The State of Pastoral Training in America

by Dr. Woodrow Kroll, President, Practical Bible Training School

First published AABC Newsletter Winter, vol.XXXI, no. 1, Jan 1987.
Permission to reproduce and put in WU online library, in both English and Indonesian, Jul 9, 2026

Pastoral Training in American History

The training of the clergy has always held a prominent position in American education. In fact, more frequently than not it has occupied the premier position.

The first institution in American higher education, Harvard College, was founded in 1636 for the express purpose of training pastors. Until 1700 more than half of its graduates went directly into the ministry. The understanding that the purpose of higher education was to train the clergy was so intense that scholars at Harvard believed the university man was in the “direct line of succession to the original prophets and apostles. The College was a local encampment of the universal ‘militia’ of Christ.”

When Harvard became suspect of holding Unitarian and rationalistic views, Yale was founded in 1701 “to be a truer school of the prophets.” In a pamphlet published in 1754, President Clap of Yale declared that “The great design of founding this School was to educate ministers in our own way.” He went on to say that “Colleges are societies of ministers, for training up persons for the work of the ministry.”

Rhode Island College, now Brown University, was founded by Baptists in 1764 for the primary task of training Baptist pastors. The purpose of Dartmouth College was similar. Though not founded to train pastors, it was initiated in 1769 to train missionaries to the American Indian.

And what would be the case when an institution ceased to place its emphasis on pastoral training or in some way came to hold an unacceptable theology? When Harvard was suspect, Yale was founded. “When the Great Awakening shaped new churches desiring an evangelically trained ministry, both Harvard and Yale became suspect, and so Princeton was founded.” And when Princeton became suspect ... well, the story continues.

It is undeniable that pastoral training was the raison d’être of higher education during America’s formative years. But with time things change.

Causal Factors in the Decline of Pastoral Training in America

While pastoral training has historically worn the crown in American education, it has time and again been toppled from the throne. “While the majority of college graduates of the 17th century entered the ministry, this percentage dropped to 50% in 1750, 22% in 1801, and 6.5% in 1900. Among freshmen who entered college in the fall of 1980, less than half of 1% indicated ‘clergy’ as their probable career occupation.”

What are the factors in this downward spiral? As S. A. Witmer points out, the declension in American higher education did not begin with liberalism but with loss in spiritual dynamic. This was the result of change in mission. Because college came to be understood to be an inappropriate forum for training other professionals in addition to the clergy, the narrowly defined purpose of education had to be broadened to accommodate this understanding. Thus, with the broadening of the mission came a corresponding declension in the number of pastoral candidates graduating from college.

There were other factors. Once the mission was changed, a change in emphasis soon followed. Institutions which once were church supported and controlled became publicly controlled. The Morrill Act of 1862 and the second Morrill Act of 1890 provided substantial financial grants to public higher education. The new public institutions bore little interest in common with the much earlier church-sponsored colleges and, to satisfy a pluralistic society, these institutions were necessarily secular. While secular education was booming, the number of pastors and missionaries being trained steadily declined.

There was a third factor. With a change in mission and a change in emphasis, there was an honest and necessary change in curriculum. The educational needs of America demanded that courses in science and mathematics be integral to the curriculum. By 1776 all but two of the colonial colleges had established professorships in mathematics and natural philosophy. Not that these disciplines were unworthy of study, but they did not contribute directly to pastoral training and thus a greater number of curricular offerings were designed to service a greater number of non-pastoral students.

The broadening of the mission, the change in emphasis to include a wider student population, and the change in curriculum to service this wider population all contributed to the fading strength of pastoral training in American education.

A White Knight Appears on the Scene

Something had to be done. No longer were post-secondary institutions addressing clergy education. A fresh wave of pastoral training institutions was needed. The result was the rise of pastoral and missionary schools in Great Britain and America. A white knight had arrived.

Convinced that “learning is essential to preaching, but not the kind of learning required by university degrees,” Charles Haddon Spurgeon established a pastor’s college midway through the last century. By the founder’s own admission, the all-controlling aim of this institution was the preparation of powerful preachers.

In the late 1800’s, Albert B. Simpson returned from a visit to Great Britain where he had seen The East London Institute for Home and Foreign Missions in action. Simpson envisioned a school to train missionaries much as Spurgeon envisioned a school to train preachers. On October 1, 1883 the Missionary Training College for Home and Foreign missionaries, now Nyack College, was organized and the Bible institute movement was born in America.

