The classes included theology, missions, comprehensive Bible study, music, and Christian Life and Service. Students engaged in extensive practice in Christian work at Clarendon Street Baptist Church, in their own churches, or in the city.

Although many students came from the Boston area, some came from as far away as Kansas, Indiana, and New York. In the first ten years, 500 students attended day classes, 1,000 to 1,500 benefited from evening classes, and about 50 students, both men and women, went on to serve in foreign missions. Also, 50 students became pastors, and at least 200 went into other Christian work.³⁸

The school went through a number of name changes, but the most noteworthy was when it became the Gordon Bible and Missionary Training School after the death of Dr. A. J. Gordon in 1895. In 1927, the state legislature granted the school the authority to award graduate degrees, and, in 1931, the graduate theological course became the Divinity School of Gordon College. After a number of years in the Fenway area of Boston, the divinity school, followed by the college, moved to Wenham, Massachusetts, in the 1950s.

Multiplying Leaders: Boston Young Men’s Christian Association

In 1851, Boston leaders founded the first YMCA in America following the model of the London YMCA. Although this pioneering organization was never a formal ministry training school, it did have classes and, in various ways, trained young men in biblical study and practical ministries.

In its early decades, the Boston YMCA was clearly Christian and trained young leaders to go out to other towns and cities in Massachusetts and New England to start or support other YMCAs. An 1870 report states, “About 118 of the Associations [local YMCAs] in this country are in Massachusetts. Many calls are made for our young men to address public meetings, conventions, etc.”³⁹ In this process, they also did evangelism, and the Boston YMCA was involved in many evangelistic activities and conventions.

YMCA, Berkeley St., Boston (Wikimedia Commons)

After the Civil War, the work was characterized by spiritual fervor, overflowing prayer meetings, and “quite a number of its members were reported as studying for the ministry.”⁴⁰ Also, in 1885, a YMCA School for Christian Workers was started in Springfield, Massachusetts. It emphasized training YMCA leaders who would lead programs that nurtured the spirit, mind, and body. The school was also notable as the birthplace of basketball. In 1890-91, the name was changed to the International YMCA Training School, which later became Springfield College.

The education department in Boston also grew significantly in the late nineteenth century. Although many of the classes at the Boston YMCA were on practical subjects related to vocations and avocations, there were some Bible classes. By 1896-1898, the education department under Frank Palmer Speare became highly organized into an Evening Institute. The school grew rapidly and evolved, with state approval, in 1916, into Northeastern College, and, in 1922, into Northeastern University, which eventually became independent of the YMCA.

Holiness Unto the Lord: Eastern Nazarene College

Founded as part of the holiness movement in 1900, Eastern Nazarene College was initially called the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute and was located in Saratoga, New York. Lyman C. Pettit served as its first president. Within two years, it moved to North Scituate, Rhode Island. The original plan was to provide a liberal education and ministry training through a preparatory academy, a four-year college, and a seminary.

In the early years, the school was connected to the Association of Pentecostal Churches of America (APCA), a network of Wesleyan-holiness churches. When the APCA merged into the Church of the Nazarene denomination in 1907, the institute became affiliated with the Nazarenes. In 1918, the school was chartered with degree-granting authority in Rhode Island and was renamed Eastern Nazarene College. The following year, it moved to Quincy, Massachusetts, to be near Boston and Harvard University.

Gardner Hall, Eastern Nazarene College (Wikimedia Commons)

The school sought to integrate Christian perspectives across its liberal arts and business curriculum. Although the original plan included a seminary, it was not until 1938 that the school started a graduate program in theology. In 1946, the school was offering 30 courses in Bible and Theology.⁴¹ In 1964, the theology program was replaced by a master's degree program in religion.

The college closed in May 2025 due to financial challenges and a declining student body.

Providence Bible Institute / Barrington College

The roots of Barrington College trace back to Bethel Bible Training School in Spencer, Massachusetts, founded in 1900 by the Baptist pastor, Essex W. Kenyon, who “wanted to train young Christians in the Bible and Christian service.”⁴² Some students went on to be missionaries overseas.

In 1923, the school moved to Dudley, Massachusetts, and was renamed the Dudley Bible Institute. The following year, after Kenyon resigned, Howard W. Ferrin became president (Ferrin’s mentor, Paul Rader, was nominal president in absentia). In 1929, under his leadership, the school moved to Capitol Hill, Providence, Rhode Island, and was renamed Providence Bible Institute.

Barrington College, Barrington, Rhode Island (Kenneth C. Zirkel via Wikimedia Commons)

Ferrin came to the school after serving in a multifaceted ministry with Paul Rader at the Chicago Gospel Tabernacle. He had experience in urban ministry, evangelism, and using radio. Thus, Providence Bible Institute became an urban school within a sphere of multiple ministries that Ferrin developed. In addition to a radio ministry, traveling student music groups, conferences, and evangelistic outreach events, he developed evening Bible schools in Boston, New York City, and Providence.

In 1950, the school purchased a 150-acre campus in Barrington, Rhode Island, for $331,001, winning the bid by one dollar. From 1950 to 1960, the school operated two campuses in Providence and Barrington, but then consolidated its work at Barrington and was renamed Barrington College. In 1985, the college merged with Gordon College and sold the campus to Zion Bible Institute.

Pentecostal Fire: Zion Bible Institute / North Point Bible College

In 1924, the Rev. Christine A. Gibson founded a Pentecostal missionary training school in East Providence, Rhode Island. In its early years, the school was called The School of the Prophets, but in 1936, it was renamed Zion Bible Institute. The school has had an emphasis on studying the Bible and preparing young people for Pentecostal ministry.

Northpoint Bible College

When Barrington College merged with Gordon College in 1985, Zion bought their former campus. Then, in the summer of 2008, the school relocated to the former campus of Bradford College in Haverhill, Massachusetts. David Green, a wealthy Christian businessman, had purchased the campus the year before and gave it to the college for $1.00, along with funds for renovations.⁴³

Bradford College, founded as Bradford Academy in 1803, helped educate a number of missionaries in the nineteenth century, including Ann Hasseltine Judson (Burma), John Taylor Jones (Thailand), and Lucy Goodale Thurston (Hawaii). In 2011, after the move to the Bradford campus, the school received approval to offer a Master of Arts in Practical Theology program that focuses on church planting and revitalization, as well as spiritual formation.⁴⁴ Later, in 2013, Zion officially changed its name to Northpoint Bible College and Graduate School.

Rooted in the City: Theological Training for the People

Boston also developed models for training lay leaders of city churches. Two of these models were the Boston Evening School of the Bible and the Center for Urban Ministerial Education, which has trained both lay leaders and pastors. In addition, many smaller Bible Institutes have been held in local churches, offering courses in Spanish or English.

Boston Evening School of the Bible

In the fall of 1942, Harold J. Ockenga, Pastor of Park Street Church, and Howard W. Ferrin of Providence Bible Institute established the Boston Evening School of the Bible. “It was their desire to help Christian people in all churches, irrespective of denomination, to secure a thorough and systematic knowledge of the Bible and practical training for various kinds of Christian work.”⁴⁵

Classes were held at Park Street Church from November to April, and classes followed a six-year curriculum. Classes thoroughly covered the Bible and also included Christian doctrine, church history, archaeology, evangelism, teacher training, and other ministry topics. The first dean was Dr. Morton C. Campbell, a former professor at Harvard Law School.⁴⁶ Major goals of the School of the Bible were to address biblical and theological illiteracy and to prepare laypeople for church ministry. The average pastor was overburdened and could not provide the depth and range of training needed.⁴⁷ This was not just an enhanced Sunday School, but a major educational program involving hundreds of students and excellent teachers. The successor to this was called the Boston Center for Christian Studies.

“The principles of Theological Education by Extension were developed and adapted in some programs during this period.”

During the period from the 1960s through the 1980s, American cities were experiencing many changes and challenges, and Christians responded with new models of theological education. Cities were going through racial transition, facing many problems, and receiving an influx of new immigrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia. Theological education needed to be contextualized to address urban issues, scheduling constraints of bi-vocational leaders, language needs, and other concerns.

The principles of Theological Education by Extension (TEE)⁴⁸ were developed and adapted in some programs during this period. Several urban training efforts used experiential, action-reflection, or action-training models of urban education. Some examples of urban ministry training programs of that time were the Urban Training Center for Christian Mission (UTC, Chicago), New York Theological Seminary programs led by Bill Webber, Seminary Consortium for Pastoral Education (SCUPE, Chicago), the Center for Urban Theological Studies (CUTS, Philadelphia), and the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME, Boston).

Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME): The Boston Campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Following a 1969 merger of Gordon Divinity School and Conwell School of Theology, the merged school sought ways to train leaders for urban ministry. In the early 1970s, the Rev. Michael Haynes of Twelfth Baptist Church, Doug Hall of the Emmanuel Gospel Center (EGC), and Dr. Stephen Mott of Gordon-Conwell helped establish an Urban Middler Year program enabling residential students to spend their middle year in the city of Boston with classes at EGC and field education in various city churches or ministries. However, this effort was not meeting the need for in-service training of Black and Hispanic leaders already in ministry.

