Seek and Find_0

SEEK AND

FIND?REVENUES IN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

A N T H O N Y R U G E R / A U B U R N T H E O L O G I C A L S E M I N A R Y / A P R I L 2 0 0 5

A U B U R N S T U D I E S

About this IssueThis is the fourth in a series of decennial studies ofrevenue in theological education in the U.S. Earlier studies found that theological schools variedconsiderably in the level of denominational orchurch support that they received, and that mostschools, even those with strong denominational support, were turning increasingly to individualdonors for contributions. During the s, theolog-ical institutions, like many others, enjoyed low inflation and excellent investment returns. Schoolsentered the s on an optimistic note. Inflationcontinued to be low, contributions had increased,and the markets kept rising. This report willdescribe what has happened to the revenues of U.S.theological schools since . Growth—or rather,the search for growth—is a theme of this report.How have revenues grown and can growth be antici-pated in the future?

The previous report on revenue in theologicaleducation, “Lean Years, Fat Years: Changes in thesupport of Protestant theological education” (),as well as all back issues of Auburn Studies, may befound on the Center’s website: www.auburnsem.org.

About the AuthorAnthony Ruger is a Senior Research Fellow at theCenter for the Study of Theological Education.

AcknowledgementsThis study and report was made possible by a generous grant from Lilly Endowment Inc. TheAssociation of Theological Schools and its ExecutiveDirector, Daniel Aleshire, provided generous access to their data.

©Auburn Theological Seminary. All rights reserved.

Auburn Studies, No. 11, April 2005

ISBN: 0-9747358-1-7

SEEK AND

FIND?REVENUES IN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

A N T H O N Y R U G E R / A U B U R N T H E O L O G I C A L S E M I N A R Y / A P R I L 2 0 0 5

WA U B U R N S T U D I E S / 1

Baptist Theological Seminary, conduct-ed the initial study of the seminaryfunding patterns of eleven Protestantdenominations in . Dr. Dillardupdated his study using data from ,bringing in Anthony Ruger as a collab-orator. Anthony Ruger updated the

here do theological schools find financial

support when contributions from

denominations continue to decline? Can these

institutions expect increased tuition revenue

in the next decade? How important are individual

donors for the future of the seminary? How can

schools avoid the roller-coaster ride of the markets when they

are dependent on investment returns? This report is the fourth in a series that tracks

the financing of theological institutions in the United States.

Introduction

Where do theological schools find sup-port? This is the fourth in a series ofdecennial studies of revenue in theologi-cal education in the United States.Badgett Dillard, until his death theexecutive Vice President of Southern

2 / B U L L E T I N N U M B E R E L E V E N

study in following Dr. Dillard’sdeath in . Each study has benefitedfrom the assistance of the Association ofTheological Schools in the United Statesand Canada (ATS), which has made dataavailable for analysis. Consistent withDillard’s original investigation, thisresearch focuses on U.S. theologicalschools; however, the study has expandedbeyond the original eleven denomina-tions that Dillard studied to include allaccredited Protestant, Roman Catholic,and interdenominational and nondenom-inational schools in the United States.

Dr. Dillard’s research concluded thatno particular pattern of acquiring anddistributing resources was superior toothers, but that the level of support wasdependent on the commitment of thedenomination to its schools and to theo-logical education. The studies of

and confirmed the original findingsand uncovered a new trend: denomina-tional schools that had been dependenton church support, whether from localchurches, regional judicatories, ornational denominational bodies, foundthat those revenue sources were notgrowing as rapidly as the schoolsexpected and hoped. Denominationalsupport for some institutions had, infact, declined in purchasing power overthis time period. Typically, schoolsmade up the difference through giftsfrom individuals. Seminaries that hadnever solicited funds established devel-opment offices, hired professionalfundraisers, and began to expand thenumber of contributing friends servingon their governing and advisory boards.

The combination of high inflationand poor investment markets in the

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

Figure 1: Educational and General Revenue Growth,

by School Tradition, 1991–2003

Evangelical Mainline Roman Catholic InflationProtestant Schools Protestant Schools Schools (Consumer Price Index)

Source: ATS Database

A U B U R N S T U D I E S / 3

s wounded many schools. Thenext decade was dramatically different.During the s, theological institu-tions, like many other organizations,enjoyed low inflation and excellentinvestment returns. Schools enteredthe s on an optimistic note.Inflation continued to be low, contri-

butions had increased, and the marketskept rising.

This report will describe what has hap-pened to the revenues of U.S. theologicalschools since . Growth—or rather,the search for growth—is a theme of thisreport. How have revenues grown? Cangrowth be anticipated in the future?

Figure 2: Average Educational

and General Revenue, Evangelical

Protestant Schools, 2003

Additional Grants and Gifts: %

Other: %

Undiscounted Tuition: %

Individual Gifts: %

Church Support: %

Investment Return: %

An Overview of Revenue Growth and Revenue Proportions

Revenues of theological institutionshave grown substantially over the pasttwelve years. Figure shows the educa-tional and general revenue growth forU.S. theological schools by religious tra-dition. All three groups more thandoubled their revenues. Roman Catholicschools led the way, with percentgrowth. The Protestant schools were notfar behind, with evangelical Protestantschools increasing resources by per-cent and mainline Protestant schools by percent. This revenue growth faroutpaced inflation, whether measuredby the Consumer Price Index, as shownin Figure , or by the Higher EducationPrice Index. Such better-than-inflationgrowth could or should help schoolsdefray rising costs, address longstandingneeds, initiate or enhance programs, andincrease their reserves.

Not all schools grew at the same rate,of course. A few—about percent—found revenue growth very difficult toachieve, but they were the small minori-ty. Ninety percent of schools found thattheir educational and general revenuesoutpaced the Consumer Price Index.

Schools also varied in their revenuemix; that is, in their proportions of

different types of revenue. Differencesshow up in aggregate categories whenschools are divided by religious tradition.The pie charts (Figures –) show that evangelical Protestant schools relyon gross or undiscounted tuition for percent of revenue, and gifts fromindividuals and churches for another percent. Roman Catholic schools are

have put forward the commonsensenotion that a nonprofit organization is better off if it has many revenuestreams, not just a few. In this view, a school with four equal sources of revenue—tuition, investments, individual gifts, and church support—is less vulnerable than a school that isoverwhelmingly dependent on a singlerevenue source.