In 1886, Dwight L. Moody called for the training of “gap men” — men to stand between the university trained ministers and the untrained laity. Hence, the Chicago Evangelization Society was formed and from it the Bible Institute for Home and Foreign Missions. After Moody’s death the institution became known as Moody Bible Institute.

Soon, other similar pastoral training schools followed. Western Baptist Bible College (MO) was established in 1890. In 1893, Johnson Bible College (TN) came into being with a sister school, Northwest Christian College (OR), being established two years later. In 1897, Boston Bible School, now Berkshire Christian College, followed. The Training School for Christian Workers, today Azusa Pacific, was established in 1899. And the turn of the century, the year 1900, saw three such schools come into existence: my own institution — Practical Bible Training School; God’s Bible School; and Bethel Bible Institute, later Barrington College.

It wasn’t exactly a flood, but it was a very important trickle. The common denominator was not denomination nor regional locale. It was the desire to do again what public education had long since abandoned, i.e. train pastors and missionaries, men and women to minister the Word of God looking to others.

Has There Been Declension in the Bible College Purpose?

Given that pastoral training in American higher education has declined from 100% of the college population to less than one half of 1% of that population, it is a natural question to ask if the “white knight” will undergo the same type of declension. Will there be a continual steady falling off of pastoral training in post-secondary Christian education?

To determine the answer to this question the Kroll Survey (I identify it with myself as it represents no denomination, no organization, and no institution), was sent to one hundred Christian universities, Christian liberal arts colleges, and Bible colleges. These institutions were selected at random, but selected so as to represent a diverse theological tradition.

Pastoral Major Totals
Bible Colleges

Using the categories of Bosma and O’Rear in their 1980 study, the following totals were seen for various denominations within Bible colleges:

Denom	# ’86 Grads	Pastor Major	% Pastor Majors
Bapt	611	153	25%
Chstian	332	130	39%
Indpndt	1306	246	19%
Pntcstl	563	271	48%
Other*	503	174	35%

*Those denominationally affiliated colleges which do not fall under the Baptist, Christian or Pentecostal categories.

Of the colleges responding to the survey, the TOTAL NUMBER OF GRADUATES in the Class of 1986 was 3,315. The total number of pastoral majors from these Bible colleges was 974. The percentage of Bible college graduates in 1986 who were pastoral majors was 29%.

Christian Liberal Arts Colleges

Denom	# ’86 Grads	Pastor Majors	% Pastor Majors
Bapt	482	20	4%
Indpndt	263	19	7%
Other	973	47	5%

Of the Christian liberal arts colleges responding to the survey, the TOTAL NUMBER OF GRADUATES in the Class of 1986 was 1718. The total number of pastoral majors from these Christian liberal arts colleges was 86. The percentage of Christian liberal arts graduates who were pastoral majors was 5%.

Christian Universities

Denom	# ’86 Grads	Pastor Majors	% Pastor Majors
Bapt	781	69	9%
Indpndt	396	23	6%

Of the Christian universities responding to the survey, the TOTAL NUMBER OF GRADUATES in the class of 1986 was 1,177. The total number of pastoral majors from these Christian universities was 92. The percentage of Christian university graduates in 1986 was pastoral majors was 8%.

Christian Seminaries

Denom	# ’86	Pastor	% Pastor
Bapt	93	76	82%
Indpndt	613	190	31%
Pentcstl*	49	430	58%

*Only one responding institution

Of the Christian seminaries responding to the survey, the TOTAL NUMBER OF GRADUATES in the Class of 1986 was 1,502. The total number of pastoral majors from these Christian seminaries was 727. The percentage of Christian seminary graduates in 1986 who were pastoral majors was 48%.

By comparison, then, the largest percentage of pastoral majors in the class of 1986 is to be found in the theological seminary (48%), followed by the Bible college (29%), the Christian university (8%), and the Christian liberal arts college (5%).

Observations for Bible Colleges

In light of the historic trend in American education away from pastoral training, and in light of the statistics of the present survey, what observations can be made with regard to the state of pastoral training in America?