Therefore, when Eldin Villafane was hired in 1976, he began developing what became the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME). CUME was a new model for linking with a seminary rather than a college, and for its many methods of contextualizing theological education for urban leaders. As Villafane studied various programs, he incorporated ideas from action-reflection biblical models, urban Bible institutes, and Theological Education by Extension.⁴⁹ “Extension education,” Villafane said, “is not merely a matter of conducting the same classes with the same educational methods and the same teachers in a different location.”⁵⁰

Center for Urban Ministerial Education, Roxbury, Massachusetts

The CUME program provided access to an accredited seminary education for Christian pastors and lay leaders who were called, gifted, and experienced in ministry, but, for socio-economic and other reasons, had been excluded from a residential program. Even if they could have attended a traditional seminary program, it would not have been contextualized to the needs of their urban and immigrant church ministries. The CUME program was located in the heart of the city,⁵¹ with a diverse administration and faculty, and offered contextualized coursework in Spanish, Portuguese, French (for Haitians), and English. All classes were held in the evenings and on weekends when bi-vocational leaders could attend. To reduce economic barriers, tuition was reduced, and scholarships were available. The student body included leaders from many backgrounds, including Hispanic, Black, Brazilian, Haitian, Chinese, Korean, and Anglo churches of many denominations. This had the added benefit of promoting interchurch fellowship and ministry collaboration.

By 1983, the program had 177 students from 104 churches, and in subsequent years it more than doubled in size. Over the years, CUME has offered certificate and diploma programs, as well as M.A., M.R.E., and Master of Divinity programs, along with Mentored Ministry for the practical application of coursework. The program has declined greatly in recent years, but much can be learned from the ideals and principles of this model of theological education.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Innovation

These individual stories of the beginnings of new schools and training programs for Christian leaders reveal educational innovations and adaptations that can inspire current theological education initiatives. In founding Harvard University in 1636, Boston-area leaders used the curricula and learning methods they were familiar with from Cambridge and Oxford Universities. However, as they developed the first institution of higher education in North America, they pioneered adaptations to the new environment and their limited resources. They also paved the way for other early colleges. The strengths of the English and early American collegiate forms of ministry training included active learning of effective reasoning, rhetoric, and logic; an emphasis on biblical study with training in Greek and Hebrew; and residential community life with tutors and devotional practices.

Especially in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, pastoral mentoring was a vital form of ministerial education. This method had some limits tied to the pastor’s limited time, library, breadth and depth of knowledge, and teaching ability. However, pastoral mentoring had strengths, including personal interaction with the pastor and the opportunity to observe how he handled the trials and joys of life and ministry. Students also received practical instruction and opportunities to preach and serve in ministry with coaching and feedback. This personalized education was also well-suited to encourage personal spiritual growth.

The founders of Andover Theological Seminary (1807) sought to maintain traditional Reformed theology and biblical views in their training. However, Andover was innovative in establishing the first American model of a three-year, graduate-level residential seminary. This model was the prototype for scores of later theological seminaries. The strengths of this form of training, at least ideally, included providing distinguished professors with a depth of knowledge who could teach general and specialized courses and interact with students in class and out of class. In this type of residential seminary, students and faculty could focus much of their time on studies with less distraction. A residential seminary could provide a good library, residences, classrooms, and community life to encourage spiritual growth.

“These individual stories of the beginnings of new schools and training programs for Christian leaders reveal educational innovations and adaptations that can inspire current theological education initiatives.”

In the late nineteenth century, cities and their churches were rapidly growing, and the need for foreign missionaries increased as that movement expanded. These factors led to a need for new forms of accessible ministry training for those who couldn’t afford a full college and graduate seminary program. In response, Boston-area leaders founded some of the early Bible and missionary training institutes and schools. These were the early prototypes of the Bible School Movement. Faith Training College and the Boston Missionary Training Institute (later called Gordon College) offered shorter courses of study, with the advantage of preparing lay leaders and missionaries with free tuition, with low entry requirements, and with more practical, Bible-centered courses. Courses were offered for both men and women and were sometimes available in the evening. Several other area schools started as similar Bible institutes and, over the years, evolved into Christian colleges.

More recently, Boston-area leaders have developed ministry training programs contextualized to the changing city with its various social needs and growing immigrant populations. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary developed the Center for Urban Ministerial Education. Among its strengths were accredited classes in several languages, held in the evenings and on weekends to accommodate lay leaders and bi-vocational pastors, and reduced tuition costs. The model drew on principles of Theological Education by Extension and action-reflection learning to integrate ministry preparation with ongoing involvement in the students’ own churches. Course content and topics were designed to address the needs of the urban context. This innovative program also became a model for other cities.

While other models could be cited, these examples demonstrate how Boston and New England schools have built on the past and created new innovations in theological education. These efforts in training pastors, lay leaders, and missionaries have had a worldwide impact and paved the way for the founding of many other ministry training schools.

Footnotes

1. The “Old Schools” were groups of older buildings used for university-wide lectures, disputations, libraries, and administration. They were distinct from the colleges where students and tutors lived, ate, and listened to what were called private lectures.↩︎
2. William T. Costello, The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth Century Cambridge (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958), 12.↩︎
3. Ibid., 13.↩︎
4. Ibid., 8.↩︎
5. Ibid.↩︎
6. New England’s First Fruits (London: R.O. and G.D. for Henry Overton, 1643).↩︎
7. New England’s First Fruits., for the 1642 Statutes of Harvard, and see also the 1655 “Lawes of the Colledge published publiquely before the Students of Harvard Colledge,” Colonial Society of Massachusetts, accessed 9 Dec. 2025, https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/429. These statutes give more details than the above summary about the studies and requirements in the early years of Harvard.↩︎
8. Roger Geiger, “The First Century of the American College: 1636-1740,” in The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2016), 7.↩︎
9. Preamble to the Collegiate School’s First Charter, approved by the General Court of the Colony of Connecticut (the Connecticut legislature), 1701.↩︎
10. Geiger, 11.↩︎
11. Walter C. Bronson, The History of Brown University 1764-1914 (Providence, R.I.: Brown University, 1914), 129.↩︎
12. Ibid., 103.↩︎
13. George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003), 250-51.↩︎
14. Leonard Woods, History of the Andover Theological Seminary (Boston: James R. Good, & Company, 1885), 19-20.↩︎
15. Ibid., 21-22.↩︎
16. Ibid., 19-24.↩︎
17. Leonard Woods, History of the Andover Theological Seminary (Boston: James R. Good, & Company, 1885).↩︎
18. Ibid., 153.↩︎
19. Ibid., 160-161.↩︎
20. Ibid.↩︎
21. Ibid., 137.↩︎
22. Board of Trustees, Newton Theological Institute: A Sketch of Its History (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1866), 6-7.↩︎
23. Ibid., 11.↩︎
24. Margaret Bendroth, A School of the Church: Andover Newton across Two Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 29.↩︎
25. General Catalogue of the Theological Institute of Connecticut at East-Windsor, 1843 (Hartford: Elihu Geer, 1843), 14.↩︎
26. Ibid., 15.↩︎
27. David B. Potts, Wesleyan University: 1831-1910 (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1992), xv.↩︎
28. “A People’s History of the School of Theology,” Boston University website, https://www.bu.edu/sth-history/graduates/concord-students/.↩︎
29. Ibid., https://www.bu.edu/sth-history/alphabetical-index/albert-l-long-1857/. (For example, Albert L. Long, class of 1857, became a missionary to Bulgaria.)↩︎
30. Annual Report of the School of Theology of Boston University, 1873. (Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1873), 18.↩︎
31. “Anna E. Hall, (1870-1964): Long-Time African-American Missionary Educator In Liberia,” Boston University School of Theology, History of Missiology, March 2020, https://www.bu.edu/missiology/2020/03/02/hall-anna-e-1870-1964/.↩︎
32. James Arthur Muller, The Episcopal Theological School: 1867-1943 (Cambridge, Mass.: Episcopal Theological School, 1943), 8.↩︎
33. Ibid., 31-32.↩︎
34. Ibid., 45.↩︎
35. Phillip Douglas Chapman, “The Whole Gospel for the Whole World: A History of the Bible School Movement within American Pentecostalism, 1880-1920” (Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State University, 2008), 105-6.↩︎
36. Nathan R. Wood, A School of Christ (Boston: Halliday Lithograph, 1953), 11-12.↩︎
37. Ibid., 25.↩︎
38. Ibid., 27. (Only about 150 students completed the full two-year course of study.)↩︎
39. L. L. Doggett, History of the Boston Young Men’s Christian Association (Boston: Young Men’s Christian Association, 1901), 43.↩︎
40. Ibid.↩︎
41. Donald Dewart, Educational Institutions of New England (Boston: Bellman Publishing Company, 1946), 127.↩︎
42. Gordon College, “The History of Barrington College,” https://www.gordon.edu/about/history/barrington-history, accessed 14 Jan. 2026.↩︎
43. “Northpoint History,” Northpoint College Student Handbook (2020-2021), 5. https://northpoint.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2020-2021-Student-Handbook.pdf.↩︎
44. Currently this degree program offers concentration on pastoral leadership, preaching and spiritual formation.↩︎
45. Garth M. Rosell, Boston’s Historic Park Street Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2009), 142.↩︎
46. Ibid., 42-43.↩︎
47. Ibid., 44.↩︎
48. These principles were illustrated with the analogy of a fence: (1) local weekly group meetings served as the fence posts; (2) independent self-study often using programmed texts between group meetings served as one fence rail; and (3) immediate practical ministry application served as the second fence rail.↩︎
49. Eldin Villafane and Rudy Mitchell, “The Center for Urban Ministerial Education,” Urban Mission 2, no.2 (Nov. 1984):32.↩︎
50. Ibid., 35.↩︎
51. Some classes were also held in Lawrence, Springfield and New Bedford, Massachusetts.↩︎