Substantial support from each of sev-eral sources may be the ideal, but thegoal of balanced revenue sources shouldnot dominate the efforts of a school’smanagement. Some sources of revenueare easier to grow than others; adminis-trators should seek to increase total rev-enues without unduly worrying aboutthe individual proportions. For example,


Figure 4: Average Educational and General Revenue, Mainline Protestant Schools, 2003


Other: %


Individual Gifts: %

Church Support: %

Investment Return and Reserves: %

Figure 3: Average Educational and General Revenue, Roman Catholic Schools, 2003


Other: %


Individual Gifts: %

Church Support: %

Investment Returnand Reserves: %

heavily dependent on gifts and churchsupport ( percent of revenue), and thenon gross tuition ( percent). MainlineProtestant schools have a different pattern. They depend on investmentreturns for percent of revenue, thengifts and church support ( percent),tuition ( percent), and other sources.Of course, individual schools vary with-in each denominational classification.Some evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic schools rely heavily oninvestment return, just as some main-line Protestant schools rely on tuitionand fees.

Is there a perfect mix of revenues?The issue is debatable. Some scholars


a school dependent on and successful at raising funds from individuals shouldnot necessarily divert attention andresources from that task to the more dif-ficult and less lucrative task of lobbyingfor increased allocations from denomina-tional headquarters. There are also rea-sons to avoid increasing some revenuetypes. If, for instance, tuition rates risetoo sharply, students who take out loansto pay tuition may be overly burdened.It is wise to have a diversity of revenue

sources and prudent to understand aschool’s vulnerabilities when it is heavilydependent on one or two sources, butthere are no norms that prescribe correctproportions of revenue.

The sections that follow examine the various revenue streams that supporttheological schools, explore some of the underlying trends in those streams,and attempt to answer the question:Where should theological schools seekfunds for their future?

Tuition

Tuition revenue depends on three fac-tors: volume, price, and discount rate.Volume refers to the number of studentsenrolled. Price is the rate the schoolcharges, more commonly known as thetuition rate. A final factor is the discountrate—tuition minus financial grants in aid—given to students. The discountlowers a school’s overall net revenue.

ENROLLMENT VOLUME:

A LOW-GROWTH ENVIRONMENT

Demand for graduate theological educa-tion in North America has been stag-nant. Figure shows full-timeequivalent enrollment by degree cate-gories in schools reporting to theATS from to .

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

Figure 5: Total Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment by Degrees, 1994-2003

■ Master of Divinity ■ Other Basic Ministerial Degrees

■ General Theological Studies ■ Advanced Ministerial Degrees

■ STM/ThD /PhD

Source: ATS Data Base


Philosophy (PhD), also grew at 1 per-cent per year. Only basic ministerialdegrees other than the MDiv showedan increase of greater than percent inthis time period.

Figure shows these other basicministerial degrees. Among them are master’s-level degree programs ineducation, music, and the Master ofPastoral Studies, each of which showslittle or no growth. However, stronggrowth is shown in enrollment in spe-cialized master’s degrees, such as thosein counseling, world mission, spiritualformation, and so forth. Many of thesedegrees have been developed only inrecent years, and the enrollment inthem has more than tripled in the lasteighteen years. Just as enrollment inDMin programs grew rapidly with theintroduction of the degree in the s,schools initiating specialized master’sdegrees are experiencing some modestgrowth. These focused offerings mayattract students who might not other-wise consider enrolling in theologicaleducation. Specialized offerings mayalso serve to make schools more broadlyattractive in a competitive environment.

Schools have also expanded enroll-ment through extension sites. Manyschools have established branches indistant cities and towns, providing avariety of program services throughthose branches. These extension centersvary widely in their configuration andin the levels of education they provide.Some offer only occasional courses for

The Master of Divinity (MDiv) degree,often the degree required for ordina-tion, has the largest enrollment.Enrollment in MDiv programs is grow-ing, but almost imperceptibly, at lessthan percent per year (. percent).Table summarizes the long-termgrowth of enrollment by degree pro-gram groups.

Figure shows non-MDiv degreeenrollment more clearly than Figure .Advanced ministerial degrees, whichinclude the Doctor of Ministry (DMin),Doctor of Missiology, and Doctor ofEducation, showed a growth rate of onepercent per year. Enrollment inMaster’s degree programs oriented togeneral theological study (as distinctfrom those oriented to ministry) alsogrew slightly, averaging the same percent per year. Advanced theologi-cal degrees, such as the Master ofSacred Theology and Doctor of

Table I: Average Full-Time

Equivalent Enrollment Growth

by Degrees, 1994-2003

Master of Divinity .%

Other Basic Ministerial Degrees .%

Advanced Ministerial Degrees .%

General Theological Degrees .%

STM/ThD/PhD .%



1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Figure 6: Total Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment by Degrees,

1994-2003 (Excluding MDiv)

■ Other Basic Ministerial Degrees ■ General Theological Studies

■ Advanced Ministerial Degrees ■ STM/ThD /PhD


1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

4,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Figure 7: Total Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment for Master’s Degrees,

1994-2003 (Excluding MDiv)

■ Master of Arts in Religious Education ■ Master of Church Music

■ Master of Arts (Special) ■ Master of Arts in Partoral Studies



credit; others are full-scale programs,offering complete degrees and enrollinghundreds of students. Figure showsthe enrollment growth in extension pro-grams that offer at least half the creditsneeded for an ATS-approved degree. As can be seen in this chart, evangelicalProtestant schools have been the primemovers in the development of extensionsites. Extension education has not been pursued in mainline Protestantand Roman Catholic institutions to thesame extent.

SEEKING GROWTH

What should a school do if it wishes toincrease enrollment? The data clearlyindicate that the general demand fortraditional theological education is notrising at a significant rate. Growth inenrollment at particular schools, there-fore, will probably not happen withoutsome deliberate efforts to attract more

students. Whom might a school target?There are three groups of potential students.

