A Presbyterian minister quoted in the study, Missing Connections: Public Perceptions of Theological Education and Religious Leadership

Presbyterians pride themselves on their tradition of public presence and civic-mindedness. In the 19th century, Presbyterians participated in a broad range of benevolent movements and were leaders in such notable efforts as the extension of public schooling to all. In the 20th century, the national denomination has turned its attention to global and national policy debates, with staff members assigned to social concerns and dozens of resolutions on public issues placed before the General Assembly each year. Though a few members continue to protest that "nonreligious" matters are none of the church's business, most Presbyterians, whatever their political and theological views, believe that the Presbyterian Church and its allied institutions are and should be actively engaged in worldly affairs.

Last year, at Auburn Seminary's Center for the Study of Theological Education, we conducted research to learn more about the public presence of religion in North America. The focus of the center is, as its name suggests, theological education. At the instigation of seminary presidents who told us that they often feel isolated and marginalized, cut off from other social institutions, we wanted to learn how theological schools and the leaders they educate are connecting, or not connecting, with the wider public. The resulting study, Missing Connections: Public Perceptions of Theological Education and Religious Leadership, was based on interviews with some 254 church executives, clergy, business and nonprofit leaders, government officials, community activists, college and university officials and local journalists in four U.S. cities. The cities selected Atlanta, Georgia; Portland, Oregon; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Shreveport, Louisiana have varying levels of seminary presence. As a group, they have different kinds of seminaries, including Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, and evangelical Protestant institutions, a university divinity school and a seminary linked to a college.

Invisibility of Seminaries

We were not surprised to learn that seminaries are virtually invisible to leaders of secular organizations and institutions, even those in the seminary's own city and region. The seminary leaders who urged us to conduct this study had predicted that finding. Most of the seminaries we studied are known to only a fairly small circle of insiders of their own religious tradition: denominational executives, clergy, and the members of some congregations that are either large or located close to the seminary's campus. Most of the general public, church members included, do not know even that the seminaries in their community and region exist.

This confirms what Presbyterian researchers have already reported: twice in recent years our denomination, which is saturated with seminaries, has tried to survey its randomly selected panel of church members about theological education, only to have more than half of the questionnaires returned, saying that respondents didn't know enough about the subject to participate.

Social leaders are no more aware than the general public of the presence of seminaries. Seminaries and their leaders are not usually viewed by those who head other organizations in the community as a major civic asset, or even as an educational one. There are exceptions, of course. African American seminary presidents, for instance, are more visible than others in the communities we surveyed. Because of the small size of our sample, we may well have missed other examples of schools and leaders that have made themselves known. But most seminary presidents, other administrators, and faculty are not well-known to their peers in other enterprises. The seminary leaders we interviewed told us that they are not often invited to the table when civic decisions are made, and the press of their other responsibilities makes them reluctant to press to be included.

Seminaries are not the only religious institutions that have low visibility and limited public participation. The same is true of most clergy, judicatories, and local churches. Clergy are, we were told by the social leaders we talked to, good, hard-working people in the main. But many of our informants also expressed disappointment in the quality and reach of religious leaders today.

Lack of Involvement

We asked business, government, and other nonprofit leaders how many clergy would be on their list of people who would have to be consulted to get some major new civic project underway or to change a standing law or policy. In all four cities, the answer was the same: a couple of African- American clergy. Also mentioned in one or two places were rabbis who speak out on issues, an occasional outspoken Catholic bishop, and paid evangelical lobbyists. Most clergy and religious executives, however, are occupied "taking care of their own." A dean of a public university said that clergy "don't convene the forums for public conversations, and they're not in the forefront of articulating issues ... Religious leaders in this town helped lead the civil rights movement ... I don't know what the issue is, but if it came up today, those religious leaders do not appear to be at the table, and they certainly are not leading the conversation.

"In another city, a retired diplomat said he couldn't recall a time when the church and clergy were "so little considered ... I'm not sure they are disrespected," he said, "they just don't seem tomatter. [In this city] there is a lot of church-going. But when you talk about affairs in the world, there doesn't seem to be that much relevance."

Other observers, such as Stephen Carter in his well-known book, The Culture of Disbelief, have tracked this development, the privatizing of North American religion even as the amount and intensity of religious interest seems to be increasing. Our study added two surprising elements to what has been widely noted. One was the fact that, with the already mentioned exception of African Americans, no group seemed more or less involved than others. Most Roman Catholics, mainline and evangelical Protestants, and Jews, along with religious groups only now establishing themselves in significant numbers in the U.S., "keep to themselves." The other surprise was that religious leaders and groups refuse to enter the public arena even when they might be expected to become involved in a local controversy. A Chamber of Commerce official said that it was "like pulling teeth" to get any of his city's liberal churches to fight a move to repeal a gay rights ordinance. Similarly, a city planner reported that evangelical clergy in his community would not join an effort to limit the spread of legalized gambling establishments.

