Christian College Closings & Mergers: The Search for Answers

By Paul E. Boatman 

No longer are we stunned to read, “A Christian college is closing its doors!”  

Some closures come through mergers in which a struggling school yields resources, debts, and identity to a stronger school that commits to serving the constituency of the closing institution. Other announcements are outright closures.  

Some closings attract little attention because of the school’s small size and limited constituency, but a few have been startling because of an institution’s lengthy and even glorious history.  

Because of my long career and a family history entwined in Christian college ministry, I am choosing to reflect on institutional processes currently unfolding among our people. 

Understanding closures requires reflection on school beginnings.  

THE RISE OF INDEPENDENT CHRISTIAN CHURCH COLLEGES 

Throughout history, the church always developed mechanisms for equipping leaders. Methods and institutions vary widely, but vibrant Christianity always responds to Christ’s commission to educate in making disciples.  

A movement developed in the late 1800s: Bible colleges and institutes emerged, at least partly in reaction to the secularization of mainline schools previously entrusted with educating ministers. Bible college development in the Stone-Campbell heritage seemed to be almost in lockstep with the trend of churches separating from the Disciples of Christ. “Independent Christian Churches” rejected what they saw as theological liberalism among the Disciples of Christ schools. This academic development reached a crescendo between 1940 and 1980. 

There was no consistent strategy for Bible college development and location. Independent Christian churches may have demonstrated their independence most vividly in Bible college proliferation. A theme for founding many of the schools was the “Bible college as a center of evangelism.” This philosophy, articulated eloquently by Vernon Newland, influenced the establishment of colleges in Dallas, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Des Moines, Memphis, Paducah, and perhaps a few other locales. Planting new churches in each of these contexts seemed to parallel the early stages of the school’s activities.  

Slightly different was the call for nurture of an educated ministry (a motive that goes back to the establishment of Ivy League schools in Colonial America). This impetus may have had any one of several concurrent urgings, such as a concern that existing institutions were not producing “true to the faith” ministers or the perception that there were no “suitable” schools available in geographical proximity to the church constituency.  

A few schools have specific cultural/ethnic concerns, such as preparing ministers for underserved peoples.  

Most schools were established through a sincere desire to bless present and future generations with well-equipped and educated Christian leaders. Paul’s commission to Timothy could well be cited as the impetus for most Bible colleges: “The things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2).  

By 1980, about 40 colleges were committed to preparing the next generation of servant-leaders among the independent Christian churches. What has happened in recent years to reduce that number to fewer than 20? The search for answers to this question should never be a “blame game,” nor should the issues be oversimplified. No single cause pervades the diverse events. Indeed, many factors likely impact each difficult decision.  

NINE FACTORS IN CHRISTIAN COLLEGE CLOSINGS 

Here is a list of factors I have observed as influential in many of the closings: 

1. Financial management problems. Most of our colleges have never had the level of financial support or endowment that might enable them to weather “lean times.” In fact, some have argued against endowments with the position that “the Bible college should be dependent upon support from the churches in this generation.” Bonded indebtedness calls upon the next generation to pay today’s bills. With shallow resources, schools have little leverage when national or regional recessions limit donors’ funds or when significant donors choose to cease support. The specter of bankruptcy quickly chokes off the viability of a school. Sixty years ago, most of these colleges were primarily “donor-financed.” Today, most colleges depend on tuition as a major source of income. Enrollment declines produce financial crises that are often managed by further debt accumulation. A deadly cycle ensues. 

2. Education has become more costly. Operating a college in the current environment involves unprecedented costs. Dorms of the 21^st century are more luxurious than those of yesteryear. Meeting standards of accreditation often mandates administrative and academic expenditures beyond what the accredited status produces in support or enrollment. All educational institutions operating in the American context face the dilemma of unfunded mandates—demands on the schools without any government supports. For example, the Title IX law of 1972 prohibits sexual discrimination in any area of institutional function. Though some praise the call for fairness, interpretation of the law is fluid and increasingly pervasive, sometimes taking precedence over theological convictions of institutions. Schools may be pressed toward unacceptable actions such as adapting to LGBTQ demands. Any school with students receiving funds from federal student loan programs is subject to government regulation. 

3. Cultural trends have devastating impacts on schools. Each high school graduation class exhibits an increasing secularization of priorities and moral/religious values. Hence the student recruitment pool is reduced. The fact that the American church in general is not growing makes leadership ministry, the primary outcome of Bible college education, less appealing as a viable career path. Some Christian parents steer their children away from ministry in favor of higher-income careers. 

