Talk:Nazarene Theological Seminary

Contact info removal

(from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory) This in an official policy. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages . Aepoutre 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

EDIT:COI: The LGBTQ+ section is not neutral

This section continues to appear. It is designed to create a guilty by association narrative. This could be damaging to anyone considering attending the school who believes it to be affirming of LGBTQ+ human beings. It is not affirming as it is within the doctrines of the Church of the Nazarene which are not affirming. In addition, the financial section is designed to promote a push to withhold funding from the denomination which both Elijah and Caleb Friedeman (brothers with associations at rival schools) have advocated. This is the same Friedeman who authors the source article.

In addition, the referenced article listed as citation 12 has an obscured authorship in the citation, but there is a named author in the article itself. While I have a potential conflict of interest as a member of clergy it can be assumed that the user adding this section is as well. In addition the article cited as number twelve is written by a member of clergy in the Church of the Nazarene whose father teaches as a rival seminary (Wesley Biblical Seminary) to the one being discussed.

The source is cited as such: Writer, Guest (2024-07-03). ["Nazarene Seminary Platforms LGBTQ-Affirming Faculty"](https://juicyecumenism.com/2024/07/03/nazarene-seminary-lgbtq-affirming/). _Juicy Ecumenism_. Retrieved 2025-03-05.

It should list the author as Friedeman, Elijah as listed in the source article. This lends credence to a possible conflict of interest by the editor in question and makes this section non-neutral. Naz1908 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The section as written clarifies that Rowell upholds the denomination's position--I think that's a good thing to clarify. However, the professors who are mentioned in the section do have associations with NTS--all three have held affirming positions while teaching there. This is relevant information. While it may not show the seminary's official position (which as far as I know is not documented indepdently from the denomination's position), it does show that faculty members hold this position while they are teaching at NTS. Rowell's affirmation of those with an affirming position as brothers and sisters in Christ also shows an approach from the institution towards those with an affirming position. This is relevant information about an institution, especially one connected to a theologically conversative denomination like the Church of the Nazarene. Hutl1908 (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Deans of the Seminary/Deans of the Faculty

Russell V. DeLong, Dean of the Seminary, 1946–1953

Mendell Taylor, Dean of the Seminary, 1953–1971

Willard H. Taylor, 1971–1981

Chester O. Galloway, 1981–1988

Albert L. Truesdale, 1988–1995

Edwin H. Robinson, 1995–2003

Roger L. Hahn, 2003–2017

Joshua R. Sweeden, 2017–2022

Sarah Coleson-Derck, 2022–Present BKM (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Auxiliaries and Centers

NTS sponsors several auxiliaries that support key areas of ministry essential to both church and daily life.  

Praxis

In 2014, NTS launched The Center for Pastoral Leadership (CPL) with Dr. Jesse Middendorf, former general superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene, as its first executive director. In 2021, NTS relaunched the center under a new name—Praxis. This name reflects the dynamic relationship between theology and ministry, where each shapes and informs the other. Dr. David Sharpes, Associate Professor of Christian Ministry and the Smith/Cooper Chair in Evangelism and Christian Witness at NTS, now serves as Praxis’ director.

Praxis aims to strengthen the bond between local ministries and Nazarene Theological Seminary.

As a learning community, Praxis has provided thousands of hours of lifelong learning. Through lectures, faculty teaching, webinars, video resources, and conferences, it supports church leaders worldwide.

Praxis is built on six pillars: biblical justice, spiritual formation, the missional church, ecclesial leadership, the Wesleyan-holiness tradition, and faithful interpretation. These pillars guide its mission to equip faithful ministers of the Gospel through continued formation, encouragement, and education. The Praxis community plays a key role in shaping its content, events, and partnerships.

The Hugh C. Benner Preachers’ Conference

Since 2013, Praxis has hosted The Hugh C. Benner Preachers’ Conference every September at Nazarene Theological Seminary. Named after NTS’ first president, this two-day event serves pastors, students, and church leaders. It offers opportunities to grow in preaching and engage with current issues in homiletics.