Students who could attend other seminaries.One way to grow is to become morecompetitive; that is, to attract studentswho are desirable to a number ofschools. Schools can try to burnish theirreputations, build useful ecclesiasticalrelationships, invigorate their marketing,and increase their scholarship grants inan effort to attract the undecidedmobile student. Some denominationalschools, for instance, have emphasizedthe multidenominational character oftheir faculties and student bodies inorder to attract a broad mix of applicants.Others have created new tracks withinexisting programs. For instance, MDiv

93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

Figure 8: Total Enrollment in Extension Centers, by School Tradition*

■ Evangelical Protestant ■ Mainline Protestant ■ Roman Catholic


*Included are only those centers where half or more of the credits required

for an ATS-approved degree may be earned.


programs at some schools may have special tracks or emphases in rural orurban ministry, and thereby increase theattractiveness of the degree to some students. Many schools have special focifor particular racial/ethnic groups. Suchstrategies are designed to entice stu-dents who might otherwise be interestedin another school.

Students who face barriers to their atten-dance. Among those confronting barriersare people who cannot participate in atraditional, residential, full-time, day-time program. Often older, with familyand financial responsibilities, such stu-dents find it extremely difficult, if notimpossible, to leave their full-timeoccupation to take up residence on aseminary campus or to enroll in full-time studies. Thus the principal barrierfor these potential students is whateconomists call the opportunity cost.The student loses the opportunity toearn his or her full-time employmentcompensation if he or she attends semi-nary as a traditional daytime student.

The solution devised by a number ofinstitutions is to reengineer academicschedules and curricula to offer eveningand weekend schedules, and specialintensive classes to serve this popula-tion. These institutions have grown orat least maintained their enrollment byattracting increasing numbers of part-time, commuter students.

Another barrier for some would-beseminary students is geography. Manystudents do not attend seminarybecause, in addition to opportunity cost,there is no local site within commutingdistance. Schools tell stories of heroicstudents who commute hundreds ofmiles weekly, but these students are

few in number. As noted earlier, thesolution some institutions have found iseducation by extension, as schools reachout to cities and regions where potentialstudents are underserved. Extensioneducation is challenging, however.Seminaries considering extension formatsshould carefully study the incrementalcosts and revenues of the proposal, asmany fail to generate tuition revenuesufficient to cover the costs. Very fewschools can afford to subsidize extensionsites over the long haul.

Students who might not otherwise attendtheological school. Another market forseminaries is those who have not previ-

ously considered a seminary education.One form this effort is taking is pro-grams that increase awareness andknowledge of church professions amongcollege students and others contemplat-ing new careers. With foundation support, some seminaries and divinityschools are sponsoring such programs.The Fund for Theological Education andsome denominational organizations arealso mounting broad efforts of this sort.

The other form this approach maytake is to develop specialized programsfor new constituencies. The growth ofspecialized degrees reported above is asign that some schools are offering new

Seminaries considering extension education should carefully study the incremental costs and revenues of the proposal.


products to attract new populations.The various master’s degrees in special,concentrated areas such as marriage andfamily therapy and counseling, intercul-tural studies, mission and evangelism,spiritual formation, ethics, and othersubjects serve to attract students withparticular interests and related occupa-tional goals. These students would not,in many cases, be interested in enrollingin the more general theological master’sdegree or the MDiv degree.

Adding a specialized program canadd expenses, especially if the schoolmust expand its faculty roster in orderto have adequate breadth and depth in asubject area. Here also, some carefulfinancial analysis is advisable. Addingprograms works well when one can adda substantial number of students with-

out adding substantial costs. In decadespast, many schools added DMin pro-grams without adding many facultymembers. Similarly, many RomanCatholic schools have added the Masterof Pastoral Studies degree for laity seek-ing to serve in parishes without addingoverly burdensome costs.

TUIT ION RATES: INCREASING

THE COST OF A COMPARATIVELY

INEXPENSIVE EDUCATION

Tuition rates for the MDiv degree haverisen steadily over the past dozen years.

Figure shows that the average theologi-cal school (whether evangelical or main-line Protestant, or Roman Catholic)increased tuition for the MDiv degree inexcess of inflation over the period. Thegraph shows a substantial cumulative

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

Figure 9: Average per School Increase in MDiv Tuition,

by School Tradition, 1991-2001

Evangelical Mainline Roman Catholic Consumer Price Higher EducationProtestant Schools Protestant Schools Schools Index Price Index


increase, but the increase actuallyoccurred gradually, year by year, typicallyincreasing by or percent each year (seeTable ). (The theological schools’ tuitionincrease was similar to other increases inhigher education.) Inflation, which wasquite low during the decade, averagedless than . percent per year when mea-sured by the Higher Education PriceIndex and less than that—only . per-cent per year—when measured by theConsumer Price Index.

Despite these increases, theologicalschool tuition is modest. The MDiv isinexpensive, less than two-thirds theaverage cost of private undergraduateeducation. The average school chargedless than , for tuition in–. Other kinds of graduateprofessional education, such as businessand law schools, charge much more onaverage than theological schools.

Low tuition rates, however, do notalways mean that students can comfort-ably bear increased costs. Compensationfor clergy and other church professionalsis modest, and increasing amounts ofeducational debt carried forward fromundergraduate education and incurredduring seminary are putting greaterstress on recent graduates.


Table II: Annual Average

per School Increase in MDiv Tuition,


Evangelical Protestant Schools .%

Mainline Protestant Schools .%

Roman Catholic Schools .%

Higher Education Price Index .%

Consumer Price Index .%


NET TUIT ION: DISCOUNTING THROUGH

FINANCIAL AID GRANTS

Gross tuition revenue is the product ofvolume multiplied by the amountcharged. In recent years, volume has beenrelatively flat, while the modest amountcharged has increased rather sharply. Thenet tuition revenue of a school is the grosstuition revenue less discounts; namely,the amounts given to students in theform of financial aid grants.

How the grants are distributed andhow the level of grants is determineddiffers from school to school. Someinstitutions provide grants based on astudent’s financial circumstances. Suchgrants are called need-based. There are,in addition, merit scholarships; largerawards given to prospective studentswho seem to be especially qualified.Advocates of merit awards say that theyhelp schools compete for the best students. A number of institutions offerboth need-based and merit grants.

Grant levels are also influenced bythe amount of gifts and endowmentreturns that donors have restricted tostudent scholarships. Many schools sup-plement their restricted revenues withunrestricted funds for the competitivereasons cited above, and to smooth outyear-to-year variations in gifts andinvestment returns restricted to finan-cial aid.

