Dunce Cap Goes to Princeton Theological Seminary…
February 15, 2007
…because Princeton Theological Seminary just recently received a grade of D minus from the Sustainability Endowments Institute. I ran across the story on CNN last night, and was shocked to see that my future alma mater, Princeton Theological Seminary, had performed so poorly. To see the detailed “report card” for Princeton Seminary (which includes 1 C, 1 D and 5 Fs), click on the image above, or view the pdf here.
The results of the Sustainability Endowments Institute’s study have been published on CNN Money and Bloomberg, and are now being picked up by numerous news agencies.
I would love to see an official response from the Seminary but I doubt that is going to happen.
Here is a quote from the Bloomberg article:
After the top four schools, 22 earned overall grades of B, 54 received C’s and 20 got D’s. The latter included five institutions with D-minuses, the lowest given: Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey; Trinity University in San Antonio; the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana; the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma; and Yeshiva University in New York City.
That’s not too bad - however, CNN realizes the irony in the results: that a seminary would be the place that would score the lowest. Here is a quote from the CNN article:
Amusingly enough, the lowest grade of D minus appears to have gone to the Princeton Theological Seminary, which among other failings has no formal sustainability policies, no organic food initiative, no green building policy, and invests only to maximize profit. (The nerve.)
Perhaps it’s our location you might think. New Jersey was recently eyed as a “source of a stench.” However, it’s not our location. Princeton University, literally a block away from the Seminary, received a B minus (see their report card here). They are doing a lot at the school to think about sustainability, food, recycling & investments. To read more about Princeton University and their sustainability efforts (they even have an Office of Sustainability!), click here.
So while more and more people are becoming aware of current environmental crises, and while schools like Dartmouth, Harvard, Stanford and Williams score As on this Sustainability Report Card, and while our neighbor, Princeton University, scores a B minus, our seminary scores a D minus. Our Administration has made it very clear in the past 2 years that they want to continue to work on the relationship between the Seminary and the University. Yet, when it comes to issues of environmental awareness and sustainability, it seems this is a place where it would make sense to work more closely with the University; however, we are not following Princeton University’s lead.
So is this a big deal? Should Princeton Seminary (a school that is quite smaller than many of the other schools graded) be concerned with issues of sustainability, caring for the environment and investing resources for a purpose other than maximizing profits? What do you think? I hope this stirs up conversation around Princeton Seminary’s campus - will the administration give an official response to this report? Will they begin to think about ways to improve their grade? We can only hope…
Tags: Environmental, Green, Princeton-Theological-Seminary, Sustainability
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 yr old 
February 15th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Wow this is really interesting…and of course really really disappointing. I am now going to find out how Fuller looks with all this.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Yea…this is interesting, though not surprising (at least to me).
I would be curious to see a comparison of Seminaries. I don’t have time right now to look through the list of the top 100 - how many seminaries on the list?
But in terms of PTS, the only way change will occur if there is a true “action” by the student body. A significant number of students will need to rise up and take tangible actions to create any positive change in this area.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Dave - I’d love to see a comparison of seminaries as well — I’m sure the resources available to Harvard and Princeton Theological Seminary are not the same…but I don’t think that should be used as an excuse…
I will be very interested to see if this ends up on the radar of PTS students…I know quite a few read this blog, but who knows if there will be any who want to take the seminary to task on this issue. And frankly, I don’t know what I’d do if I were there right now. I do think it would be very interesting to hold a brown-bag lunch forum, or panel discussion on this topic.
The question is whether or not the administration would be open to such a dialogue…
February 15th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Good job, Adam. Nice post. PTS is my alma mater as well. Class of 92– woo woo.
I will link to your post on my blog too. This is good dose of reality for the church. I wonder if there is a connection between our theology and our lack of concern about the environment?
February 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I completely agree. I don’t excuse them because they are seminaries - in actuality we shoul hold them to a higher standard.
I am more interested in the seminary comparison simply to see how bad each seminary is.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Ouch. I hope they realize that this hurts them with prospective students (like me) as well. All the categories are important, but I’m most disappointed in the “F” for Endowment Transparency. Definitely not open-source.