Wynkoop Center for Women in Leadership

The Wynkoop Center seeks to affirm, equip, and empower women called by God to serve the Church and the world in various ministry roles. It also supports advocates who promote gender equality in church leadership.

The Wynkoop Center provides a space to envision and cultivate the role of women in shaping the future of the Church. It offers opportunities, resources, and support to help women explore and embrace their callings, whether in traditional or emerging leadership roles. The Center also encourages men who advocate for mutuality in ministry.

Additionally, the Center works to help the Church of the Nazarene—and the broader Christian community—understand and embrace the biblical and theological foundations for co-equal partnership in ministry.

The Center organizes events, webinars, and other programs to support women in leadership. Through strategic partnerships, it fosters fellowship and networking opportunities.

It also provides financial aid to women in Christian leadership, helping them attend and present at academic conferences, conduct research, and pursue further education.

About Mildred Bangs Wynkoop

Mildred Bangs Wynkoop (1905–1997) was a theologian, educator, and missionary whose work profoundly influenced the Church of the Nazarene and beyond.

A prolific writer, she engaged Wesleyan theology with fresh insight, challenging traditional frameworks. Her notable works, A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism and Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology, shaped generations of pastors, teachers, and scholars.

Dr. Wynkoop taught at several institutions, including Wesleyan Evangelical Seminary, Japanese Christian Junior College, Japanese Nazarene Theological Seminary, and Trevecca Nazarene University. From 1976 to 1989, she served as Theologian-in-Residence at Nazarene Theological Seminary.

BKM (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.nts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Academic-Catalog-21-22.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring over LGBTQ+ material

Hutl1908 and Naz1908, stop edit warring and discuss your differences here to find a compromise or discern a consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hutl1908 Please explain how the LGBTQ+ additions to this page are neutral. In addition, obscuring the authorship of a source when citing is suspect as most of the claims in this section come directly from an article written by someone with a family connection to a competing seminary. The "Criticisms" section neutrally conveys the fact that there are critics of NTS while providing answers to those critics without the conflict of interest.

The addition of the LGBTQ+ section, as well as the poorly cited funding section in which the claim as to funding from the Church of the Nazarene cites the suspect article which does not give a source for the monetary funding from the sponsoring denomination.

Wikipedia is not the place to wage a war against an institution. There are other forums and processes for that. Naz1908 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe I have obscured authorship of a source--certainly not intentionally!

The funding section isn't poorly cited. It draws on an article published by a reputable organization--the Institute for Religion and Democracy. I am assuming they vet information posted on their platform. I haven't seen any official protest from NTS about that number. If they disagree with it, they could have the IRD change the fact in the article.

The article in question is only cited three times. After referencing it, I think we could add a citation directly to a social media post quoted in the article.

I have done my best to add additional information--and cite official sources, like the Association of Theological Schools' data tables. Hutl1908 (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The obscuring of authorship is on the Juicy Ecumenism Article it was cited as Guest Author rather than the named author. That has been edited. The funding that has no citation is the $1 million statement. The article cited at Juicy Ecumenism has no proof or citation for that number. You need to find an actual source for that claim of fact.

In addition, almost all of your claims come from a single article authored by an individual with a familial connection to a competing school. That source is unreliable from a neutral viewpoint. Your claims were widespread criticism, but give only one article as proof. Naz1908 (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naz1908 I simply dropped the URL in and let it automatically create the citation. I'm assuming the author was listed as guest in their system, which is what Wikipedia automatically pulled.

See my comments below about sourcing the $1 million statement.

Your statement about an over-reliance on one source are factually inaccurate. In the three sections in question (Criticisms, LGBTQ+ Stances, Funding), there are 10 sources cited. The IRD article is only cited twice--once to support the funding point and once to quote a professor cited there.

See below for my solution for a compromise. I would appreciate your response. Hutl1908 (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@ElKevbo, would you be willing to review and mediate if necessary? I believe an interested or even disinterested third party may be helpful in this situation. Naz1908 (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hutl1908 please also review the Wikipedia guidance on College and University pages as part of this discussion. The guidance on opinion is helpful as is the advice on "weasel words." Naz1908 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion surrounding LGBTQ issues is a significant one in the Church of the Nazarene and is of significant importance as it involves NTS. The article by Rowell is evidence that he is aware of both significant criticism (leading the NTS administration to uninvite an individual) and that LGBTQ issues are important.