Levels of financial aid usually vary by degree program. Typically, full-timeresidential master’s degree students(including the MDiv) and PhD students


receive the largest financial aid grants.DMin students, on the other hand, areusually employed full-time and pursuetheir studies part-time. Their cost ofattendance, consequently, is less thanthat of a full-time MDiv student.

Schools recognize the lower need andtherefore give few grants to DMin stu-dents. If a school wishes to increase nettuition revenue through enrollmentincreases, it is often advisable for theschool to try to increase DMin enroll-ment, because almost all of those tuitiondollars are retained.

Figure shows the trends in dis-count rates, or the proportion of grosstuition devoted to financial aid grants.Overall, the tuition discount rate haschanged very little, fluctuating between percent and percent. Mainline

Protestant schools, which charge thehighest tuition, typically give the mostfinancial aid. Since their discountrate has grown from percent to

percent of tuition charged. Put anotherway, the current net tuition revenue inmainline Protestant schools is centsof every tuition dollar charged.Evangelical Protestant schools chargeless, but spend fewer scholarship dollars.Their discount rate, in aggregate, hasaveraged percent over the last decade.The aggregate discount rate for RomanCatholic schools has increased in thepast five years, reaching percent ofgross tuition in –.

There are vast differences in the levelof scholarship support from school toschool. Some schools’ scholarship grantsexceed the amount of tuition collected.Those schools, as must be obvious, haveother sturdy sources of revenue. At theopposite end of the spectrum are schools

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

Figure 10: Scholarships as a Percentage of Tuition Revenue,


■ Average ■ Evangelical Protestant ■ Mainline Protestant ■ Roman Catholic



that are much more dependent ontuition and that find themselves able toallocate very little, if any, unrestrictedfunds to scholarship aid.

How important is tuition revenue in financing the theological school? It is not as important as it is to mostcolleges and universities. The medianpercentage of expenditures covered by net tuition is less than one-third for

theological schools: about percentfor evangelical Protestant schools,

percent for Roman Catholic schools,and only percent for mainlineProtestant schools. Small, independent,four-year colleges, by contrast, dependon net tuition to fund nearly half (

percent) of their expenditures. Mosttheological schools get the majority oftheir financing from other sources.

Gifts and Grants

GIFTS BY PURPOSE

Figure shows the trend in total giftsto U.S. theological schools from

through . The overall trend isupward, from less than million peryear in – to more than

million each year from onward.Figure also shows, in the stacked bars,the broad purposes to which donors

restricted their gifts. The largest shareof gifts— to percent—was unre-stricted. Gifts for restricted operatingpurposes (such as student scholarshipsand faculty support) and endowmentaccount for approximately another

percent. Gifts for buildings and equip-ment, usually less than percent of thetotal, make up most of the balance.

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

$500,000,000

$450,000,000

$400,000,000

$350,000,000

$300,000,000

$250,000,000

$200,000,000

$150,000,000

$100,000,000

$ 50,000,000

0

Figure 11: Total Gifts and Grants by Purpose, 1991–2003

■ Restricted to endowment ■ Restricted to particular operating purposes

■ Restricted to building and equipment ■ Unrestricted



$500

$450

$400

$350

$300

$250

$200

$150

$100

$50

0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

$300

$250

$200

$150

$100

$50

0

Figure 12: Comparison of Donations to Nonprofit Groups and Theological Schools

■ Nonprofit Donations in Billions ■ Theological School Donations in Millions

Source: ATS Data Base; American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC) Trust for Philanthropy

Theo

logi

cal S

choo

ls in

Mill

ions

Nonp

rofi

t Gro

ups

in B

illio

ns

The least predictable of these gift categories are those associated withendowments. Many endowment campaigns wax and wane over severalyears and many endowment gifts arrive in the form of bequests. It is notunusual for a school to receive hundredsof thousands of dollars in bequests one year and almost nothing the next.

The general trend in total giving totheological education in the UnitedStates roughly parallels total gifts tononprofit organizations. Figure plotsthe gifts to nonprofit groups on the left

axis and gifts to theological schools onthe right axis. Both graphs show anacceleration of gifts between and. This increase may be related tothe extended rising market in stocks ofthe mid to late s, and to increasedsophistication and effectiveness of theo-logical school fundraising.

Individual school results showedmuch greater variability. Some schools’fundraising efforts languished, whileothers fared very well. For most, gift increases did not come in steadyincrements, as did tuition revenue, but

Many endowment campaignswax and wane over severalyears and many endowment giftsarrive in the form of bequests.


rather by occasional jumps interspersedwith fallow periods. As mentioned previously, the intermittent receipt ofbequests contributes to this variability.Variability is also to be expected whenyears of highly visible capital cam-paigns are interspersed with periods ofquiet cultivation.

WHO IS GIVING TO

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION?

Figure compares the sources of giftsin and . The proportions con-tributed by alumni and other individu-als and corporations (often in the formof matching gifts) have hardly changed.There is a noticeable decline in the per-centage contributed by religious orga-nizations, matched by a proportionateincrease in grants from foundations.

The declines in religious organizations’support of theological institutions arenot new; they have been documented inthese revenue reports over the last three decades.

GIFTS FROM RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS

Donations from religious organizationsinclude gifts and grants from localchurches, from regional judicatoriessuch as dioceses and conferences, fromreligious orders, and from national andinternational denominational bodies.One would expect that denomination-ally related schools would have greatersupport from church bodies than

Figure 13: Total Gifts by Source (Gifts from Persons Include Bequests)

Other: %

Foundations: %

Consortia: %

Corporations: %

Religious Organizations: %


Alumni: %

Other Individuals: %

Other: %

Foundations: %

Consortia: %

Corporations: %

Religious Organizations: %

Alumni: %

Other Individuals: %


independent schools. Figure confirmsthis hypothesis. Interdenominationaland nondenominational Protestantschools, lacking a single supportingdenomination, have the lowest averagelevel of gifts per school from religioussources. Protestant denominationalschools, larger on average than RomanCatholic schools, receive the most fund-ing from church sources.