Of course, you just provided me with a great series of questions to ask the administration at Columbia when I visit next weekend…as a prospective student.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
The Endowment is interesting stuff….I find it interesting that Princeton Seminary’s endowment has actually been suffering recently — not doing that well. I wonder how it would be doing if they had invested in some Green companies instead…who knows.
One thing that another friend mentioned to me is that the Seminary might be different than some of the other institutions surveyed because of our connections to the Presbyterian Church (USA). We might have more hoops to jump through (wait! Presbyterians? Hoops? No….) - although, if that’s the case, this is also a call for our denomination to step up and start thinking about these issues.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
unfortunately, adam, i think this is not just a PTS problem. It is a Christian culture issue. For far too long, churches have thought of environmental issues, resource management, and community impact awareness as “liberal” concerns. A growing number of church leaders are fed up with this mentality and are becoming more and more aware of the importance of addressing and working on these issues. it may be that our generation of theological leaders should lead the initiative to make the Church more green.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Well, as a PTS student, I can only say that I have mixed feelings about this. I am disappointed that we scored low, but I also am hesitant to really care that much. We are probably losing donors for much larger reasons than our willingness to invest in sustainable causes. Frankly, I would think our theology is probably as big of a concern for potential donors as anything else we do…
Also, I would hope that our goal is investing our money. That does include making ethical and wise decisions, but primarily it means investing our money in the smartest financial ways possible. Just my 2cents.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Sorry, after re-read the article, and looked at the actual findings of the report card, I feel that I need to add a further comment. All the things in the report card are meaningless to me for the simple reason that any school is, in a utilitarian sense, a business. Personally, I would want people investing my money where it will give the biggest return (as long as they are not intentionally doing evil with it). Whether or not we have organic food, or a compost pile, or are checking carbon emissions is meaningless to me. This may sound harsh, but I don’t really care.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I don’t understand why PTS is on the list as well. We are the only seminary or divinity school examined. The rest are all big league universities and major colleges. My alma mater, Wheaton College, isn’t on the list, and if any Christian school is going to be on the list, it would be Wheaton. So it puzzles me to no end why PTS is even on the map for them, other than that it was convenient to walk across the street and examine another school.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
David, Princeton Seminary is on this list because IT IS ONE OF THE 100 WEALTHIEST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN AMERICA with an endowment OVER 1 BILLION DOLLARS (as of last check). The report looked at the wealthiest American schools regardless of type.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Giving an official response to this would give it more credit than it deserves.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
“Ringo” - I haven’t mentioned anything before to you, but I’d appreciate it if you would use your real name - I’ve gone back and forth with comment policies over the past few years. I’ve found that when people use pseudonyms, fake names, etc., it doesn’t really help the conversation.
And you say all this is meaningless to you? THAT I don’t get. Not that seeing a movie is going to fix anything, but you should go watch An Inconvenient Truth - just to get a glimpse of the crisis at hand…and it’s the little things that this report brings to light that either contribute to this crisis or help the situation…
Sure, it might be meaningless to you…but what about your children?
February 15th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Ringo, you’re missing the point. This is precisely about doing evil with your money. Where this “sustainability” thing gets traction for me is that sustainability is NOT an environmental issue, it’s a HUMANITARIAN issue. Pollution, global warming, greenhouse emissions, and the like will ultimately result in the death of millions of people from extreme weather, malnutrition, and an increase in global poverty due to disrupted markets. Don’t believe me? Read this report from a Cornell scientist: http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/B/200001587.html — there really is no more denying that humans are significantly impacting the environment, the only question left is HOW MUCH we will damage the environment and one another in the process.
Second, Ringo, a Christian institution is never just a business. The real question is: How complicit does the church have to be in a humanitarian disaster before receiving due blame? If we’re headed for environmental disaster that ultimately becomes the greatest humanitarian crisis the world has ever seen as millions starve and die worldwide, then I wonder if 100 years from now whether seminary professors will be decrying the American church that stood by idly as millions went to their graves? What is the level of complicity required for the American church to be compared to the German church of the 1930s? That of course sounds ludicrous: To declare environmental inaction on par with allowing 6 million Jews to be sentenced to death seems like a ridiculous comparison. But then, we’re not sure what the death toll is going to be on the backside of global environmental disaster.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think this is about saving whales and trees anymore — or about “composting” — it’s about things that you SHOULD care about, Ringo.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
My name is irrelevant to the conversation Adam. However, I will think about what you have said…maybe I will make a change on the name thing.