I think both a section on criticisms and LGBTQ+ stances are very appropriate in an article about NTS. I am sure other sections could be added by interested parties--such as degree programs, professor publications, etc. But that does not mean LGBTQ+ stances and criticisms are not important.

I think some good edits have been made along the way, and the article has actually gotten stronger. I don't see any justification for removing sections on funding, LGBTQ+ stances, or criticism.

Some of the changes made by @Naz1908 veer into editorializing or adding information that doesn't belong in a section.

Open to changes that clearly present the facts--but also include relevant information about the institution! (For instance, I think the edit that clarifies Rowell says he is in support of the denomination's stances on human sexuality is a very good one!) Hutl1908 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naz1908 If we could get a better source for the funding claim, would that suffice? I assume we could reach out to official sources for confirmation. Or we could follow up with the IRD or the article author. Additionally, NTS could clarify the correct number. Apparently one of their staff members has been editing the article. He posted below, and I think he could produce a more accurate number.

I think the LGBTQ+ stances section should stay in for the reasons I cited above.

If we add clarified funding information, retain the LGBTQ+ section with the facts essentially as it is, and leave the criticisms section with the lengthy response from Rowell as well as removing the words "widespread" from the criticisms (pending further sourcing of that claim), would that be a satisfactory outcome? That seems to address the main points of concern. I think it's a good compromise and ensures that everything is as neutral as possible and sourced well. Hutl1908 (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You need evidence of the amount of designation from the denomination. Without that, the claim should be removed. The reliance upon a single primary source is also problematic as it has a conflict of interest within itself. That amount may or may not be publicly available which makes it difficult to prove as factual. It is like speculation hanging in the air.

To clarify, emeritus is a retired designation by definition. It is not speculation to state the definition of a word. By stating that the professor is STILL listed as emeritus shows a lack of understanding of that designation. While retired faculty occasionally teach or do other activities with a school, no proof other than the designation emritus has been provided.

You make the claim that simply having connections to an organization makes individual viewpoints that of the organization. This is a logical fallacy of guilty by association. None of the people mentioned are full time employees of the school mentioned. As far as I can tell from historical records, Dr. Severson has not been associated with the institution for a few years, nor was he at the time the book in question was published. It appears that he was no longer engaged by NTS when the Affirming book was published. In other words, this section makes a broad claim without any real evidence for that claim.

It is important to understand the courses taught by visiting professors because those courses are typically far from indicative of the professor's wider views. Many educational institutions bring in visiting professors to teach in specific areas and those professors other views do not have any bearing on the subject matter. The guilty by association here shows an ignorance of how higher education works. For example, my alma matar which is in a different tradition, has engaged film and other professors who hold contrary views to the primary tradition of that institution.

When using guilty by association, contextual information is key to prevent a one sided statement. For example, the statements around the seminary president are written as to inflame when they are fully within the doctrinal and historical understanding of the denomination per the Manual of the denomination. It is a fact that the statements of the president are fully within the understanding of who is and is not a Christian. Your original is written in a way to insinuate that although the president claims to affirm the denomination's doctrines, he makes contrary statements. Without the factual nature of the historical position of the sponsoring denomination, that one sided impression exists.

I would recommend finding more widespread and better sources to back up your claims. As it is, the section reads almost as a copy paste summary of the cited Juicy Ecumenism article. Naz1908 (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@ElKevbo The sections on LGBTQ+ Stances and Funding seem to be the crux of the issue (as long as we can come to an agreement on funding). I would like to note the editing history on this section.

21:03, 5 March 2025 I added the sections.

22:21, 5 March 2025 Kazamzam made some helpful edits.

18:27, 17 March 2025 Bryon McLaughlin (apparently an NTS employee) deleted the sections.

18:39, 17 March 2025 Skywatcher68 restored the sections.