Most gifts from religious sources (

percent) support general operations.The prior studies in this series carefullytracked the church support given foroperations in nine Protestant denomina-tions and their predecessor denomina-tions. These data show thatdenominations have had considerabledifficulty in maintaining operating sup-port for their schools. Figures A andB show that schools from only three of

these nine Protestant denominations—American Baptist, Southern Baptist,and United Methodist—garnered moreoperating church support in thanin . None of the Protestantdenominational school groups, however,received more operating support afterinflation is taken into account. Indeed,some Protestant denominational groupslost as much as percent of the pur-chasing power of their church supportfor operations over the decade.

The more positive view of churchsupport is that these funds can becounted on from year to year, and that,in most cases, no unusual effort on thepart of the seminary is required tosecure this denominational support.

■ Protestant Denominational Schools

■ Roman Catholic Schools

■ Inter- or Nondenominational Protestant Schools


1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

$1,200,000

$1,000,000

$ 800,000

$ 600,000

$ 400,000

$ 200,000

0

Figure 14: Average Gifts per School from Religious Sources,

by School Type, 1997-2003


$3,500,000

$3,000,000

$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$ 500,000

0

Figure 15A: Operating Gifts and Grants from Church Sources,

by Denomination (< $3,500,000), 1971–2001

American Christian Church Episcopal Lutheran United ChurchBaptist (Disciples) Church Church (MS) of Christ

■ 1971 ■ 1981 ■ 1991 ■ 2001


$30,000,000

$25,000,000

$20,000,000

$15,000,000

$10,000,000

$ 5,000,000

0

Figure 15B: Operating Gifts and Grants from Church Sources,

by Denomination (> $3,500,000), 1971–2001

Evangelical Presbyterian Southern UnitedLutheran (USA) Baptist Methodist

■ 1971 ■ 1981 ■ 1991 ■ 2001


The funds received are mostly unre-stricted, so they can be applied to thebasic, ongoing, day-to-day expenses ofthe school. In many cases, denomina-tional funds are given cheerfully becauseseminaries are well regarded in thedenominational system. Funds providedto theological schools are considered tobe dollars well spent.

A more sober perspective is based onthe fact that, in times past, manydenominations funded a high propor-tion of their schools’ expenses. The cur-rent amounts of church support do notkeep up with inflation or with thegrowing expenses of the schools. Schoolsmust therefore raise tuition and under-take the challenging and uncertain taskof raising funds from individuals. Thestate of established denominations—


$250,000,000

$200,000,000

$150,000,000

$100,000,000

$ 50,000,000

0

Figure 16: Gifts from Individuals, Including Bequests, 1991–2003

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

■ Operating ■ Capital Source: ATS Data Base

Operating includes unrestricted gifts and restricted operating gifts. Capital includes gifts for endowment,

buildings and equipment, and private student loan funds.

often declining in size, aging in mem-bership, and conflicted by controversy—may indicate that the lack of growth inchurch funding will persist indefinitelyinto the future. (The evidence overrecent decades supports this view.) Thedata show that most schools would bewell advised to allocate their fundrais-ing attention and time to identifyingand cultivating individuals who canadvance the purposes of the school.

The state of established denominations may indicate thatthe lack of growth in churchfunding will persist indefinitelyinto the future.

GIFTS AND BEQUESTS FROM INDIVIDUALS

Gifts from individuals (including schoolalumni) as described here include giftsfrom living persons and deferred gifts,which will be referred to as bequests,from persons who have died. Figure shows that gifts and bequests from indi-viduals provide percent of the giftreceipts to theological education. Thesegifts, in contrast to church gifts, havegrown in excess of inflation: from

to , gifts from individuals, asshown in Figure , grew by percent,well in excess of the Consumer PriceIndex of percent for that decade.Figure also indicates how much ofthis money went to operations and how much was contributed for capitalpurposes. Although the totals variedgreatly from year to year, the operatingportion grew relatively steadily, declin-ing only in fiscal and , twoyears of dramatic stock market decline.Capital gifts, on the other hand, variedgreatly. As noted earlier, receipts fromcapital campaigns do not flow in asteady stream, and bequests, which pro-vide a substantial amount of the total,are too irregular to predict.

Figure shows in more detail thepurposes to which individuals directedtheir gifts. Perhaps surprisingly, individuals gave more money forendowment than for any other purpose,including unrestricted gifts. This maybe because bequests are often restrictedto endowment purposes, and manyschools, by policy, allocate unrestrictedbequests to endowment as well. Such apolicy not only encourages bequests butalso frees the school from depending onthe receipt of bequests, which cannot bepredicted accurately, to fund operations.


Figure 18: Average Gift Proceeds from Individuals, by Size of Gift, 2003

Gifts < ,: %

Living donors giving > than ,: %

Bequests > than ,: %


Figure 17: Gifts from Individuals by Purpose, 2003 (Includes Bequests)

Endowment: %

Loan Funds: .%

Unrestricted: %

Buildings and Equipment: %

Restricted Operating: %


Major donors and bequests are thekey to fundraising from individuals.Figure shows the total donated byindividuals according to the size of thegift, and whether the major gift (morethan ,) came from a living donoror through a bequest or other deferredgift. In the five-year period ending in , gifts and bequests of , ormore accounted for percent of thegifts from individuals. Major livingdonors contributed nearly half the totalgenerated, and deferred gifts generatedmore than one-third. These data confirm the gift-range tables seen infundraising textbooks that show how, ina typical campaign, major gifts accountfor more than percent of the totalamount raised.

These crucial gifts come from veryfew donors. Table shows that half ofU.S. theological schools had seventeenor fewer living major donors (i.e., indi-viduals giving , or more for anypurpose). A quarter of U.S. theologicalschools reported eight or fewer suchmajor donors. There were even fewer

deferred gifts, with the median seminarytypically the recipient of three bequestsper year. Although they are fewer, the amounts of deferred gifts are muchhigher. The average major gift (of morethan ,) to these schools overthe five-year period from to

was ,. The average bequest for those same schools was more thanfive-and-a-half times larger, averaging,. These facts suggest that

the numbers of key donors in any givenschool are quite manageable, but that the school could be financially vulnerableif the relationships with the few keydonors are ignored.