Bibliography

“Anna E. Hall, (1870-1964): Long-Time African-American Missionary Educator in Liberia,” Boston University School of Theology, History of Missiology,  March 2020, https://www.bu.edu/missiology/2020/03/02/hall-anna-e-1870-1964/.

Annual Report of the School of Theology of Boston University, 1873. Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1873.

Bendroth, Margaret. A School of the Church: Andover Newton across Two Centuries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008.

Board of Trustees. Newton Theological Institute: A Sketch of Its History. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1866. 

Bronson, Walter C. The History of Brown University: 1764-1914. Providence, R.I.: Brown University, 1914. 

Chapman, Phillip Douglas. “The Whole Gospel for the Whole World: A History of the Bible School Movement within American Pentecostalism, 1880-1920.” Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State University, 2008.

Costello, William T. The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth Century Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958.

Dewart, Donald. Educational Institutions of New England. Boston: Bellman Publishing Company, 1946. 

Doggett, L. L. History of the Boston Young Men’s Christian Association. Boston: Young Men’s Christian Association, 1901. 

Geiger, Roger. ”The First Century of the American College: 1636 -1740,” in The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II.  Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,  2016.

General Catalogue of the Theological Institute of Connecticut at East-Windsor, 1843. Hartford: Elihu Geer, 1843.

Gordon College. “The History of Barrington College.” https://www.gordon.edu/about/history/barrington- history, accessed 14 Jan. 2026.

“Lawes of the Colledge published publiquely before the Students of Harvard Colledge,” 1655.  Colonial Society of Massachusetts, accessed 9 Dec. 2025, https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/429.

Marsden, George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Founding of Harvard College. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935. 

Muller, James Arthur. The Episcopal Theological School: 1867-1943. Cambridge, Mass.: Episcopal Theological School, 1943. 

New England’s First Fruits. London: R.O. and G.D. for Henry Overton, 1643. 

“Northpoint History,” Northpoint College Student Handbook: 2020-2021. https://northpoint.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2020-2021-Student-Handbook.pdf 

 “A People’s History of the School of Theology, Boston University website, https://www.bu.edu/sth-history/graduates/concord-students/. 

Potts, David B. Wesleyan University: 1831-1910. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1992.

Preamble to the Collegiate School’s First Charter, approved by the General Court of the Colony of Connecticut (the Connecticut legislature), 1701.

Rosell, Garth M. Boston’s Historic Park Street Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2009. 

Villafane, Eldin, and Rudy Mitchell. “The Center for Urban Ministerial Education,” Urban Mission 2, no.2 (Nov. 1984):32.

Wood, Nathan R. A School of Christ. Boston: Halliday Lithograph, 1953. 

Woods, Leonard. History of the Andover Theological Seminary. Boston: James R. Good, & Company, 1885.

The City Gives Birth to a Seminary

The City Gives Birth to a Seminary

The founding of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Boston campus, the Center for Urban Ministerial Education.

by Steve Daman, Senior Production Advisor, Applied Research and Consulting, EGC

What if you want to start a seminary? Where do you begin?

What if, instead of showing up with long-term goals and administrative strategies for organizational development, you

• choose to allow the color and complexity and diversity of a changing city to shape the seminary?

• start by listening rather than directing?

• not only welcome collaboration, you insist on it?

• launch your first class just three months after you get the nod to start?

What would that look like? It would look like CUME, the Center for Urban Ministerial Education, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Boston campus.

Eldin Villafañe

In the fall of 1973, Eldin Villafañe and his wife, Margie, settled into student housing at Boston University (BU) and Eldin started work on a Ph.D. in social ethics. Already a graduate of Central Bible College and Wheaton Graduate School of Theology, Eldin had been serving as director of Christian education for the largest Hispanic Assemblies of God church in the country at the time, Iglesia Cristiana Juan 3:16 in the Bronx. His thought was to come to BU, get the degree, and get back to New York. But God had another plan.

Not long after coming to Boston, Eldin made his way to a little bookstore on Shawmut Avenue, a store bursting with books and music in both Spanish and English, furnished with vintage display counters and decorated with brightly painted maracas, guiros, tambourines and a variety of flags. The little store seemed dark at first coming off the street, yet the room was always full of cheerful conversation, lively music, and warm Christian fellowship.

Eldin struck up a friendship with the manager, Web Brower, who had launched the store in 1970 as a ministry of the Emmanuel Gospel Center (EGC). The store served as a resource center for the growing Hispanic church community as thousands of Latinos were moving into Boston from across Latin America as well as from New York and Puerto Rico.

One day, Web invited Eldin to join the planning team for an inner-city Christian education conference. It was a good fit as Eldin was a seasoned Christian education director and well-respected in his denomination, the Assemblies of God. Eldin remembers, “They asked me to mobilize some Latinos. And Web and the folks were thinking, you know, if we get 20 or 30 people that would be great. Well, because I had been known in my denomination and I knew the pastors, I was able to bring close to 300 Latinos.”

The conference spilled over into two churches. That event built new relational bridges for Eldin, especially with some of the city’s African American leaders such as Michael Haynes, Bruce Wall, and VaCountess (V.C.) Johnson, all on staff with Twelfth Baptist Church at that time. God gave him much grace, he says, and the other leaders valued his contribution to this conference.

Somewhere along the way, Eldin was asked to be a guest lecturer for a few seminary classes held at the Emmanuel Gospel Center. In 1973, the same year that the Villafañes came to Boston, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) launched a program called the Urban Middler Year (UMY). Seminarians could choose to spend their second full year of study in Boston, attending classes at the Gospel Center taught by Doug Hall, at that time the director of EGC, and Professor Steve Mott of Gordon-Conwell, with additional help from Professor Dean Borgman and other urban leaders. Students would serve with an inner-city church and be mentored in urban ministry. Then they would return to Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Hamilton for their third and final year. When Eldin spoke at the Gospel Center those few times, he did not realize he would soon be working in partnership with Steve Mott.

The Birth of the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME)

In 1969, one of the mandates of the newly formed Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, arising from the merger of the Conwell School of Theology in Philadelphia and the Gordon Divinity School in Wenham, Massachusetts, was to engage the city in some fashion. Both schools had historical commitments to urban ministry that it was unwilling to abandon; however, the specific shape and form for the new institution remained rather unclear.

Initially, Dr. Stephen Mott was hired to direct a program to be housed in Philadelphia, continuing the Conwell tradition of training African American clergy. In effect, Dr. Mott became a full-time professor of church and society, located at the Hamilton campus of Gordon-Conwell in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.

Other GCTS constituencies, particularly urban clergy, also shared this interest that the seminary’s original urban mandate become a full reality. Dr. Michael Haynes, senior Pastor of the historic Twelfth Baptist Church in Roxbury, Massachusetts, and a longtime trustee of GCTS, took a leading and crucial role at this juncture. He became a strong advocate for the Seminary’s need to be involved in the inner city, and powerfully articulated the plight of the church in the inner city to the Seminary’s Trustees and senior administration.

Before Gordon-Conwell launched the Urban Middler Year program, there had been talk of doing more for the city. A few years earlier, in 1969, Doug Hall sent a letter to the seminary’s leadership asking them to consider addressing three critical needs that Doug and his team saw emerging in Boston:

• the need for an urban training component for traditional seminary students, which initially was addressed in 1973 with the start of UMY

• the need for research on demographics and trends in the city to keep ministerial training relevant and to inform the pastors

• the need for contextualized ministerial training for pastors already working in Boston.

The UMY program was importing eager seminarians into the city. Gordon-Conwell never addressed the research concern, but, in 1976, God sent a researcher to EGC. Rudy Mitchell, still EGC’s senior researcher, has been studying the city and its churches for four decades.