1. There has been a verifiable transition in American education which demonstrates that diversification in institutional mission brings dilution to that mission.
2. The vocational purpose of Bible college education is very clearly and repeatedly stated in AABC literature and is understood by most if not all Bible college graduates.
3. In each educational category of the Kroll survey the number of pastoral majors was less than anticipated.
4. While the total percentage of pastoral majors in Bible colleges is less than one-third of the student body, some groups are preserving this aspect of vocational ministry better than others, e.g. Pentecostal churches and Christian churches.
5. Those Bible colleges that are interdenominational, independent or unaffiliated exhibit weaker numerical commitment to pastoral training than do denominational colleges.

In light of these findings, what are some danger signs for Bible colleges with regard to pastoral training? What are signals which Bible colleges should watch to preserve our cherished heritage of vocational training? Please allow me to suggest a few.

Danger Signs for Pastoral Training

1. There is danger for pastoral training when diversification in curricula threatens the institution’s distinctive mission. In his recent monograph entitled “Preserving the Private College — and Diversity,” Dr. Mel Scarlett lists 15 danger signs for the private college. Prominent among them is “If the institution has precipitously and drastically departed from its basic mission because of financial exigency.”

When an institution determines that it must diversify its mission and curriculum in order to attract more student income, it is treading dangerously near the precipice of post-pastoral training. Diversification has brought dilution to an institution’s mission and there is no reason to believe that it won’t again.

2. There is danger for pastoral training when the definition of “ministry” becomes so broad that it includes any vocation pursued by a Christian. While it is true that every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is called to minister, it is nonetheless true that some are called to live by the ministry. Their vocation is full time; it is both their calling and their livelihood. Historically the word “ministry” has related somehow to God’s Word instead of His world in general. Today, however, the word is loosely used so that students preparing to be basketball coaches, investment counselors, teachers, social workers, or computer programmers are said to be preparing for the ministry. I think this definition does damage to the historic meaning of the word, as it does damage to AABC’s stated definition of church vocations.

3. There is danger for pastoral training when college presidents continually feature pastoral majors in appeals to their church constituency when business, education, or other majors have actually supplanted the pastoral major in institutional importance.

Since Bible colleges are in business to supply church vocational professionals, it is only natural that churches show a higher degree of interest in a pastoral major than a business major. Therefore, conclusions can be drawn from this and most major appeals for funds that I have received showcase the pastoral major. This is not wrong if the pastoral training program is vibrant in the institution. However, if it is not it should be clearly articulated. When the number one major is elementary education, or business, or psychology, or whatever and the number of pastoral majors in that institution could hold meetings in a phone booth, it is ethically repugnant to mislead the public into believing that the young preacher in our appeal letter or magazine ad is typical of students at our institution.

4. There is danger for pastoral training when Bible college personnel begin to view the Bible college as simply preparatory to higher forms of education. While it is true that a good number of Bible college pastoral majors will eventually enter seminary, it should not be assumed that seminary training is necessary for success in ministry. In an era of outcomes assessment, it is good for us to remember that success in ministry still depends upon the blessing of the Spirit of God and the ability of our graduates to fruitfully do the work of the ministry. At some point there are certain essentials of ministry that must be learned. If Bible colleges major on the essentials, we are not compelled to be preparatory to anything. Let’s encourage all of our pastoral majors to consider the merits of seminary, but let’s instruct them as if what we give them is all they will get.

5. There is danger for pastoral training when pastors are not actively recruiting the best of their young people for vocational ministry. Some day pastors will stand before the judgment seat of Christ and the Lord will ask why they sent that genius in their congregation, that class president, off to the state university, why they counseled that outstanding athlete, “Go into high tech; that’s where the money is.” The last command of the Lord Jesus Christ was, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel.” Every time we encourage one of our best people to meet the first command of God, we reduce by one the ranks of those who can meet the last command of Christ.”

Conclusion

Education, like everything is cyclical. Heavy emphasis on pastoral training in institutions gives way to diversification in mission and curriculum, and eventually results in declining numbers of pastoral majors. Soon it becomes difficult to support an institution on these declining numbers. The mission is thus diversified more to attract students. This diversification leads to dilution in the original mission until finally the mission must change. Every time it does, historically at least, pastoral training gets the “short end of the stick.”

From the Kroll survey, we may be tempted to conclude that this cycle may very well be happening in some segments of Christian higher education and in some of our cherished institutions. Let’s deny validity to the statement, “The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history” and take whatever steps are necessary in every institution to insure that Bible colleges provide strong pastoral training into the 21st century.