Our data confirm the widely heldimpression that major donors are oftenmembers of the institution’s board.Board members, in aggregate, provideabout percent of the gifts given byliving individuals. In Whose Hands, aprior study by the Center for the Studyof Theological Education, suggests that,in many theological institutions, someaspects of board giving are weak. Inmany cases, boards do not report

percent participation of board membersfinancially supporting the school.Typically, fewer than one-third of boardmembers have provided for the schoolin their will. Schools would do well to strengthen their boards’ involvement in fundraising. In addition, all schoolsare likely to benefit from better board-administration teamwork in theidentification, cultivation, and solicitationof major donors.


Table III: Average Number of Gifts

Greater than $5,000

Received Annually, 1999-2003

From Living From BequestsIndividuals (Deferred Gifts)

th Percentile

th Percentile(Median)

th Percentile


Gifts and bequests of $5,000 or more accounted for 83 percentof the gifts from individuals.

Endowment Revenue

THE VOLATILE STOCK MARKET

The s saw the stock market rise torecord heights. One dollar invested inthe S&P on December ,

would, by March , , have beenworth . if all dividends and gainswere reinvested, an increase of morethan percent in the decade. Much ofthe growth happened in the late s,a period of great investor enthusiasm forboth new companies (the dot-coms) andestablished companies alike. The threeyears from March through March saw a total return of percent tothe investor in the S&P . Thisthree-year return was the fourth bestthree-year return, measured monthly,since the advent of consistent marketdata in the s. Put another way, thethree years ending March , were


better than . percent of all otherthree-year periods.

Then came the fall. Investors beganto withdraw from the stock market.There may have been many reasons forthis, but certainly some investors con-cluded the earlier enthusiasm wasunwarranted. The speculative bubbleleveled off around the turn of the cen-tury and burst. The market fell. Theattacks of September , contribut-ed to investor caution as well. The threeyears from March to March

were the worst three-year period for thestock market since the onset of theGreat Depression. Investors lost per-cent of the value of their investment instocks. Figure shows the rise and fallof the speculative bubble, comparing itto the long-term expected return fromstocks of . percent.

Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

$6.00

$5.00

$4.00

$3.00

$2.00

$1.00

0

Figure 19: The Speculative Bubble of 1995-2002,

Value of Invested December , to July , in the S&P ,

and a .% Annual Return

■ S&P 500 ■ 10.4% Return


THE EFFECTS ON THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS

How were theological schools affectedby this volatile market? The greater a school’s dependence on endowmentrevenue, the greater the impact. Themedian theological school, from

to , received only percent of its educational and general revenue frominvestment return; one might fairly con-clude that schools at or below the medi-an dependence on endowment revenuefound the fluctuations manageable. Onequarter of theological schools, however,relied on endowment for one-third ormore of their educational and generalrevenue. Those schools, including the percent of schools that rely on endow-ment revenue for half of their education-al and general revenue, were likely to beseverely affected by these unusual andhistoric fluctuations in the stock market.

The effect was moderated in mostschools, however, by diversification of

investments, so that few schools sufferedthe percent loss in their entire portfo-lio. The portfolios include stocks andalso, very likely, bonds, other fixedincome securities, and alternativeinvestments. “Alternative investments”include such nontraditional investmentsas non-U.S. stocks and bonds, realestate, and for some, hedge funds. TheCommonfund’s research showed thatthese alternative investments softenedthe blow of the bursting speculativebubble, especially for large college anduniversity endowments (those withmore than one billion dollars in assets)whose personnel have the investmentexpertise to choose such investmentswisely. Nevertheless, even sophisticat-ed, broadly diversified funds wereadversely affected by the sharp down-ward trend in the stock market.

Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003

$20,000,000

$18,000,000

$16,000,000

$14,000,000

$12,000,000

$10,000,000

$ 8,000,000

Figure 20: Smoothing and Lag Effect of Averaging the Value of an Endowment,

% Equity, % Fixed Income, % Spending

■ Three-Year Quarterly Average ■ Market Value


Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

$900,000

$800,000

$700,000

$600,000

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000

Figure 21: Projected Endowment Revenue for Budget,

Spending % of a Three-Year Average Market Value,Invested in % Equity, % Fixed Income; Assumes .% Return in -

■ Endowment Revenue for Budget ■ Projected

average a while to catch up to the actualvalue. Thus Figure shows that thethree-year average was below the actualamount during the rising market from until . Similarly, when theactual value of the endowment fell, from to , the three-year averagestill included high values from threeyears past, causing the average to lagbehind the lower actual value.

Those schools that budget endowmentand investment revenues using a fixedpercentage of a multiyear average marketvalue face decreasing amounts of revenuein – and beyond. Figure

shows projected budgeted revenue for anendowment invested in percent equi-ties and percent fixed-income invest-ments. Budgeted revenues reached their

The budgets of many schools,although affected by significant marketgains and losses, do not feel the impact ofthese fluctuations immediately. Manyschools’ budget endowment returns arebased on a fixed percentage of a three-year (or longer) moving average of theendowment market value. One primarypurpose of a multiyear average (with val-ues taken quarterly) is to smooth out anyshort-term fluctuation in the market.

Figure shows this smoothing effect, asthe bumpy month-to-month values ofthe endowment may be visually contrast-ed with the smoother three-year average.

Figure also shows why schoolsusing a multiyear averaging formula arenot affected by the fluctuations rightaway. The three-year average lagsbehind the actual value when, as inrecent years, the actual value rises orfalls over a sustained period. It takes the


peak in fiscal –. The losses inendowment market value plus the con-sumption of the budgeted amountscaused the subsequent years’ endowmentrevenue to decline, sometimes steeply,until fiscal –, even though theprojection assumes an . percent annualtotal return from mid- forward.Revenue decreases attributable to thelag effect of the budgeting formula willbe felt until fiscal –.

Figure shows a percent drop in endowment revenue from fiscal– to fiscal –. That isthe bad news. The good news is that the built-in lag permits schools toanticipate the decreases and respondappropriately and deliberately, withoutan undue sense of crisis. Schools that are not heavily dependent on endowmentmay make up for the shortfall with a bit of belt-tightening or good fortunein enrollment or fundraising efforts. Onthe other hand, if a school is heavilydependent on endowment, it may find

itself struggling to “right-size” itselfthrough the difficult and painful stepsof cutting back programs, services, andpersonnel. This challenge is exacerbatedif a school has been spending more thanits policy rate, or if its rate is higherthan it should have been (as noted, thenorm in higher education is to spend,over the long run, percent of the mar-ket value of the investments annually).In such instances, the task of adjustinga school’s spending is much more diffi-cult, because the school must correct foroverspending as well as for the declinein the market value of the investments.