But what was to be done about the remaining challenge, the need to better equip pastors already serving? Many pastors in Boston’s newest churches had little or no formal education, many did not speak English, but, with anointing from God, they were leading dozens of Boston’s most effective churches.

Doug Hall remembers conversations with busy, bi-vocational pastors who wanted more training, but wondered how to fit that into their busy lives, as they were already feeling burned out. He also heard his friend Michael Haynes voice deep concerns about the lack of access to evangelical ministry training and higher education for urban residents—a gap that had widened in the twenty years since Gordon Divinity School had moved out of the city of Boston in the mid-1950s.

By 1976, the leadership at Gordon-Conwell was ready to do more. They began looking for the right person to build bridges among urban church leaders across many ethnic groups, someone who could administer new programs—possibly an urban seminary, and teach and mentor students. Professor Steve Mott asked Eldin if he was interested, and then Doug Hall and his wife Judy drove Eldin the thirty miles up Route 1 to introduce him to the seminary leaders.

When the offer was extended, Eldin readily agreed to join Gordon-Conwell as assistant professor of church and society, working alongside Steve. Eldin was made coordinator for the Urban Middler Year program and he was asked to do one more thing: to begin to think about ways the seminary could establish a new and separate program for training and equipping the urban pastors already serving congregations.

“There was great interest in doing this, and I just took the ball and ran,” Eldin says. V.C. Johnson, a Gordon-Conwell graduate and ordained minister who was working at Twelfth Baptist, was also already involved in exploring this idea. V.C. and Professor Dean Borgman had been conducting some simple surveys to see whether a program for indigenous pastors and leaders would fly.

Eldin and V.C. soon began working together. Eldin recalls, “I had been named the director of the project, and I started calling V.C. the assistant director right away rather than a secretary or administrative assistant as someone suggested, because she was doing much more. I can remember the meetings I had with V.C. coming up with a name. We were thinking of a few names and then she said, ‘Let’s call it: Center for Urban Ministerial Education.’ And we called it that from day one.”

Then came a flurry of gatherings with pastors and leaders from the Hispanic, African American, and Anglo communities. “A lot of folks were very supportive,” Eldin says.

Just three months after receiving the challenge from Gordon-Conwell to think about what could be done for indigenous pastors, the Center for Urban Ministerial Education opened its doors in September 1976 at the Second African Meeting House on 11 Moreland Street in Roxbury. “We started with 30 students,” Eldin remembers. “About 16 were Latinos and 12 were African Americans, and maybe one or two were White.”

Contextualized Urban Theological Education

After a year or two, V.C. left because of her work commitments at Twelfth Baptist. “I wanted the seminary to look like the city,” Eldin reflects, “so I began to pray for an individual who has credentials, and an African American, and God sent Sam Hogan to join the team.”

Sam was finishing his second master’s degree at Harvard, a Master of Theological Studies. Today Bishop Hogan serves as a pastor and a leader in Boston with the Church of God in Christ denomination.

Other workers were added, such as Naomi Wilshire, Bruce Jackson, Efrain Agosto and Ira Frazier. Doug Hall continued developing his courses in urban ministry he had pioneered with the UMY program, and they eventually became core courses for the Masters of Divinity in Urban Ministry degree, and are still offered today.

“I really was given carte blanche,” Eldin says. “I was given freedom. I had been a Sunday School man, and I knew how to organize, mobilize, and that was key because from day one I fought for some issues.” While the school did not immediately offer advanced degrees, “one of the things I wanted was that pastors and leaders would be able to take courses and that when the time came that we would get the degree component, all the coursework they had done would be counted toward that degree,” Eldin says. Eldin fought for them, and four years later, when CUME awarded its first master's degrees, students from his first class were among the recipients.

The idea of “contextualized urban theological education” soon became the underlying philosophy of CUME. To “contextualize” means you have to keep listening to the needs of the city, Eldin says.

“You have to be faithful to the reality that is there, and then you have to discern what the Spirit is doing, even in the immigration patterns. Right from day one we started classes in English and Spanish. Two years later, we saw the growth among the Haitians coming to Boston. I asked Marilyn Mason, who worked with EGC, if she would help me convene Haitian leaders.

"And what we did then became a principle. Here is what you do. You get one or two key leaders, have them convene others for a meeting, and when they get here I say, ‘Look, we are here to prepare leadership. But you need to push us. What do you want to do? How far do you want to go? Do you want a certificate or a degree program? We can do it, but you have to push us so I can push further up.’

"And of course with critical mass and the key leadership we had among the Haitians, one of the first ones who started to work with us was Soliny Védrine.”

Pastor Védrine was busy planting a church in Boston. He also worked as a bookkeeper to support his growing family. With a law degree and a recent theological degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, Pastor Sol began to teach Haitian pastors in Creole. Pastor Sol continues to serve the Haitian Christian community today through the Emmanuel Gospel Center.

“Later we did the same thing with the Brazilians. Ruy Costa was doing Ph.D. work at BU with me. Through him we convened the Brazilians and they began to come,” Eldin says. CUME began offering classes in Portuguese. Today, Dr. Costa works as executive director of the Episcopal City Mission in Boston.

For a while, CUME even offered courses in American Sign Language taught by Rev. Lorraine Anderson, when she served as senior pastor of the International Community Church in Allston.

CUME and the Quiet Revival

Boston’s Quiet Revival is understood as an unprecedented and sustained period of Christian growth in the city of Boston beginning in 1965 and persisting over five decades. As CUME got momentum, there was, at the same time, robust church planting in Boston, particularly among these immigrant populations.

In 1965, when the revival began, there were 318 churches in the city. Fifty years later, despite the fact that many church plants are short-lived and not a few mainline churches have closed; there are now more than 575 Christian churches within city limits, according to EGC’s research.

“My perspective is that we have to be discerning and faithful to what the Lord is doing. I believe the Lord is sovereign in the world, so movements of people to different places don’t just happen because they happen,” Eldin says.

“We have to ask, ‘What is the Lord doing by bringing all these people? What does it mean?’ We want to serve the city. We started with these four languages because they represented a strong Brazilian community, a strong Haitian community, a strong Latino community, and of course the bottom line, we want to teach in the language of those who are marginalized from society at that time, these people who are very gifted. So language, immigration, all this was tied to the revival.”

The move of God that started among the Hispanic churches and then ignited among other people groups, by and large identified with Pentecostalism. “The Quiet Revival is a move of God through Pentecostal churches, be they classical Pentecostal or independent,” Eldin says.

“Many of these churches were Spirit-open churches, and even when they were Baptist or otherwise, they were very charismatic. When I started CUME, the greatest majority of students were Pentecostal. The reason I teach theology or ethics is because I am concerned that all churches, but Pentecostal churches particularly, need solid theological training.” As an insider in the Hispanic Pentecostal movement, Dr. Villafañe has written extensively about this in The Liberating Spirit: Toward an Hispanic American Pentecostal Social Ethic.

One of the reasons the Quiet Revival has endured and prospered for almost fifty years and the churches continue to be strengthened is because CUME was there from the beginning.

EGC Director Jeff Bass says, “I think CUME is the most important Christian organization in the city, because you are backfilling theology into this movement that could have gotten weird, and it has not. There are a lot of strong churches today because there are so many hundreds of CUME graduates out there that have learned theology, and have learned Living System Ministry, the principles we teach here at the Emmanuel Gospel Center as well, such as the importance of unity among the churches, or that God is at work in the city and you have to join in with what he is already doing. We are impacting people to collaborate, to understand the living systems, to ask ‘system questions,’ not to be lone rangers, and to be on the lookout for unintended negative returns.”

CUME AND EGC

“The churches, CUME, and EGC,” Eldin says, “were part of the institutional ‘feeders’ God used to help nurture the Quiet Revival. The trio of EGC, CUME, and the emerging churches nurtured an amazing renewal in Boston over the past four decades.” He calls the relationship “triple nurture,” as there was an organic ebb and flow among the three living systems, each nurturing and being nurtured, shaping and being shaped.

Starting in the late 1960s, EGC began pouring resources into the immigrant church communities. EGC

• created pastoral networks which are still in place today

• provided state of the art street evangelism equipment used by urban churches to reach their own neighborhoods

• ran a multi-language Christian bookstore that was both a supply center and a relational networking hub for urban pastors

• offered a Christian legal clinic which worked to help pastors and church members with immigration issues, churches obtain tax exempt status, and church leaders negotiate red tape in renting or buying properties.

• Supported CUME in training indigenous pastors to fan the flames of the Quiet Revival.

Today, through applied research and issue-focused programs, EGC equips urban Christian leaders to understand complex social systems, to build fruitful relationships and take responsible action within their communities, all to see the Kingdom of God grow in Greater Boston.