4. The religious movement that produced the spate of Bible colleges is itself in transition. Christian churches tend to be less sectarian than one or two generations ago, thus they are more open to pastoral leaders who did not graduate from a “faithful Bible college.” Even the “Restoration Ideal” is less distinctive. Such principles as “Where the Scriptures speak . . . ” and “In essentials unity . . .” may be more strongly articulated in a variety of community/Bible church/independent fellowships than among some churches of the Stone-Campbell heritage. Some speculate that the “Restoration Movement” has impacted many evangelical churches, outgrowing the “Nondenominational Fellowship of Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.”  

5. The emergence of megachurches may have impacted Bible colleges in negative ways. Some call megachurches “mini-denominations,” referring to their providing many services formerly offered only by parachurch institutions such as Bible colleges. Such churches are less likely to depend on the schools for pastoral staff, especially in nonpreaching or teaching roles. They often choose to hire and train ministry personnel from within their own membership. While some megachurches strategically partner with Bible colleges or seminaries for field education of students, some may not see themselves as needing the schools. One concern relating to this dynamic is that theological education of church staffs may be diminished. 

6. Administrative mistakes often appear in the road to closure. Some would use stronger terminology: mismanagement, failure to cast/maintain/champion a viable vision, focus on the wrong things, etc. The difficulty is that such judgments are much easier to make in retrospect than in real time. Assessment of the final decade of a closed school often finds errors such as accumulation of too much debt, attempts to “spend our way out of debt,” spreading resources too thin by developing programs that were unprofitable, offering programming (diverse degrees or athletic opportunities, etc.) not central to the mission of the school. Sadly, such “mistakes” were often good-faith efforts encouraged by the college’s constituency. 

7. Higher education trends are presenting challenges to Bible colleges. The development of low-cost community colleges has undercut Bible colleges from both accessibility and affordability standpoints. Privately funded schools of all sorts struggle to compete with these tax-supported institutions. In the region where I live (Springfield, Ill.), the landscape is littered with the hulks of various once-thriving small colleges that closed during the past two decades. They survived world wars, depressions, and social revolutions, but they could not survive the new millennium. 

8. The digital revolution has dramatically transformed all education. Most schools scurry to keep up, and debate rages on the efficacy of online learning vis-à-vis the traditional classroom, but digital education is growing. Traditional education is not.  

9. Other contributors to closure might be cited. This listing is neither exhaustive nor judgmental. Today is a difficult era in which to operate a non-tax-supported institution of higher learning!  

But the question still echoes: Does closure of a Bible college indicate that it failed? 

ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES 

We must differentiate between the collective church and the institutions that support or are supported by it, just as we differentiate between the collective church and individual churches. Jesus promised that the gates of Hades would not overcome his church (Matthew 16:18). But many local manifestations of the church have come and gone.  

Where is the church in Jerusalem? The congregation in Antioch was a world-changer, but at some point the leaders apparently made a terminal decision. No congregation of the church can be expected to last forever. But the church today is still impacted by what God did in post-Pentecost Jerusalem. We still strive to implement lessons learned at Antioch. God used those local churches to impact communities, cultures, and the world. Parallel observations may apply to many entities emerging over the past two millennia.  

When a Bible college closes, many congregations cease to have a familiar institutional partner in a symbiotic relationship. But we may ask, “Did this institution fulfill its primary calling?”  

I have visited various mission stations around the world and met people who know Christ because a graduate of a certain Bible college took the gospel to that community. I have been in strong congregations where the dynamic worship reflects the theology and practice of the leaders’ alma maters. I have been in regions where the presence of numerous effectively serving congregations is a testament to the evangelistic zeal that emanated from a no-longer-open Bible college. In each instance, the Bible college was clearly successful in some dynamic of its mission.  

One can have a calling to ministry that is exercised through an institution such as a Bible college, but attempting to keep any institution alive beyond its reasonable viability borders on idolatry.  

I grieve some of the now-shuttered Bible colleges. But I, and future generations, will continue to be blessed by the successful carrying out of the missions of those schools over their duration of service.  

Do we believe God is incapable of raising up and equipping leadership for his church just because a certain college is gone? Institutions are called to serve the context in which God places them. If they survive into future generations, it is likely because they have found a way of meeting God’s calling in that changing context. But if the means of adapting is not available, it may be an act of selfless integrity to say, “It is time to close. Let us do it with honor. To God be the glory.” 

Paul E. Boatman is a pastoral consultant who served as a seminary professor and administrator with Lincoln (Ill.) Christian University from 1978 to 2012. Since 1945, various members of his family have served as administrators and professors in six different colleges in this heritage.