19:37, 17 March 2025 Bryon McLaughlin made some edits to the sections

21:03, 17 March 2025 216.21.168.47 (a new user, apparently but very close to when Bryon was editing) deleted the sections

21:04, 17 March 2025 Plasticwonder restored the sections

21:07, 17 March 2025 216.21.168.47 again deleted the sections

21:07, 17 March 2025 Plasticwonder again restored the sections

21:09, 17 March 2025 216.21.168.47 again deleted the sections

21:09, 17 March 2025 Twistedmath restored the sections

18:10, 23 March 2025 Naz1908 deleted the section--and we have been going. back and forth since

I think the history is clear that numerous editors (three in addition to myself) have decided to keep the sections in. A seminary employee, 216.21.168.47, and Naz1908 keep deleting them.

I repeat my compromise to @Naz1908.

If we add clarified funding information, retain the LGBTQ+ section with the facts essentially as it is, and leave the criticisms section with the lengthy response from Rowell as well as removing the words "widespread" from the criticisms (pending further sourcing of that claim), would that be a satisfactory outcome? That seems to address the main points of concern. I think it's a good compromise and ensures that everything is as neutral as possible and sourced well.

It seems Naz1908 doesn't want to get the funding issue sourced (beyond the already legitimate article posted by the Institute for Religion and Democracy). I think my compromise is fair--and affirms the history of these sections outside of the NTS employee's contributions. Hutl1908 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naz1908 In an effort to work towards this compromise, I have removed one of the references to the IRD article--directly citing Christensen's Facebook post.

I have also reached out about getting better confirmation about the funding claim in the IRD article. I think it's a good source as-is, but if we can get confirmation, we should be good to go! Hutl1908 (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue with the funding is the first paragraph as it has no cited source other than an article that also does not provide a source for the information. I believe you are missing the point. The second paragraph cites the Institute, but that sentence is not claiming specific amounts of funding from the denomination. This is a concern of accuracy and quality of source.

Regardless, your statements of fact do not prove that there is any particular stance by the organization. That is an assumption which ignores the way that academia works, especially at the post graduate level. These are still logical fallacies.

Any compromise needs to evaluate the relevance and accuracy of the wording. For example, the misunderstanding of the designation emeritus as it is written as if that is a designation that is removed prior to death. It is an honorific and has no force of position other than honoring a long serving professor/employee. I know of no reason for an institution to remove the designation emeritus.

You could, for example, read the sourced essays to see what they say and whether that supports the inclusion as proof of a position of teh seminary. As it is those appear to be copied from the Juicy Ecumenism article and cited here with their direct sources. To make the article more neutral, it would be helpful to include the fact that the seminary is evaluated by denominational leaders and a Board of Trustees who are representative of the denomination as a whole. As it is, there is an impression of a position of affirmation by the school. This can lead to confusion both by people who would call for support from the denomination to be removed and by those who may be affirming thinking that the school is conducive to their views. Naz1908 (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi@Naz1908 Still trying to work towards a compromise here.

The citation about funding clearly applies to the entire thought. Nothing wrong there. Again, I have reached out about getting more confirmation on that with IRD. Hopefully that can happen. I'm also hopeful that NTS can provide some specific numbers, since their employee on the article has said the numbers aren't right.

Yes, I cited the specific Facebook post with the quote, instead of citing the IRD article. I think this strengthens the article.

Several points on the faculty (current and former) who are LGBTQ affirming. One, McCormick was affirming while a professor at NTS. Severson was listed on faculty when he wrote his essay in Oord's book. Christensen is affirming and is currently teaching at the seminary, with the approval of the administration. All of these facts are relevant. They may not show an official instittuional position, but they do show an allowance for faculty members with these perspectives to teach. That does matter. I don't think the article as written makes any claims as to an official NTS position--but it does show Rowell's stated position along with those of other faculty. It would be noteworthy if other faculty at NTS put out statements, and we should include those.