Also, I haven’t seen Gore’s movie, and maybe I should. Be that as it may, I feel like the seminary’s policies on compost piles are the very least of the issues which plague our school. We are a dying church, and, in some ways, a dying seminary. Also, I don’t have any kids, but if I did, I would be more concerned for their knowledge of our righteous God than of the seminary’s carbon affects on their lungs. Not to say both aren’t important, but I have to pick my battles.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Second, Ringo, a Christian institution is never just a business. The real question is: How complicit does the church have to be in a humanitarian disaster before receiving due blame?
Well, how complicit does the church have to be until we have completely abandoned the gospel of Jesus Christ for political action and environmental issues? Then, instead of millions hungry, we will have billions in the dark about Jesus Christ. Both are important….but, again, I think we need to have our priorities straight.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Ringo, your comments imply a false dichotomy — that Gospel Truth seems to be in conflict with politics and the environment. You do mention that “both are important…” but according to your priorities, there is really only one that is truly important.
Sure this begs the question of what the gospel really is, which is too big of a topic to cover in this post, but you imply that what is really important is to tell people about Jesus and save them. That may play into the gospel message (though I might use different language) - but you can’t separate actions from faith. To say that the most important aspect of the gospel is to “save” people from being in the dark about Jesus Christ is to put a completely other-worldly emphasis on salvation. Whereas, the gospel, salvation and the kingdom of God begins now - it plays a huge part into the way we live our lives in the here-and-the-now - the way we help to bring about God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.
That means that we must care for God’s creation…and that we take that seriously as part of our calling as Christians an followers of God. “Saving” a billion “lost” people VS feeding a million hungry, and malnourished people…? I don’t know. I don’t think that’s as much of a black & white issue as you’d like to make it out to be…
…and no matter what your stance is on the social gospel, you don’t even have to go that far theologically because there are increasingly more and more Evangelical groups (Evangelicals for Social Action, and the National Association of Evangelicals) who are taking these environmental concerns very seriously. See this article for example, in which it states:
So yes, these are important things — and I’d encourage you to think twice before saying that you just don’t care about them.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Well, I certainly wouldn’t say we ever save anybody. God does that. But yes, you are right, salvation is more important to me than environmental issues. And you are also right, environmental issues are important, just not important enough for me to get mad at this seminary about right now…
February 16th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Let’s take a different look at this from a different angle. I see everyone starting from a point of accepting the “report card” as gospel truth from the start.
But really, who the heck is/are the Sustainability Endowments Institute? Formed in 2005? Wow, what a track record they must have!
What is their credibility? What are their methods? Who do they answer to? Why was it formed? Call me skeptical.
I’m not saying environmental issues aren’t important, but there are other issues here too.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I’m just down the road at Lawrenceville Presbyterian Church. We are starting a “Green Team” to educate the population (including some members from PTS) and to reduce the environmental footprint of the church.
I’ve written the first draft of a document showing the Biblical support for environmentalism. Once it’s finished, I’ll put it on my blog. Stay tuned!
February 16th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Wow. Looks like you struck a nerve with this one, Adam.
Personally, I can’t claim to speak for the Sustainability Endowments Institute, Princeton Theological Seminary, or even Christianity for that matter. I can only speak for myself. When I read the report, it bothered me. Legitimate or not (and it seems well documented enough to me), it raised issues that I hadn’t considered, and which are important to me.
Ringo, you said we are a dying church. I think you’re right — we’re a dying church in a dying world. If you want to talk about priorities, which is more important: our institutions or our survival? I also think it’s cruel to put all our emphasis in “salvation”–which we often sell to the world as Disney-Land-After-You-Die. Jesus worked to make the real world he lived in a better place. We should do no less.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Adam-this is facisnating and bothersome.
And Ringo, I am interested in your comments, because I do believe that our primary message must be the saving love of Jesus Christ, but I do not see why having concern for God’s creation has to be an abandoment of the good news. I can be an evangelical and an environmentalist, and considered myself one, by not reducing the gospel to solely self-focused salvation, but being a witness in both our actions and words to the good news about a God who came to be for us within the real time and space of our earth.