EGC is helping leaders engage issues related to gender-based violence, urban youth, public health, homelessness, urban education, and refugee assimilation, to name a few. By learning to align to what God is doing in Boston, Christian leaders are creating innovative and effective approaches to what some see as intractable problems.

CUME's ONgoing Mission

CUME, now Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary-Boston, is a seminary shaped by the Quiet Revival. But as both the revival and the seminary are interconnected living systems, CUME has also shaped the revival, giving it depth and breadth.

“One of the problems with revivals anywhere,” Eldin points out, “is oftentimes you have good strong evangelism that begins to grow a church, but the growth does not come with trained leadership who are educated biblically and theologically. You can have all kinds of problems. Besides heresy, you can have recidivism, people going back to their old ways. The beautiful thing about the Quiet Revival is that, just as it begins to flourish, CUME is coming aboard.”

To that end, CUME helps students achieve Paul’s charge in 2 Timothy 2:15, “Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately” (NET).

A further contribution of GCTS-Boston beyond theological education is that it fosters cross-denominational and cross-ethnic collaboration by providing a safe, neutral place for emerging leaders to build close relationships. The students know each other by name, grow to love each other, and find it easier to work together on common goals. They know they are not alone. They learn that they are part of a growing network of men and women who are passionate about the Church in Boston. This collaboration strengthens and empowers each individual as each one stays connected with others.

Eldin says that CUME intentionally provides space for leadership to get together. The goal is that the emerging leadership will build relationships and that out of those relationships more Kingdom fruit will grow.

Most of CUME’s classes are held in the evenings as many students work during the day, either as pastors or in some other employment or both. In the middle of the evening there is a welcome coffee break when students gather informally around snacks.

Once, Eldin says, someone in the business office challenged that idea, thinking it would be better stewardship of both time and money to teach right through. “I said, ‘Don’t you touch that! When we get to heaven, we might find that might be the most important thing we did!’”

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary-Boston (CUME) today serves 300 students per semester, representing nearly forty denominations and twenty countries. It has had strong and capable leadership following and expanding on Eldin’s vision of Contextualized Urban Theological Education; leaders such as Dr. Efrain Agosto, Dr. Alvin Padilla and Dr. Mark G. Harden. 

CUME DISTINCTIVES

• The school’s qualified faculty members work in the same ministry context as the students.

• Courses are offered evenings and weekends to accommodate working students.

• In addition to English, various courses are offered as needed in Spanish, French, Haitian-Creole and Portuguese.

• GCTS-Boston offers master’s programs in several disciplines and Th.M.- Doctor of Ministry in Practical Theology. Nearly forty percent of the students pursue the Master of Divinity in Urban Church Ministry.

GCTS-Boston students gain the foundation and skills they need to be effective coworkers with God as he lavishly pours out his redeeming love across the city of Boston.

____________

Steve Daman is the Senior Production Advisor with the Applied Research and Consulting department at EGC.

The article was developed from a conversation with Rev. Eldin Villafañe, Ph.D., Founding Director, Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME), Boston Campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (1976–1990) and Professor of Christian Social Ethics, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and was originally published online by the Emmanuel Gospel Center in Nov. 2013. Excerpts were published in Inside EGC, Nov-Dec 2013, a newsletter of Emmanuel Gospel Center. With additional editing by the author, and by Aida Besancon Spencer, Eldin Villafañe, and John Runyon, the article was reprinted by Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the Africanus Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2016, p. 33.

A New Kind of Learning: Contextualized Theological Education Models

Resources for the urban pastor and community leader published by Emmanuel Gospel Center, Boston

Emmanuel Research Review reprint
Issue No. 59 — September/October 2010

Introduced by Brian Corcoran, Managing Editor, Emmanuel Research Review

“There are many challenges facing theological schools in the 21st century and the challenge of dealing well with the different histories, worldviews, languages, dialects, and cultures is the most significant and most overwhelming,” says Dr. Al Padilla, Dean of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Boston campus, the Center for Urban Ministerial Education. Boston is a prime example of the ways the ethnic and cultural composition of North American society continues to become more diverse. Recognizing this cultural shift, Dr. Padilla asks what bearing and challenges does this present to our current understanding and approach to urban theological education systems and models? And what does all this mean for the broader Evangelical Church? Padilla observes that “God is performing a transformation in the Church… reshaping the very core of what the church is,” and says that God is working through “women and men from diverse backgrounds and perspectives teaching us.” This is not a comfortable thought to some. However, guiding all of this is “the clearest theological image of contextualization,” the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ—“pitching his tent with us,” as Dr. Padilla says.

Our lead article, “A New Kind of Learning: Contextualized Theological Education Models,” by Dr. Alvin Padilla, Ph.D., Dean of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Center for Urban Ministerial Education, is based on his plenary presentation at the 2010 Ethnic Ministry Summit in Boston in April this year. You can also download or listen to 32 selected seminars from the Summit at http://reimaginegrace.org/summit-audio.

Also in this issue is a sample list of urban ministry training systems in Metro Boston prepared by EGC.

A New Kind of Learning: Contextualized Theological Education Models

by Alvin Padilla, Ph.D., (former) Dean of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary – Boston, the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME). [ed. Dr Padilla is at Western Theological Seminary as of 2017.]

It is undeniable that the ethnic/cultural composition of our North American society has changed in the last 50 years and, as a result, the face of American Christianity is rapidly changing as well. All of us here today are aware that the numeral epicenter of Christianity has shifted to the Global South. A century ago, Europe and North America comprised 82% of the world’s Christian population. Today, Europe and North America comprise less than 40% of the world’s Christian population. It is estimated that by 2050, 71% of the world’s Christians will be from Africa, Asia, and South America. Closer to home, it is estimated that by 2050, ethnic minorities will comprise over 50% of the population in the U.S. By 2025, minorities will comprise 50% of all children. Those are staggering statistics and in some way or another they challenge all of us—for diversity seems to be overwhelming us.

Scripture, Cultures, and Unity

Even to the casual reader, there is little doubt that the Christian Bible is a broad collection of documents spanning millennia in composition, multiplicity of literary genres, and diverse in its content. Yet there is, at the same time, little doubt that unifying theological themes can be readily discerned throughout its voluminous pages. For centuries, Christians read and talked about this wondrous collection and discerned that “embedded in all these differences and diversities there was a single voice and that this voice was personal, the voice of God.” (Peterson, Eugene H. Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2006, p. 26.)

Genesis 1:26 is often cited as the cultural mandate wherein humanity is assigned the task of creating human culture.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” —Gen. 1:26

By the time of the prophet Isaiah, humanity has evolved into many cultures resulting, sadly, in a state of enmity among the nations and cultures. The poet-prophet expresses his longing for a day when all the different cultures of the world would gather together on the mountain of the Lord:

It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord. —Isaiah 2:2-5

The prophet envisions a time when peace and justice will prevail for the Lord sits enthroned, ruling humanity with equity.

Eight hundred years later we see the fulfillment of this desire on the day of Pentecost—all the nations present in Jerusalem—Mt Zion, the Mountain of the Lord—and they hear the wonderful news of God’s gracious offer of salvation in their own tongue. This fulfillment is only in part for the time being, and we see in 1 Peter 1:1 and 2:11 that those who claim to live on the slopes of Mt Zion must live as aliens in a foreign land—living in the here and now but knowing that we do not belong here; for we know that we have not yet reached the ultimate summit of the mountain. Christians must live as aliens (pilgrims) ascending the path toward the summit of the mountain. In reality, we know that those who rule on earth see us as undocumented aliens who have no right to be here. Finally, we see in Revelation a vision of how it will all turn out; a vision of our arrival at the final summit and the gathering of God’s people from all nations, and cultures, and languages.

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands. —Rev. 7:9

Though we “see” the idyllic vision of Revelation 7:9, and “hear” in it the melodious harmony of many languages and cultures weaved together into a intricate symphony of unequal beauty, the reality is that most in our North American society see only disunity and hear cacophony. On the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon those gathered on Mt Zion, it was only those who were from foreign lands who recognized the miracle for what it was—“Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?” (Acts 2:7-8) Those who were “native born,” the dominant culture in Jerusalem, could only mock and say “They are full of wine” (Acts 2:13). They too heard the apostles speaking in their own language (Aramaic most likely), but to them that was no miracle, for that was the dominant language group in the region. Trusting in the familiarity of their own cultural preferences (in this case, language) they were unable to grasp the significance of the miracle happening literally before their very eyes and ears. Their only reaction is mocking—for they do not understand what God is doing. If you would grant me some homiletical license, these persons would be the ones caucusing for an Aramaic-only stature in Palestinian law.

I am afraid that a significant segment of the Evangelical Church in North America finds itself in the same dilemma—the works of God are manifested for all to see—yet we mock them for they appear to be nothing but a rabble of uneducated men and women speaking nonsense. In the Presbyterian circles that are familiar to me, there are many who cannot fathom how God could use the apparent “indecency and disorder” of these churches—particularly those that label themselves Presbyterian.