Re: Emeritus status. As the IRD article points out, another evangelical institution with a similar theological perspective removed emeritus status from a professor for his affirming position. So it is indicative of an attitude towards LGBTQ affirmation at NTS that they have not done the same. You also can't say that the emeritus title has no force of position. Some institutions of higher learning treat emeritus faculty as members of the faculty senate. I haven't seen anywhere that NTS has clarified the exact meaning of this designation. This seems like another case where you want to go beyond the sourced facts in defense of NTS. I am wondering if you have a vested interest in NTS or are connected to NTS in some way that is clouding your judgment.

Again, I think a good compromise is to get IRD to confirm the fact in their article, ensure that all LGBTQ stance information is sourced well, and make sure the criticisms are properly expressed (e.g., not saying widespread until that can be substantiated with sources, allowing Rowell's response to have plenty of space). I think these three points work to ensure that the facts are seen and fairly presented. A reader of this article should be able to make sense of the clearly expressed facts. Hutl1908 (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You cannot use the citation of the Annual Data Tables as evidence of the first paragraph because it is not available in the cited source of the 2024/2025 report. That is not how research or sourcing works. You must provide evidence of the amount of funding from the denomination. That claim is only found in the Juicy Ecumenism article and appears to be from a source not publicly available or made up. This is my issue, you want compromise but seem unable to understand why the research is lacking. Compromise is removing the unverified data until it is verified.

NTS does not have to clarify what emeritus means as it has a definition. There is no clarification needed for the honorary title. To act as if it is something that means anything other than an honor for the entirety of a career is problematic.

I have no vested interest in the seminary other than being clergy in the sponsoring denomination. I have disclosed that and am waiting on a wider discussion as to how that is relevant. What I am interested in is the truth and good research. When hit pieces are used as primary sources, it calls into question the overall research involved in facts. In addition, it is a well known fact that factual data can be presented in a way as to skew the meaning of those facts. In this instance it is an attempt to claim that the seminary in question is friendly to affirming positions. But there are facts available that show that to be untrue. Reports to the general Church of the Nazarene and Trustee reports are relevant in this case. A compromise here would be to include those facts as well. It helps to inform prospective students and interested parties of the totality of the institutions character and nature.

This is why I summoned @ElKevbo, because you do not appear to understand what a quality resource is. Naz1908 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naz1908 I think the source from the IRD is sufficient for the funding claim--unless there is a more credible source that contradicts it. As I have repeatedly said, I've reached out for confirmation about that number, so hopefully we can place even more confidence in it. Please find a better source if there's one out there! You seem to have a personal vendetta against the IRD article, but it seems to be a well documented article--that like went through some basic editorial checks because of the size, scope, and reputation of that organization.

I do think a governance section could be helpful. Again, this could be hard to source with what I've found out there, but a section on how NTS operates within the denominational structure would be a good addition!

There's no question that NTS is friendly to those who hold an affirming position--it's up to people to interpret the relevant data cited in the article as to what that means. For some people, having an affirming professor isn't an issue if the institution's official position is the same as the denomination. For others, it is a problem. I think we keep presenting the facts and do our best not to hide them or editorialize beyond them.

The Rowell quote under the criticisms (which is most of the section at this point) clarifies that faculty are approved through a mult-level process. I'm not sure what else needs to be added about this process.

So, to your suggestions for our compromise, it looks like we have several steps. 1) Work to clarify the best source available on denominational funding. Currently the IRD article is the best source, since it's been hosted by a reputable organization. 2) Ensure that all claims made in the LGBTQ+ Stances section is sourced and avoid editorializing. 3) Make sure the NTS position is clearly communicated in the Criticisms section (which it currently is, I believe). 4) Add an additional section on governance (if any good sources on it can be found). I'll let you lead the way on this, since you seem to have some good sources on it.

I think all of these strengthen the article and allow for the facts to be communicated and considered. Hutl1908 (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we are talking about a different statement. This statement containing the one million dollar number: "It has been reported that NTS receives more than $1 million dollars annually from the Church of the Nazarene. Money received by the school is allocated from the World Evangelism Fund, to which every local Nazarene church is expected to contribute 5.5% of its annual income and is disbursed to multiple missional programs of the denomination." is only sourced in the Juicy Ecumenism article which has no citation for it within itself. If you have a source, that should be cited for the statement. A good source contains proof, as it is the Juicy (IRD) article appears to pull that statistic out of thin air without any proof whatsoever. Which is why any claims made need solid sourcing and citations. Wikipedia gets a hard enough rap as a source of accurate information, that tenuously sourced data only adds to that problem. In addition, IRD does have a stated biased viewpoint and advocates for that viewpoint which it discloses.