For those interested in an awesome podcast about evangelicalism and environmentalism listen to Moyers on America: “Is God Green?”
As for the fake name, I echo Adam’s comment because I would rather have an open dialogue and address you personally, especially since we are both on this campus seeking to serve God in all that we do.
wb=wes barry (pts student)
February 16th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Well, I still don’t see how my comments indicate that we can’t be both environmental and evangelical. Also, I believe the “disney-land-after-you-die” argument is tired. No, the gospel is not limited to the eternal. However, the gospel deals mostly with the eternal- which is just that, eternal. Think about that. Eternal. Forever. Endless. What is our priority?
Anyway, maybe you are right. Maybe I put too much stock into what seminary is and could be for the church. Maybe I don’t put enough stock into what its environmental testimony is. Either way, it is not the church. 100 years from now, if PTS is gone, the church will still be going strong. That is both comforting and frightening.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:35 am
“Either way, it is not the church.”
Really interesting statement, with which the historical view of PTS would disagree.
Along with Dean Guder, whose lecture in a class last semester made that exact point: The Seminary should and needs to view itself as a church. What makes you think we are not (nor should we) be the Church?
We should become a community which witnesses to Jesus Christ through prayer and preaching, but also through our actions (which includes environmental concerns) , so that we may be sent into the world. If Seminary is not a reflection of the Church, like the local church, that proclaims and embodies biblical principles in order to send its members into the world, then it is nothing more than another institute of higher education that prepares people for a job–and that is not what I feel called to.
You are right, 100 years from now, like many local churches, this place will probably become obsolete, but the Church will continue. However, if the seminary were to be viewing itself as a church, and dynamically living out its witness to Jesus Christ, then the Spirit may still use our classrooms, chapel and dorms as places for Christian discipleship in order to equip us to be sent into the world.
An environmental testimony by the seminary would give witness to the exact tension you mention and quickly dismiss; Yes, the gospel is focused upon eternity, but an eternal focus includes the present. Any attempt to reduce the gospel to even slightly emphasize either here–such as your concern–or “there”–such as your suggestion–diminishes the Church’s eternal testimony to Jesus Christ.
Apologies for perhaps digressing from the point of this thread:
February 17th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I am not a seminarian or theologian, and I am watching all of this from the outside and heres my question: Why such a dichotomy? Why is it either we save the planet, or we save someone’s soul? And I agree, this is more of a humanitarian issue anymore than an environmental one.
Ringo, I agree with Cleave and the others who have asked for your real name. I’m in Colorado, I’m clearly not going to come find you, but you using your real name shows a willingness to have a genuine dialogue. My question to you is why you feel the need to prioritize. Why not both? No ones asking you to do the composting personally. How much of your time might it take to ask the kitchens there to donate their organic waste to a farm or someone who would use it for compost? Or to ask the administration to pursue wind power? Is it that the days are so full of the most important thing that there is no time for the things that come second or third in your mind?
And one final thought, what if you someday get called to a church in a place like Boulder, CO where to love the people there you have to understand them and to understand them you have to understand why they love this planet so fiercely?
Again, I am not a theologian, but I have come to believe that the gospel is more whole than we make it out to be.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Well, as someone from an incredibly environmental place, with adamant environmental parents, I can understand the context of caring about the earth and humanity. Also, the seminary is not the church, and I might disagree with our dean on that. It is made up of people in the church, and, more or less, is seen as an extension of academic learning. Where I am from a seminary education from Princeton is seen about as valuable as a broken vase. Yet, I don’t believe that, hence I am here. Take a quick glance at the theology of our campus, and compare that to the overall church both nationwide and worldwide. As much as I love this school, I can’t help but feel that there are more pressing needs than that which is mentioned on the report card. Please, don’t let my comments stop you. But, I will place my priorities where I think they need to be. My personal environmental witness is, I think, as important as the seminary’s.