The Evangelical Church in a Pluralistic World

Early in this 21st century, the Christian Church—the Evangelical Church—finds herself in a challenging position as we confront the multicultural, postmodern and pluralistic world in which we have been called to bear witness to Christ. At best, we are perplexed and bewildered, not knowing what in the world God is doing through us. At worst, some of us claim the death of the Church and even Christianity itself—ignoring the tremendous growth of Christianity in cities like Boston. Still others see the next wave of Christianity emerging over the southern horizon and long for the arrival of its powerful undertow on our very shores, so that it may take hold of the North American Church and sweep it under its power. I do pray that you count yourself among the latter group.

Indeed, the whole world has come to our doorstep. Learning to live well in the diverse culture of North America is no longer an option, but a necessity. The U.S. Census estimates that in 2050 the proportion of whites in the population will be only 53%. Our children will live and serve in a society in which their classmates, neighbors, and fellow disciples of Christ will be equally divided between whites and people of color. As new people move into our cities and local communities, the communities undoubtedly will change. The changes could be haphazard and filled with misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and even violence, or the changes could permit all to reinvent and reinvigorate themselves for the better.

Although the West (North America, Europe) has indeed lost the numerical superiority, it still retains an iron grip on the reins of power in the Church. We in the West assume that we speak ex cathedra for all of Christendom. It is our theology that is normative; our way of being the Church is the standard for all to follow. In the area of theological education, we continue to assume that Western educational methods work best for everyone. We have not dared to envision new ways of learning to serve the increasing ethnic and cultural diversity overwhelming our society. We are unwilling to reinvent ourselves.

It should be noted, for example, that current practices in American seminaries reveal that theological schools remain enamored with pedagogical systems that are dated and increasingly irrelevant to our communities and are disconnected from both global and local realities. They fail to incorporate Hispanics, Blacks, and others in leadership roles at all levels of the school’s structure and neglect paying attention to issues of particular relevance to ethnic Americans, such as immigration reform, healthcare, education, etc. There are many challenges facing theological schools in the 21st century, and the challenge of dealing well with the different histories, worldviews, languages, dialects and cultures is the most significant and most overwhelming.

While Christianity in North America continues its progress toward the creation of a multiethnic Church, seminaries are mired in monoculturalism. Yes there are mission statements indicating the school’s commitment to ethnic diversity and its desire to attract non-White students. However, these statements are rarely accompanied by a significant multi-ethnic presence among the faculty and senior administrators. Recently I spoke with a colleague from another seminary in the midst of searching for its chief executive. A comment he made surprised me. He commented that the majority culture finds it difficult to follow someone who is non-White or has a notable foreign accent. With opinions and comments like that, no wonder seminaries lack ethnics among their senior leadership. What my colleague demonstrated with that comment is the school’s lack of intentionality in its pursuit of ethnic diversity—though its mission statement clearly indicated their welcoming stance of the stranger. Lacking intentionality, schools find reasons to rationalize the continuation of past hiring practices. The challenge to diversify staff and faculty is endemic to Christianity because of our commitment (in principle) to the equality of all—Christian institutions must diversify or risk making a mockery of our belief that all men and women are made in the image of God.

The fact is that as ethnic Christians in North America, we find ourselves confronted with the reality of being marginalized in the context of our own faith tradition. We identify with American evangelicalism on a broad scale; indeed many of us are immersed in evangelicalism. My own personal journey of faith is not uncommon: conversion from Catholic to Pentecostalism, educated at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS), ordained, serving mainline churches, Bible teacher at an evangelical Christian College and now GCTS. On the surface I am part of the evangelical mainstream. Yet I am oftentimes still seen and treated as an outsider. As my colleague Dr. Soong-Chan Rah has stated, “I grow weary of seeing Western, white expressions of the Christian faith being lifted up while failing to see nonwhite expressions of faith represented in meaningful ways in American evangelicalism.” (Rah, Soong-Chan. The Next Evangelicalism: Releasing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2009, p. 16.)

In the Pain of Transformation

Indeed, God is performing a transformation in the Church, a transformation that is reshaping the very core of what the Church is—how we are structured, when we meet to worship, how we worship, in what language, with what instrumentation, women and men from diverse backgrounds and perspectives teaching us. It is transforming how we envision and deliver theological education. Transformation is a wonderful thing; it is the process of changing from one state to another. However, if you do not like change, transformation can be a very troubling thing. If you do not like uncertainty nor unpredictability, then transformation is indeed a daunting thing. Whatever your take, transformation is a very painful process—but the end results are well worth it.

The Pentecost nature of Christianity enables us to create new paradigms for witness and evangelization. Instead of rejoicing, many find themselves threatened and on the defensive, wondering whether all this heterogeneity is not merely the babblings of a world falling apart, rather than the blessing of a world that God is giving birth. In too many cases, Christian institutions, particularly evangelical theological seminaries, see themselves as the last line of defense in a siege by a pluralistic and skeptical age, maintaining the status quo down to the last member.

Christ’s transforming presence provides us with the willingness and the power to adapt ourselves for missionary ministry in this postmodern world, to contextualize the Gospel message to the culture that surrounds us.

Look at the opportunities some of this ethnic diversity provides for the Church we are called to serve at this time. Let us look, for example, at Hispanics in our communities. By the year 2020, Hispanics will make up nearly one quarter of all U.S. residents. Researchers predict that by the end of this decade, Hispanics will make up more than 50% of all Catholics in the U.S. “Organized nationally and possessing forceful leadership, Hispanics will make a major impact on the future of Catholicism in the U.S. much the same way the Irish did in the 19th century.” And it is not just the Catholic Church that Hispanics are changing. An estimated one out of every seven Hispanic left the Catholic Church for a Protestant church in the last twenty-five years. If this trend continues at the same rate, then half of all Hispanics will belong to Protestant churches by the year 2025. The question we need to answer is: “How many of them will join the church you will be leading?” For theological seminaries, this implies that they must seek ways to make theological education accessible and practical for Hispanic Americans.

Becoming the People of God

If we were to take seriously the vision of Revelation 7:9, then we will understand that becoming a multicultural church or seminary is not a condescension of the white dominant culture to facilitate evangelistic efforts among ethnic minorities around us. Rather, it is the elevation of every one of us, including the white dominant culture, into something far greater, far more marvelous and wonderful—the people of God.

A number of years ago I heard an illustration concerning the post-war life of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The speaker used it to highlight the dignity and humility of a great man who lowered himself so that others might be lifted up:

It’s a warm spring Sunday at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond. As the minister is about to present Holy Communion, a tall, well-dressed black man sitting in the section reserved for African Americans unexpectedly advances to the communion rail; unexpectedly because this has never happened here before. The congregation freezes. Those that had been ready to go forward and kneel at the communion rail remain fixed in their pews. The minister stands in his place stunned and motionless. The black man slowly lowers his body, kneeling at the communion rail. After what seems like an interminable amount of time, an older white man rises. His hair snowy white, head up, and eyes proud, he walks quietly up the aisle to the chancel rail. So with silent dignity and self-possession, the white man kneels down to take communion along the same rail with the black man.

Now this illustration was meant to illustrate how Robert E. Lee lowered himself so that this black man could take communion in the church. In my opinion, this application of this story misses the mark altogether. What I see is how this unidentified black man elevated the congregants of St. Paul’s into the very presence of God. He raised their status into the very presence of the divine rather than lower them; it is our arrogance that sees a great white man lowering himself for the sake of the marginalized. In reality, the opposite happens—and it happens on a daily basis for those with eyes to see.

Allow me to return to the idea of cultural norm referred to above. Seeing our cultural perspective as the norm, we view others as divergent and devalue their contribution to our lives, to our churches, and to our educational institutions. We value them as definitely less than we are and we do a great thing to humble ourselves for their sake. It is like that in far too many of our congregations and educational institutions. In dire need of new members and students, they would be welcomed into our hallowed halls and sanctuaries—as long as they conform to our norms, as long as they become just like us in every shape and form.

As we take note of the diversity among us, we marvel at what God is doing, and in the process disclose our ignorance of early Christianity.

Take a quick glance at the original New Testament story of the early Christian movement: how the slaves, the disenfranchised, the low merchants, the widows, the unemployed, the immigrants, and the socially downcast found a new and exciting alternative to social life that that world had not imagined possible. In this new community, everyone was accepted with reverence and respect. For the early Christians understood that the Lord himself had emptied himself of all social status for their sake; then shouldn’t they do the same for each other?

Consider the originality of the Christian movement: everyone had a new family name, Christian, a third race. A new common bloodstream, the blood of Christ! This new reality was created not by transforming the basic nationality of each person, but by transforming the limitations of national identities inherent in each person. The early Christians were considered atheists by others because they refused to recognize the national gods of any particular nation while accepting the One God of all humanity.