The ATS data does not contain that information in the specific as all funding data is shown as average aggregate data (although the raw data is probably available if present, it is not in the report cited in the next paragraph). The WEF fund information also requires something more than the listed source and should be easy to find.

I agree in general that faculty at an institution is relevant. However, the only current and actively teaching member of faculty in the list is Dr. Christensen. Looking at the courses for Summer 2025 and Fall 2025/2026 it does not appear that Dr. Christensen will continue to be an active visiting professor. So, in this instance the facts are that two former professors (one full time and one visiting) wrote essays and made claims after they were employed by the institution as teaching faculty. One current visiting professor states that he is fully affirming of LGBTQ+ inclusion in the wider church. but this may be his last semester teaching. From a neutral POV, it appears that the seminary is answering criticism by distancing itself from having affirming professors whether visiting or otherwise teaching courses. Most readers could probably figure that out, but the implication hangs as if the essays were released or known of while employed with the seminary.

Maybe the following will work for you:

I will edit the phrase progressive theology to link to an article defining progressive Christianity. Even though that is a nebulous term and one person's progressive is another's fundamentalism, there should be a link out to some definition.

You can combine the LGBTQ+ stances section into the Criticism (sandwich it between the two current paragraphs) as that is where it probably belongs. Differentiate current and former faculty and whether they are/were employed faculty or visiting/adjunct faculty because those do carry different expectations in an academic and denominational context. It places it within a section in which possible other criticisms could be cited by other editors.

Source or remove the claim of $1 million in funding, but retain the sourced budgetary information. Naz1908 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naz1908 The IRD article is a legitimate source. As I have said repeatedly, I have reached out to see if they can clarify the source for that number. But a reputable organization is a legitimate source for that information.

It doesn't make sense to combine the LGBTQ+ Stances section with the Criticisms sections. Both are addressing different areas, even if they both mention LGBTQ issues.

Christensen taught spring 2024 and spring 2025. So just because he isn't listed for the summer or fall doesn't mean he won't teach again. Even if he doesn't teach again, he is teaching after Rowell's Affirmations article and Courageous Middle articles--as well as significant criticism. It does matter--and is a sourced fact that should remain in.

The only editors who want to remove the LGBTQ+, Criticisms, and funding sections are you and a paid NTS employee (both under his name and logged out showing his IP address). Four other editors have kept them in. They should stay. Hutl1908 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

IRD may be a legitimate source, but the information is not legitimately sourced within the cited article. The IRD article gives no supporting data for the claim of $1 million dollars, so that cannot be shown as a fact. Regardless the overall legitimacy of something does not pertain to individual data points. This is research 101 and so I suggest that be removed without sourced proof.

In addition, I am not suggesting remove the LGBTQ+ data, but put the LGBTQ+ section within the criticism section. That section is written as criticism so it makes sense to place it there.

Compromise requires more than one person to cocede. You frankly appear unwilling to concede anything based upon your instance that an unverified data point remain and an unwillingness to move text rather than remove it. Your compromise was stated as keeping the data point while you sought out the current. The problem is there is no verifiable source that the $1 million dollar amount is factual. No, the IRD article cannot prove that, nor can the Ministry Watch article which repeats the claim without any citations.

Here is an example (obviously the sections require the citations) :

==Criticisms==

NTS has received criticism from clergy and laity within the Nazarene denomination. This criticism has focused on the  theologically progressive views of seminary professors and speakers. Critics have expressed concern for how NTS has platformed LGBTQ affirming professors and speakers.

In addition to general criticism there is criticism that the seminary appears friendly to LGBTQ+ affirming teachers.

- NTS president Dr. Jeren Rowell, while affirming the Church of the Nazarene's position on matters of human sexuality, has stated that those who are advocating for full LGBTQ affirmation are "brothers and sisters in Christ". Dr. Rowell said he is "called to listen, dialog, and maintain fellowship with them".