/I agree with the comment above that we have possibly, unfortunately or not, digressed from Adam’s original intention. Hopefully, those students who read this blog and feel strongly about this issue, will take a stand on it and do something.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Someday those genius theologians will connect the scripture to real life…
some day.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
this is such an embarassment for our school. yet more evidence of a lack of progressive thought or real world engagement here at pts. we have some of the most brilliant minds in the world, yet we treat ourselves like we are on our own little island seperate from the rest of the world. when will we start to engage with issues like these? now I can add the environment to issues of race and class that are not handled or handled improperly here. it is a shame, because some of our education is the best. but in some ways we are still living in the past and ignoring what is happening to in the world. it’s sad.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
A couple of thoughts about environmentalism and PTS:
1. Regarding having green buildings, it is probably pretty difficult to make buildings that are on the historic register green. Arguably, there are a couple of the newer buildings - Templeton and Erdman come to mind - more environmentally friendly, but I have a feeling that even if there was the resolve, it would be difficult to get past Jersey regulations.
2. One would hope that the designers new West Windsor campus would be taking these things into account, since the CRW apartments certainly are not historic buildings.
3. It comes as no surprise to me that the seminary is behind the times. Since we just started (sort of) registering online, perhaps recycling and composting will happen around…let’s say…2025.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
A school’s sole purpose is to educate. By focusing on other areas (greenness, environmental issues, profits, etc) the quality of education goes down hill. Take a look at what was once good colleges, namely Ivy League schools, and notice that when they coopted solid education for liberal thinking and environmental concerns that quality of education has gone down hill. Yea, they may be world renowed, but that doesn’t mean its quality. Taking the emphasis off of education distracts the school and diminishes quality.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Truth Seeker,
[Sarcasm on]
You’re right - I do hope and pray every day that my children will never go to Ivy League schools where the education has simply gone down hill because they are open to thinking about the environment.
[Sarcasm off]
A school’s sole purpose is not always to educate. And especially when we are talking about a seminary. Take for example this line from the mission of Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, GA.
Sure Columbia is an educational institution. We Presbyterians care deeply about an education of the mind. But that’s not it…seminaries are (hopefully) spiritually forming people for ministry in the service of the Church. And while we are being prepared for ministry, for service, for taking part in God’s mission in the world…we are called to think about things other than simply academics and our own education…
So, no. A school’s sole purpose is not always simply to educate…
February 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
So, let’s grant Truthseeker his idea that “a school’s sole purpose is to educate” (an maxim that assumes a terribly naive definition of education but one that we’ll grant for the sake of amusement). So, if the sole purpose of a school is to educate, what would the purpose of education? Answer that question and I can pretty much guarantee that in the end humanitarian (and thus environmental) concerns end up being part of the purpose of education. Unless of course you subscribe to a knowledge for knowledge’s sake philosophy, Truthseeker.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
The Christian Century’s recent editorial addresses this very issue:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=2955
Note the mention of my alma mater, St. Olaf College, that has a new wind turbine (fancy for windmill) that supplies 1/3 of the electricity for the entire campus. Would this have happened were the school not a strong church-related institution? I think not.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
You’re right - I do hope and pray every day that my children will never go to Ivy League schools where the education has simply gone down hill because they are open to thinking about the environment.
Adam, I don’t think that is a valid critique. It might be that their education has gone down hill for quite other reasons…I don’t necessarily believe that a princeton or harvard education is bad…but I would argue that their dominance has faded tremendously in the past decade.
Whether I agree with Truthseeker’s take on education or not, I still issue the challenge. If this is important to you, do something about it. To some of us it is not important enough to deal with right now. There are bigger proverbial fish to fry. So, whatever. Have at it.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Ringo….did you read my post…? Did you see where I said “sarcasm on…”? I was totally joking - and don’t think that it is a valid critique of higher education at all.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:54 am
FYI - I finally got that paper on scripture and the environment far enough along to be posted on my blog.
The church’s Green Team didn’t get around to discussing it yesterday - mainly due to the fact that agenda item #1 began the meeting and ended it 1/2 hour later than planned. There may be updates later.
I forgot in all my years away just how painful church committee meetings can be.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
When I was there 94-97, the students were just as bad. They routinely dumped garbage into the bin marked “recyling”, thus forcing the custodians to sort out the trash. One time I went outside to retrieve some books that fell out my window, and found all sorts of trash behind the bushes that had been thrown out the windows of the upper floors of Brown Hall. Yuck. Hipe you all are better now!