A number of the secular and church executives reported that many clergy avoid religious as well as secular alliances. They are perceived as competitive and territorial, and often do not even know the other religious leaders in town. Congregational pressure to make their congregation succeed, even at the expense of others, was sometimes suggested as the cause of such behavior.

Many of the secular leaders interviewed for Missing Connections think that the lack of involvement of religious leaders and institutions in civic affairs amounts to a missed opportunity. One foundation executive lamented the loss of "soul" in civic life. "What has happened by the lack of [religious] representation is that a lot of boards have lost their soul and have lost part of their conscience by not having these religious leaders at their table." And, he added, "they've lost somebody to ask the tough questions when decisions are being made."

Respondents indicated that religious leaders and institutions could play an important role in public affairs. A political leader, remarked that "the gap between the underclass and those persons who are privileged is getting wider and wider and somehow it's going to be left to religious leaders to ... make those persons who are privileged realize that they are privileged because of the blessings of God." A business leader offered, "It will be the churches that save society because none of [the] other forces have any moral component."

Did the civic leaders have any suggestions as to how religious leaders might be better trained for public ministry? Few had ever considered the subject. Like the Presbyterians I mentioned earlier, most said that they knew too little about seminary education to even comment. But upon further reflection they suggested orienting future clergy to community and public issues.

One Presbyterian business executive said he believed it was a basic Presbyterian tenet that "you weren't blind to the rest of the world around you." This leader said he was not sure that contemporary Calvinist theology understands that. "You have to look at [clergy] education and say that similar to liberal arts you have a major, and you're naturally focused on that, but a liberal arts degree demands that you be rounded, and it forces you into other subject areas, and somewhat of more than just a survey of those subject areas a minor if you will ... It would seem that given what we see about everywhere today that the community would certainly be a good minor in a seminary."

Many interviewees agreed, saying that seminary graduates are overly sequestered, out of touch with the real world, naive about the challenges of organizational leadership, and neglect the needs of their community. The seminary may be a place apart, but its graduates still ultimately labor in the real world, they said.

A fair question is whether the invisibility of seminaries and the disengagement of religious leaders and institutions are really serious problems for the wider society. I think they are, but not for the reason that some of my fellow Presbyterians may suspect.

I am not seeking to return to some golden age or an earlier set of arrangements. There was a time when the mainline Protestants, many of them Presbyterian, ran almost everything, except a few large cities corporations, charities, universities, and the national government and when, as a result, the leading Protestant clergy had permanent free passes to the settings in which social policy was hammered out.

One of the advisers to our project worried at the beginning of the study that it might be driven by a wistful longing to return to that time. That was not our motive. We can't go back and would not want to if we could. Pluralism, along with a certain kind of secularism that levels the playing field, is here to stay, and it is a good thing, too.

Moreover, as I have already indicated, the low visibility and involvement of religious leaders and institutions in civic life are part of larger trends. Another recent study indicated that we are becoming a nation of spectators. The patterns uncovered by Missing Connections are not unique to religion.

Still, even with these qualifications, what we uncovered should trouble those who are responsible parties in theological education and leaders in Christian churches. Why? One is institutional self- interest. At a time when North American religion is becoming increasingly undenominational, seminaries in the future will not be able to rely on denominational and old school ties to form their constituencies.

Another reason is ethical. Seminaries exist not only because some churches and individual friends give them money but also because a much wider circle, the whole society, exempts theological schools from paying taxes and in some cases offers support from public funds. In gratitude for what amounts to major support, seminaries should be active, responsible civic contributors.

Purposes of Seminaries

But the primary reason our findings trouble me is because of what they say about the identity and purposes of theological schools and religious communities. For all their diversity, each of our religious traditions is, among other things, a treasury of wisdom about what matters, about how we should live, together, under God. Some of that wisdom is reserved for the church, but more of it is given for the life of the world. Our study strongly suggests that neither we who teach theology nor those who regularly preach the Gospel articulate that wisdom with sufficient power.

In the cases we studied, which I suspect are typical, religious leaders have usually failed to connect with those who do not already know what our traditions have to say about how we might lead a good life in common. (The "unreached" are inside our churches as well as beyond them.) We are not invited into civic life because we have not succeeded in teaching and preaching the wisdom of our traditions in ways that make people want to hear more.

If this is true, then addressing the problem of theological education and religious presence in public life should not distract us from our core mission but, rather, focus us on it. Our job is to teach and preach, with enough passion and power that other people want at least to engage, if not to adopt, the ideas and convictions and commitments that animate us. There is nothing more compelling in public discourse than religious truth that is taught and proclaimed with power, integrity, true civility, and freedom.

In short, the religious success of theological and church institutions and their presence in the public arena their public witness are not separate or separable. Rather, they are right at the heart of things. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.