- In 2023, former NTS faculty members published an essays in support of LGBTQ affirmation in a book titled Why the Church of the Nazarene Should be Fully LGBTQ+ Affirming. Dr. Eric Severson was an affiliate faculty member when he wrote a chapter titled "The Queerness of the Holy". Dr. Steve McCormick also wrote an essay in the book entitled "See No One as 'Other'". Dr. McCormick had been a long-time professor at NTS and the chair of theology. He taught at NTS for 18 years, retiring in 2022, one year before he wrote in Why the Church of the Nazarene Should be Fully LGBTQ+. McCormick has been open about his affirming position and indicated that he has held that position for years, including while as a faculty member at NTS. Dr. McCormick is the Emeritus Professor of Historical Theology | William M. Greathouse Chair for Wesleyan-Holiness Theology at NTS.

- Dr. Michael Christensen, a visiting professor in the NTS Doctor of Ministry program, is teaching a course in the spring 2025 semester. Dr. Christensen has been public about his affirming stance since at least 2016. According to Dr. Christensen, he has "advocated for full inclusion of gay and lesbian sisters and brothers in the life of church since I was in college over 40 years ago".

NTS President Jeren Rowell has also acknowledged the criticism the seminary has received. In response to that criticism, Rowell stated "The faculty at NTS (full-time, part-time, and contingent) are vetted and approved by votes of the faculty, the Board of Trustees, and approval of the Board of General Superintendents. It is not unusual for NTS to be criticized for including guest presenters in courses and events who may not be approved as full faculty. This is misplaced concern. Our mature students are not only fully capable of dialog across theological spectra, but they also expect the seminary program to provide these opportunities for guided exploration of the most difficult questions." Naz1908 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naz1908 I don't think you understand sourcing. IRD isn't required to produce a notarized statement from Jeren Rowell about the money. If they have verified that information, it should stand. It's interesting to me how much of an issue you have with that denominational funding number. By your logic about sourcing, we should delete virtually all of the information outside of these sections, because it isn't sourced with documentation (or honestly any sources at all).

Merging the two sections together is the wrong approach. One section is filled with documentd facts about faculty members' stances on LGBTQ+ issues. The criticisms is more subjective. You're trying to minimize the stances by including under criticism. The stances aren't criticism; they're the. facts.

I think it's highly suspect that NTS employee Bryon McLaughlin deleted significant content from the article--both under his name and in attempt to do so annoymously by not logging in. Once he was caught, you created an account days later. Something's not adding up there. Did you coordinate editing to the article? I believe that is against Wikipedia rules. Hutl1908 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naz1908 See my note on funding below. That should all be cleared up! I trust you won't have issues now that the IRD has clarified the source for that number.

Here's where we stand based on my proposed compromise.

1) Work to clarify the best source available on denominational funding.COMPLETED 2) Ensure that all claims made in the LGBTQ+ Stances section is sourced and avoid editorializing. COMPLETED, I believe. 3) Make sure the NTS position is clearly communicated in the Criticisms section. COMPLETED 4) Add an additional section on governance (if any good sources on it can be found). IF YOU HAVE ANY SOURCES ON THIS, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO ADD. Hutl1908 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It was never about something like a notarized statement, it was about sourcing a statement of fact. Otherwise that could be a made up fact.

I have had a Wikipedia account for over a decade, but was unable to login to it because it was linked to a defunct email, so I created a new one to edit so the edits would not show as anonymous IP's. I have engaged in this with respectful dialogue and have not called into question your motives. But, that is where we have arrived I guess. I'm not going to play that game. Facts and the citation of facts matter.

It is easy to make facts editorialize by presenting facts in ways that obscure the wider context or leave out factual data like "former professor," etc. The LGBTQ+ section needs to be clear about the difference between former faculty and current faculty, as well as full time versus visiting faculty to be more neutral. To be completely fair, it is also subjective that the institution supports an affirming stance based on the independent opinions of visiting faculty hired to teach subjects not influenced by an affirming position (this is essentially guilty by association). But I concede that this is a point that will not be changed unless a third party editor steps in.