AN ALTERNATE SPENDING FORMULA

A few schools use a “banded” endow-ment spending policy, called the“snake-in-the-tunnel” spending policyby Samuel H. Ballam III and Robert T.Forrester, to avoid problems such as thespeculative bubble of –. Those

June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003

$1,000,000

$ 900,000

$ 800,000

$ 700,000

$ 600,000

$ 500,000

$ 400,000

$ 300,000

$ 200,000

Figure 22: Snake-in-the-Tunnel Spending Policy

■ Ceiling at 5.5% ■ Floor at 3.5% ■ Spending Snake

years despite the assumption of sluggishinvestment returns.

This spending formula would havemaintained a steady level of spendinghad it been employed from through. The spending in the –

period, the time of rapid increase, wouldhave been greatly restrained, unlikespending using a fixed percentageapproach. That restraint, of course,makes possible the steady increases inthe lean years of to .

Under some circumstances, the snakewill hit the ceiling. An extended period ofhigh inflation combined with poor invest-ment returns (such as the so-called stagfla-tion period of the s) would cause thespending rate to reach its upper limit fair-ly quickly. As the average market valuedeclined due to stagnation and spending,the budgeted maximum permitted by the policy would decline also. The policy,at its maximum or minimum bands,

operates as a fixed-percentage-of-average-market-value formula. If the bands are setbroadly enough, such as percent in the. to . percent example cited earlier, theoccasions of reaching either the maximumor minimum will be fewer.

The banded policy is one that shouldbe considered by endowment-dependentschools. If followed faithfully, it guardsagainst overspending in periods ofinvestor exuberance, and sustains opera-tions in bearish times.

institutions that used the policy were ina position to side-step the effects of therapid increase and rapid decrease ofendowment revenue in the last decade.

Under this policy, the amount ofendowment revenue is not determined bya fixed percentage of a three-year average.This policy determines budgeted endow-ment revenue for each year as the amountspent in the prior year, adjusted for infla-tion, provided that the amount is lessthan a predetermined maximum andmore than a predetermined minimum.The maximum and minimum are definedin conventional percentage-of-a-moving-average terms. For example, the maxi-mum might be . percent of a three-yearmoving average of the investment mar-ket value. The minimum could be set at. percent of that same average. Theminimum and maximum constitute the“bands” that constrain spending, or, inBallam and Forrester’s metaphor, consti-tute the ceiling and floor of the tunnelwithin which the spending snake moves.

Figure shows the ceiling and thefloor of the tunnel rising with the increasein value from to and falling insubsequent years, along the same shape asthe market value average shown in Figure. The spending line, or snake, however,does not rise quickly, because it increasesonly by the amount of inflation, typicallybetween and percent in these years. Infact, the slow growth of spending causedthe formula to hit the bottom of the tun-nel in the – fiscal year and thetwo years following. When the value ofinvestments began to fall, however, thespending continued upward, modestlyadjusted for inflation each year. Projectionsof future years show that inflationaryincreases can be continued for several


The banded policy is one thatshould be considered by endowment-dependent schools.


Seeking Future Growth

Where will future financial growth forseminaries come from? As noted earlier,the growth in enrollment has not beenautomatic or easy. Indeed, those schoolsable to maintain or increase their enroll-ment have done so through significantadaptations to student needs and some-times expensive innovations. The futureof enrollment is hard to read. Willschools be required to invest major ener-gy and venture capital in adaptive andcreative approaches in order to attractstudents? Will the next decade see arenaissance of full-time residential edu-cation and of more recent college gradu-ates entering seminary? Will the rapidlyincreasing undergraduate and seminarydebt of students hurt enrollment? Willschools find new, low-cost methods ofproviding theological education? Willthey find more nontraditional students?

The stock market has recentlyreminded theological schools of theinherent volatility of investing as ameans toward growth. Risk and rewardare bywords in investing; the kind of

returns schools need require them tojudge carefully the risks of stocks andalternative investments. Clearly, schoolscannot count on consistently excellentinvestment returns. Will those who predict sluggish returns for the next fewyears be proven correct? Will infla-tion—arguably the major economicenemy of fixed-cost organizations suchas seminaries—increasingly gnaw ateducational budgets? While sound poli-cies and practices can protect a school,external events cannot be controlled.

The brightest hope remains with theschools’ best friends—the donors. Ahealthy future awaits those who are ableto attract major gifts and bequests andthose who manage their funds wisely.Recent history shows that some theo-logical schools have gained the neededskills to do this, despite the oft-citeddisadvantages of the small size, limiteddenominational support, and modestlycompensated graduates of theologicalschools. The watchword is to seek—andfind—new friends and partners. ■

Research Note

Each longitudinal figure and table uses a consistent set of schools across the given time period. The numbers are as follows:

■ Figures , , & Table I, N= schools■ Table II & Figure , N= Evangelical Protestant schools;

Mainline Protestant schools and Roman Catholic schools■ Figures , , , , & Table III, N= schools■ Figure , N= Protestant schools, Roman Catholic schools,

and inter- or non-denominational schools■ Figure , N= schools

Notes

. Brian Douglas and Doug Harmening,

Comparative Financial Statistics for Small IndependentFour-Year Institutions, Fiscal Year . Washington,

DC, National Association of College and University

Business Officers, .

. In addition, small amounts are donated for

private loan funds. These amounts are too small to

show up in Figure .

. In Table A, Christian Ch. (Disciples)

represents Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),

and Lutheran Church (MS) represents Lutheran

Church–Missouri Synod.

. The Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers

for the decade to increased by percent.

The recent slightly upward trend in average church

support per school, as seen in Figure , is more

than offset by the effect of inflation on operational

support over the decade.

. See, for instance Henry A. Rosso and Associates,

Achieving Excellence in Fund Raising (San Francisco:

Jossey Bass, ) –.

. Barbara G. Wheeler, In Whose Hands: A Study ofTheological School Trustees. Auburn Studies ,

Auburn Theological Seminary, New York, July .