Having taken a brief look at this original Christianity, doesn’t it seem strange that we in North America see multiculturalism as something new?

The Qualitative Dimension of Multiculturalism in the Church

Taken as a whole, definitions of multicultural communities provide both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. The quantitative dimensions deal primarily with the numerical makeup of the ethnic groups that meet together. We all agree that there must be sufficient representation of particular ethnic groups in order to claim that a church is multiethnic. One or two families do not a multicultural community make!

The numerical makeup of a multicultural community is a determining factor, but it is only one factor that defines the multicultural community. Multicultural communities also hold significant commitments to the qualitative dimension, which is the aspect of the church that refers to the life and organization of the local ministry. Here the church or educational institution has biblically contextualized its ministry to the multiethnic context in which it finds itself demographically. This includes reforming the structure and administration of the body to represent the church biblically in the same way it did when it was a homogeneous institution.

How are each of the ethnic groups represented and involved in the life of the church (or seminary)? Does the organization/structure of the church involve or allow for the actual membership of the church to lead and to direct the ministry God has given to the congregation? It may be that structural change will have to represent the cultural mix of that congregation, but this cannot be done without a clear understanding that the Bible provides the necessary tension for that formulation.

The qualitative aspect also has to do with matters of reconciliation and justice. It is important that the educational institution understand the goal of the multicultural community. Maintaining ethnic diversity in a local church is part of the multicultural community, but it is not an end in itself. Gaede states in his book, When Tolerance Is No Virtue:

Multiculturalism also carries much baggage that ought to worry Christians. This baggage has less to do with the details of multiculturalism than with its general orientation. And perhaps the best way to get at this is to notice that more and more, those who favor multiculturalism argue not on the basis of a desire for justice, but on the basis of multiculturalism’s practical necessity or its validity as a general worldview. (Gaede, S D. When Tolerance Is No Virtue: Political Correctness, Multiculturalism & the Future of Truth & Justice. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1993, p. 36.)

This is often called, the “pragmatic” approach to building a multicultural community. “The problem with the pragmatic approach to multi ethnic sensitivity,” Gaede continues, “is that it rules out Jesus’ approach. It says that the end is cooperation, good relations, harmony and agreement. And it thereby undermines and displaces the true ends of human existence.” (Gaede, p. 37.) Both quantitative and qualitative dimensions are necessary for a multicultural community to be effective in reaching out to a community that is ethnically diverse and growing in this diversity. Presence of the multiethnic community in the local church is a given if mission is applied, but presence without incorporation limits the process of true biblical discipleship. The qualitative dimension occurs as participants are discipled and become responsible members of the local ministry. It is a state of incompleteness when the church neglects to train and incorporate believers into the fullness of the ministry.

In a true multicultural community, as women and men from other cultures and ethnic groups are incorporated into leadership roles, the structure of the institution, of the community of faith itself, is reshaped (reformed, if you will) in order to allow for a smoother transition, and in response to the inner workings of the Spirit in the community. Conversely, if you do have some participation of ethnic persons in your community of faith, but it has not structurally changed the institution, then what you have is assimilation and not a true multicultural community. Referring to the tragedy of assimilation, Hispanic educator Arturo Madrid states, “Diversity is desirable only in principle, not in practice. Long live diversity—as long as it conforms to my standards, to my mind set, to my view of life, to my sense of order.” Not only is there structural change, there is also change in purpose, in mission and, of course, in the overarching vision of the ministry. As we are transformed into a godly multicultural community, we incorporate the issues and concerns affecting the lives of everyone in the community and we allow the Other to lead us in this transformational journey.

Take a cursory look at Acts 6. The Church continues to grow, and we encounter the first cultural conflict: the Hellenistic Jews (most likely Jews born and raised in the diaspora) complained that their widows were being neglected by the Hebraic Jews (most likely Jews born and raised in Palestine). The solution is to choose seven Hellenists to be part of the leadership of the community. Can you imagine the change in our national history if our founding fathers had asked the men and women who were enslaved if they could give an opinion as to their future?

Qualitatively Multicultural Theological Education

The challenge before us as we seek to become truly multicultural Christian institutions is: how do we become really multicultural without the trappings of a merely quantitative approach—interested only in numbers and balanced budgets? How can we reach a level of interaction and personal engagement wherein everyone feels welcomed and affirmed? Christian ministry (service, really) at its core is interacting with all kinds of people in ways that give them glimpses of Jesus in us. In Christianity, we affirm the value of each person. Indeed we claim that before God we are all the same, we are equal regardless of ethnicity, culture, or language.

In empowering others for Christian service, the problem for educational institutions and the Church is multilayered. How do we prepare our students and would-be disciples to live in a multicultural, multiethnic world that is largely freed from racism? The word “prepare” in the above sentence suggests an educational process. One of the key objectives of educational institutions is the reshaping of life in relation to human purpose. For theological schools, this implies that we must seek to reshape our students to enable them to live well in a multicultural world. The work of the Church is expressed through koinonia (community and communion), diakonia (service and outreach), kerygma (proclaiming the Word of God), and didache (teaching and learning). To foster an environment of multiculturalism within its institutional ethos, theological schools must create a climate that embraces this work of the Church.

How can we foster this process in our educational institutions so laden with traditional structures that resist change to the core in order to enable them to become multicultural communities?

• The process of developing a curriculum that fosters multiculturalism begins when members of the institution come together to discuss issues relevant to multicultural communities. This is koinonia.

• The school’s leadership drafts and develops an intentionally anti-racist, pro-multiethnic statement to be adhered to by all. This is kerygma.

• This intentionality must be accompanied by practices that promote multiculturalism (diakonia).

• Lastly they discuss strategies, policies, legislation needed to further promote multiculturalism (didache).

Elizabeth Conde-Frazier recommends, among other things, that we follow a trajectory of intentionality, hospitality/friendship, and that we learn to encounter the Other by risking friendship. (See: Conde-Frazier, Elizabeth, S S. Kang, and Gary A. Parrett. A Many Colored Kingdom: Multicultural Dynamics for Spiritual Formation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.) When authentic relationships are built that embrace diversity, tremendous growth in Christ likeness can occur. In following intercultural friendships, safety is critical. We must learn to become safe persons. A safe person has:

a. listening ears,
b. limiting loaded words, and
c. loving arms.

In this risk-taking, we learn to tell and listen to stories—stories of the struggles, and particularly for the dominant culture, they must learn to listen attentively and respectfully to the story of invisibility that we as ethnic minorities feel, even in a Christian institution.

Develop Cultural Intelligence, Not Polite Thoughts

Allow me to add another option for us to consider. As Christians in a multicultural world, we need to approach cross-cultural interaction that stems from inward transformation rather than from information or, worse yet, from artificial political correctness.

Our goal should not be that we may learn more about different cultures, nor should our goal be to simply be better able to navigate cultural differences. Our goal should be to develop what David Livermore calls cultural intelligence, CQ. (The term is not original with him.) (See: http://davidlivermore.com/ for Livermore’s information and resources on Cultural Intelligence.)

CQ is a meta model which provides a coherent framework for dealing with the array of issues involved in crossing various cultures at the same time. CQ deals with people and circumstances in unfamiliar contexts on a daily, continuing basis. CQ also measures our ability to move seamlessly in and out of a variety of cultural contexts that we will encounter by merely being present in any North American city.

Basically, as outlined by Livermore, cultural intelligence (CQ) consists of four different factors:

• “Knowledge CQ” refers to our understanding cross-cultural issues; it measures our ongoing growth in understanding in cross-cultural issues. It refers to our level of understanding about culture and culture’s role in shaping behavior and social interactions.

• “Interpretive CQ” measures our ability to be mindful and aware as we interact with people from different cultural contexts. It helps us intuitively to understand what occurs in an actual cross-cultural encounter; it is the ability to accurately make meaning from what we observe. Interpretative CQ calls for a reflective, contemplative mindset, which mitigates against the zealous, activist approach permeating much of American evangelicalism, where thinking and reflection are often disparaged at the expense of getting things done.

• “Perseverance CQ,” or motivational CQ, indicates our level of interest, drive, and motivation to adapt cross culturally; in other words, Perseverance CQ is our intentionality. And finally,

• “Behavioral CQ” refers to the ability to observe, recognize, regulate, adapt, and act appropriately in intercultural settings; how we behave in such settings.

It might be easier to adapt our message, our curriculum, and our programs, but adapting ourselves is the far greater challenge. CQ provides us with a mechanism by which we gauge our commitment and level of cultural interaction and contextualization. What does it look like to contextualize ourselves to the various cultures where we find ourselves in a given time and place? What do we do when we encounter the Other and how do we react to her or him? That is the challenge we face, the challenge you will face as you venture out to minister in the name of Jesus in the multiethnic, multicultural society he has called you to.

