Gordon-Conwell has had a number of visions and plans for the city. Gordon Divinity School, once located in Wenham, Massachusetts, was interested in connecting with Boston to set up a “. . . Gordon House in Cambridge, to provide a base for contact with the Boston academic community.”[1] This fit in well with the vision of the later united seminary to be an Ivy-League evangelical seminary.

Conwell School of Theology, on the other hand, had a different concern. After separating from Temple University, this newly independent seminary was given a small amount of money to continue training pastors in north Philadelphia that focused on training Black leaders for the city. As our former professor, the late Stephen Mott (1940-2024) wrote in 1973, “. . . Conwell would bring to the merger . . . a tradition of service to the community, involvement in the urban situation and a ministry to the Black community.”[2] This robust vision of preparing urban leaders, mostly Black, in understanding the sociology of the city would make such training available for underserved communities.

Stephen Mott was the first person hired under the model of the “Conwell vision” to teach not simply urban ethics, but biblical social ethics. The union of Gordon Divinity School and Conwell School of Theology in 1969 was met with strong conviction and much confusion. A very strong concern for training urban leaders arose from the Conwell stream (board of trustees, Conwell President Stuart B. Babbage, and a few faculty), while the “Wenham seminary” preferred different interests in engaging the city. As a result of these divergent emphases, committees of the new united faculty were set up to clarify an approach:

  • Was the “urban program” to expose more people to the city as a final or middler year, or was the concern to train underserved populations in the city?
  • Was the concern to bring the same quality theological education to urban leaders, or was it to be a specialized education to bring about social change?
  • Was the concern to train Black church leaders during a time of Black activism, or was the concern to reach Blacks and Hispanics and the many diverse cultures of Boston (a multicultural presence)?
  • Were faculty from “Wenham/Hamilton” to serve the urban program, or were some specialized faculty to be hired to augment the faculty for urban theological education?

The answer to most of these questions would be “both/and,” but the choices and tensions have always been part of the Gordon-Conwell—Boston theological culture.

The program known as CUME, originally the Center for Urban Ministerial Education, started in 1976 in cooperation with the Emmanuel Gospel Center and in close collaboration with Twelfth Baptist Church. There was much cooperation with churches, institutions, and faculty. It is interesting to see the names of Hamilton faculty mentioned as strongly supporting the urban program (Nigel Kerr, Robert Fillinger, Eldin Villafañe, J. Wesley Roberts, Stephen Mott, and even President Ockenga).[3] Those who defended the importance of an urban program were ethnically diverse. This, I think, is and always has been one of the key elements of the CUME program.

In a 1984 article published in Urban Mission, the director of CUME, Dr. Eldin Villafañe, pointed the way forward when he connected urban theological education with “theological education by extension,” a program first clearly articulated by Ralph Winter in describing his work in educating Christian leaders in Guatemala. Theological education was brought to local contexts (in Guatemalan villages) rather than requiring people to relocate for two or three years to train to become a pastor. Winter’s book on Theological Education by Extension was published in 1969.[4] Dr. Villafañe was on top of the most contemporary approaches to theological education: in context, action-reflection, and biblically robust.

I believe this “in context” approach is still appropriate today, especially in the dynamic contexts of American cities. One decision that Gordon-Conwell has made since the early days of CUME is to live into the vision of Revelation 7. We have expressed this as “many languages, one Lamb, no tears.” Where cultures and cities often divide by language and race and class, we endeavor to unite around the clear teaching of Scripture, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and meeting the needs of the hurting and oppressed. This is Good News for the city.

As we reconfigure our urban programs for the future, this vision, as part of our strategic plan, will help to guide us in bringing cultures and languages together where the larger culture often drives us apart. I also believe it will help us keep our urban education firmly rooted in Jesus Christ, both as our redeemer and our example. Finally, in continuity with the concerns of Villafañe and Mott from the early 1970s, we will prepare leaders who identify where there is suffering and find ways for the church to wipe away tears.

[1] From Stephen Charles Mott, “The History of Planning for an Urban Program at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary,” as found in The Center for Urban Ministerial Education: An Evaluation 1986-1987 (Roxbury, MA: CUME), 1987. p. 75.
[2] Mott, p. 75.
[3] “Attentiveness: TEE and CUME,” 2022.
[4] Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1969.

Dr. Scott W. Sunquist, President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, is author of the “Attentiveness” blog. He welcomes comments, responses, and good ideas.