. All references to return are to total return

(i.e., to the value of the investment if all interest,

dividends, and gains are reinvested).

. Endowment revenue, as the term is used here,

generally refers to the amount of revenue budgeted

for expenditure from all long-term investments,

including permanently restricted funds and unre-

stricted and other funds functioning as endowment.

. Commonfund Benchmarks Study. Wilton,

Connecticut, Commonfund Institute, .

. This smoothing worked especially well after

the October crash of the stock market, as the

market rebounded well in subsequent quarters.

. Some spending formulae use a weighted

average, in effect making recent years count more

in determining the average, in order to slow

the lag time. Figure shows a simple average.

. Samuel H. Ballam III and Robert T. Forrester,

“Endowment Spending Rates,” Coopers & LybrandHigher Education Management Newsletter, May .

Based in part on the work of Richard Spies and

Wallace E. Ackley.


. Badgett Dillard, “Financial Support of Protestant

Theological Education,” EdD thesis, Indiana

University, .

. Badgett Dillard and Anthony Ruger, “Changes in

the Support of Protestant Theological Education,

–,” Unpublished paper, Louisville, KY, .

. Anthony Ruger, Lean Years, Fat Years: Changes inthe Financial Support of Protestant TheologicalEducation. Auburn Studies , Auburn Theological

Seminary, New York, December .

. Educational and general revenues as they are used

here include gross tuition receipts, undiscounted for

student aid grants, all gifts and grants for operating

purposes, investment return, and miscellaneous

operating revenue. They do not include receipts

from auxiliary enterprises such as food service,

bookstore, or student housing. The denominational

classifications distinguish the schools by their broad

religious tradition (i.e., mainline Protestant, evan-

gelical Protestant, and Roman Catholic).

. The Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) mea-

sures the cost of the goods and services typically

purchased by colleges and universities.

. Church support in these and other charts includes

support from local churches, regional judicatories,

national bodies, and church-sponsored organizations.

. See, for instance, the discussion of the revenue

concentration index in John M. Trussel,

“Revisiting the Prediction of Financial Vulnerability,”

Nonprofit Management and Leadership ().

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

. Tuition for other master’s degrees often mirrors

the tuition of the MDiv degree.

. For instance, private-school undergraduate

tuition increased at the rate of . percent per year

from to , according to figures published

by the College Board.

. For an analysis of seminary student

indebtedness, see Anthony Ruger, Sharon L. Miller,

and Kim Maphis-Early, The Gathering Storm.Auburn Studies , Auburn Theological Seminary,

New York, .

. DMin students do not pay the opportunity cost

of leaving their profession to attend seminary.

Moreover, students in DMin programs often receive

scholarship assistance from the congregation they

serve or from the ecclesiastical judicatory with

which they are associated.


Auburn Center Publications

Back Issues of Auburn Studies

To order, contact: The Center for the Study of Theological Education, Auburn Theological Seminary, Broadway, New York, NY .

Tel: -- ; Fax: --

Auburn Studies and Background Reports are available on Auburn’s web site: www.auburnsem.org

AUBURN STUDIES NO. 1:

“Reaching Out: Auburn Seminary

Launches the Center for the

Study of Theological Education,”

by Barbara G.Wheeler and Linda-Marie Delloff, Summer .


“Lean Years, Fat Years: Changes

in the Financial Support of Protestant

Theological Education,”

by Anthony Ruger, December .


“Manna from Heaven?: Theological

and Rabbinical Student Debt,”

by Anthony Ruger and Barbara G.Wheeler, April .


“True and False: The First in a

Series of Reports from a Study of

Theological School Faculty,”

by Barbara G.Wheeler, January .


“Tending Talents: The Second in a Series

of Reports from a Study of Theological

School Faculty,” by Barbara G.Wheelerand Mark N.Wilhelm, March .


“Missing Connections: Public Perceptions

of Theological Education and Religious

Leadership,” by Elizabeth Lynn and Barbara G.Wheeler, September .


“The Big Picture: Strategic Choices

for Theological Schools,”

by Anthony T. Ruger and Barbara G.Wheeler, December .


“Is There a Problem?: Theological

Students and Religious Leadership for

the Future,” by Barbara G.Wheeler, July .


“In Whose Hands: A Study of Theological

School Trustees,” by Barbara G.Wheeler, June .


“Signs of the Times: Present and

Future Theological Faculty”

by Barbara G.Wheeler, February .

About Auburn Theological SeminaryAuburn Seminary was founded in by the presbyteries of central New York State. Progressivetheological ideas and ecumenical sensibilities guidedAuburn’s original work of preparing ministers for frontier churches and foreign missions. After the seminary relocated from Auburn, New York, to the campus of Union Theological Seminary in New York City in , Auburn ceased to grantdegrees, but its commitment to progressive andecumenical theological education remained firm.

As a free-standing seminary working in closecooperation with other institutions, Auburn foundnew forms for its educational mission: programs of serious, sustained theological education for laityand practicing clergy; a course of denominationalstudies for Presbyterians enrolled at Union; andresearch into the history, aims and purposes of theological education.

In , building on its national reputation for research, Auburn established the Center for theStudy of Theological Education to foster researchon current issues in theological education, an enterprise that Auburn believes is critical to thewell-being of religious communities and the worldthat they serve. Auburn Seminary also sponsors the Center for Church Life, to help strengthen theleadership of mainline churches, and the Center forMultifaith Education, to provide life-long learningfor persons of diverse faith backgrounds.

Auburn Center for the Study ofTheological Education

Barbara G. Wheeler, DirectorSharon L. Miller, Associate DirectorAnthony T. Ruger, Senior Research Fellow

A U B U R N

T H E O L O G I C A L

S E M I N A R Y

C E N T E R F O R T H E

S T U D Y O F

T H E O L O G I C A L

E D U C A T I O N

3 0 4 1 B R O A D W A Y

A T

1 2 1 S T S T R E E T

N E W Y O R K , N Y

1 0 0 2 7

T E L : 2 1 2 . 6 6 2 . 4 3 1 5

WE B S I T E : W W W . A U B U R N S E M . O R G

E M A I L : C S T E @ A U B U R N S E M . O R G

Seek and Find_0

Documents

Transcript of Seek and Find_0