Ministry in Context

At GCTS, CUME has grappled with these realities for decades, determining to provide contextualized theological education in its holistic dimensions—evangelism and social justice, theology and praxis. In doing so, CUME has structured itself to be in the city, of the city, and for the city.

Contextualization may connote different images to many people, but the clearest theological image of contextualization may be found in the Incarnation. In the life of Jesus Christ, coming to dwell on earth in physical, bodily form, we see God dwelling among us—pitching his tent with us. Contextualizing an educational endeavor in the midst of a city means expressing an “urban kenosis”—emptying oneself for the service of others. The theology, curriculum, teaching methods, and academic policies are informed by the context of ministry—by the city and its constituencies.

---

ALVIN PADILLA, Ph.D. (former) Dean of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Boston campus, the Center for Urban Ministerial Education; Dean of Hispanic Ministries; Associate Professor of New Testament. Dr. Padilla has a B.S. from Villanova University; a Master of Divinity degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; and a Ph.D. from Drew University Graduate School. He came to Gordon-Conwell after five years teaching biblical studies at Nyack College in New York. Prior to that, he founded and taught at the Spanish Eastern School of Theology in Swan Lake, NY, for seven years. He has also served as pastor of the Fort Washington Heights Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) in New York City, a Spanish-speaking congregation. In his work as Dean of the Center for Urban Ministerial Education, he oversees the educational programs of CUME, including Masters and Doctor of Ministry degrees. Dr. Padilla is an ordained minister in the PCUSA and holds professional memberships in the American Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Asociación para la Educación Teológica Hispana. [ed. Dr. Padilla is at Western Theological Seminary as of 2017.]

Resources and Links

Urban Ministry Training Systems in Metro Boston

The following is a sampling of urban ministry training systems currently operating in Metro Boston [in 2010]. The list is divided into four categories: Lay Training Centers, Pastoral Training Centers, Bible Schools and Christian Colleges, and Accredited Divinity Schools. (Because of its diverse offerings for students at different levels of academic and professional backgrounds, Gordon-Conwell’s CUME program is listed in three of the four sections.)

Lay Training Centers

1. Células, Congregación León De Judá (Cells at Lion of Judah Church), Pastor Gregory Bishop, www.leondejuda.org/es/taxonomy/term/69

Our cells are one of the most exciting ministries of our church. These are small groups of people gathering in homes, universities and work place for worship, Bible study, prayer and ministry to one another as needed, to evangelize and offer mutual support. They offer a great opportunity to introduce nonbelievers to the fundamental principles of the gospel.

2. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME) Lay Ministry Training and Diploma Programs, Eldin Villafañe, www.gordonconwell.edu/boston/cume_lay_ministry_training_and_diploma_programs

CUME seeks to serve the larger community by offering a variety of non-degree certificate programs. Each certificate spans approximately one academic year with a multiplicity of educational experiences:

• Urban Christian Streetworkers Certificate Programs: CUME offers a unique program of study for the training and equipping of men and women reaching out to the youth at risk in our cities. The program spans eight workshops/courses over two semesters.

• Diploma in Foundational Christian Studies: CUME offers a ten-course, modular program of study leading to a Diploma in Christian Studies. The program provides the student with a basic overview of theological education for ministry and consists of nine (9) required courses and one (1) elective. The Diploma in Foundational Christian Studies may be applied toward coursework in one of the M.A. degrees or the M.Div. degree once a student is accepted to one of those degrees. Credit determination will be made by the admissions committee.

• Diploma in Urban Ministry: CUME offers a ten-course program of study leading to a Diploma in Urban Ministry. The program focuses on the essentials and practical training of benefit to the urban practitioner. This program of study seeks to provide the urban practitioner with theological and biblical reflection on his/her call to ministry and the nature of that ministry. Five (5) courses comprise an urban theological core. Four (4) courses are taken in a particular concentration area with the remaining one (1) course taken as an elective. Particular emphasis is given to the equipping of these men and women for a holistic ministry in the city. The diploma is awarded upon the completion of ten (10) courses.

3. Institute for Christian Leadership, Mario Antonio da Silva, www.leadershiptrainingcenter.org

The certificate program in Lay Pastoral Ministry is designed for Christian men and women interested in evangelism and church development. It is a program for those who want to expand their knowledge, faith, spirituality, and leadership abilities. This program serves as a means of preparation for those seeking to serve as lay ministers according to their churches' affiliations. The LPM Program is a rich learning environment for personal development, spiritual growth and practical training in Christian ministry. It is sponsored by the Presbytery of Boston, PCUSA.

 4. Urban Academy (URBACAD), Paul Bothwell, www.urbacad.org  

URBACAD provides lay people with discipleship and leadership training that is practical, culturally relevant, flexible, accessible, and solid. It emphasizes the vital nature of ministry through the local church by centering its training in and around the local church. Materials are in many languages.

Pastoral Training Centers

1. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Boston campus, the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME), Eldin Villafañe, www.gordonconwell.edu/boston_admissions

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Boston campus, also known as the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME), is particularly focused on equipping urban pastors and church leaders for more effective ministry and outreach in their own communities and throughout the world. CUME also serves in a support capacity by providing resources, ministerial fellowship, and stimulation for cross-denominational endeavors in evangelism and church growth.

The Doctor of Ministry (D. Min.) is the highest professional degree for men and women already successfully engaged in ministry. The M.Div. or its equivalent is a prerequisite degree for entrance into the program. The D. Min. enables leaders in Christian ministry to increase their effectiveness in the church, parachurch organization, or mission in which they minister. The degree is designed to help students improve their skills and understandings in urban ministry to such an extent that they can impact their congregation or community more powerfully for God. Over a three-year period, participants spend two weeks per year in residency on campus. Over the course of the year, they carry out practical, residency-related assignments in their own context and also do the extensive reading required for the next residency. The program concludes over the fourth year with participants designing and implementing a thesis/project which serves to culminate their learning experience.

2. Instituto para la Excelencia Pastoral (Institute for Pastoral Excellence), www.excelenciapastoral.net

Instituto para la Excelencia Pastoral strives to strengthen the Hispanic pastor of New England by providing them with the knowledge, skills and skills demanded by today’s pastoral practice, strengthening the capacity of lay leaders accompanying him on his work and contributing to the integration of the pastoral family.

Bible Schools and Christian Colleges           

1. Boston Baptist College, David Melton, www.boston.edu

At the heart of every academic program at Boston Baptist College is the study of Scripture. While collegiate general education is offered, as is an array of instruction in the practical skills of Christian ministry, all programs require a major in Biblical Studies. Within the Boston Baptist College family there is complete unity in the confession of the Bible as God’s inerrant Word and the challenge to understand truth in all disciplines through the context of the divine revelation.

2. Eastern Nazarene College, Corlis McGee www1.enc.edu/

Located on Boston’s historic south shore, within walking distance of Quincy Bay, Eastern Nazarene College (ENC) recently celebrated its 100th birthday. A fully accredited traditional liberal arts college, ENC has about 1,075 students distributed across a traditional residential undergraduate program, adult studies, and a graduate program. ENC is known for its success in getting students into top graduate and medical schools and has a 100 percent acceptance rate for its students into Law School. While many faculty are active in publishing and research, and some are leaders in their fields, the emphasis is on the teaching and mentoring of students in a nurturing, spiritually informed, and academically supportive environment. Students are encouraged to travel, engage in service learning projects, and participate in praxis experiences as a part of their education. ENC is one of 160 members of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU).

3. Gordon College: Clarendon Scholars, R, Judson Carlberg, www.gordon.edu/newcityscholars

The Gordon College Clarendon Scholars program offers full scholarships to 10 students each year from city settings to attend Gordon, and provides support systems to encourage their success. The Scholars are identified through relationships the College has built with city-based organizations throughout (but not limited to) the East Coast, such as Emmanuel Gospel Center's Boston Education Collaborative in Boston. Through mentoring relationships, training and peer support, the students are helped to make the transition to college and given leadership experience to help ensure their success.

4. Zion Bible College, Charles Crabtree, www.zbc.edu

Zion Bible College in Providence exists to teach and train students for Pentecostal ministry, in fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Accredited Divinity Schools

1. Boston Theological Institute (BTI), Rodney Petersen, www.bostontheological.org.

The Boston Theological Institute (BTI) is an association of nine university divinity schools, schools of theology, and seminaries in the Greater Boston area, including:

• Andover Newton Theological School

• Boston College School of Theology and Ministry

• Boston College Theology Department

• Boston University School of Theology

• Episcopal Divinity School

• Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

• Harvard Divinity School

• Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

• Saint John’s Seminary

BTI is registered as a tax-exempt 501c3 organization. It is one of the oldest and largest theological consortia in the world. It includes as constitutive members schools representing the full range of Christian churches and confessions. Additionally, persons representing other religious traditions are present in many of our schools. The BTI is not a degree granting institution, but coordinates various administrative, program and academic activities so as to enhance the work of the member schools.