I do believe it is important to have a section showing that the institution is under the strict governance of the International Board of Education of the Church of the Nazarene, so I will work on a section on governance. Naz1908 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Funding

The first paragraph on funding is not correct. It is dated information. NTS does not receive "more than $1 million dollars annually from the Church of the Nazarene." This should be removed if the editor cannot verify with correct and current information. They are using an old source, not a current source. BKM (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This looks to be an administrator from NTS. See my above comment about the article published by the IRD. Can NTS provide a current figure? That would help with accuracy! Hutl1908 (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naz1908 Good news! The IRD article was updated after I reached out for confirmation. Apparently the information is from the office of the general treasurer for the denomination. I also updated to clarify it was from 2024 when the article was released. The denomination's contribution could increase or decrease by year. We can add funding from additional years as that is clarified in sources. Hutl1908 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

ATS Enrollment

@Naz1908 You have twice linked to a sample SIR report that does not show ATS enrollment trends.

As best I can tell the actual ATS enrollment trend (at this report, Table 2.2: http://ats.edu/files/galleries/2024-2025_annual_data_tables.pdf) shows a net increase in head count enrollment from 2020-2024 across all ATS schools. There was a decline in total FTE reported at ATS schools during that time, but in order to cite the FTE number for ATS schools in the aggregate, we would also need to show NTS's FTE during that time. I don't think it helps the NTS article to show that overall ATS head count enrollment increased during the same period. Hutl1908 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

What I linked to was the following: https://www.ats.edu/Annual-Data-Tables so I have no clue why it would show the sample PDF (I checked twice before saving). The best metric would be total enrollment of degree seeking students or, more specifically, degree seeking graduate level seminary enrollment. Because, non-degree seeking students skew the totals with institutions in ATS as well as some that include undergraduate students in the totals. Seminary only enrollment is decreasing overall. Ryan Burge shows this data using the ATS raw data and comparing like institutions. I get why you put that data in the section, but it is a correlation versus causation to the other sections when no proof of why the decrease exists. The most neutral information would be to just keep the enrollment data as current as possible without the decreasing comments. Specifically, calling out decreasing enrollment numbers appears to be unnecessary editorializing, especially when your other edits are considered. You are attempting to tell a story through factual statements without any real connection between those factual statements. Going through the ATS data tables tool shows decreases at similar schools and similar enrollment types.

Let's be honest, Liberty is a good example of why total numbers within ATS are not a good measure. Many online students who are Southern Baptist can attend Liberty for almost zero dollars. The numbers are only helpful if comparing graduate level seminary enrollment across the board and that has decreased over like programs. Pure seminary enrollment is decreasing due to many factors. These include overall denominational decline, cost, limited employment opportunity, and even attacks against higher education in general. Ironically Burge also shows that the higher educated, the more likely people are to attend church regularly if they are attenders. Naz1908 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Naz1908 Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Not sure why the citation saved the way it did. Maybe the sample SIR report was listed first on the page. Thanks for clarifying your intended link.

I looked at ATS enrollment for 2020-2024. It looks like degree enrollment decreased by 0.79% in that time period. When including non-degree students, enrollment increased 1.8%. As far as I know, ATS doesn't count undergraduate students in its reporting. It also doesn't count students enrollment in anything other than masters-level and doctoral-level courses. So the non-degree students are still masters-level or doctoral-level students, they just haven't declared a degree. Regardless, if we look at degree-seeking enrollment, you are right, there was a decline. But it was a decline of less than 1%.

I didn't find the Burge article you were talking about. Pure seminary enrollment looks like it is increasing, actually--at least from 2020-2024. No question Rawlings is the 1000lb gorilla in the seminary space right now.

As far as this information being included on this page, I think it is perfectly fitting. I actually added that information when I realized the enrollment info included on the page was erroneous. I think it listed 300+ students. So when I updated with the current enrollment number, I saw the steep decline and included it. The NTS masters-level enrollment has significantly decreased in 5 years. MDiv enrollment decreased 43%. MA enrollment decreased 52%. Overall enrollment decreased 23%. (The masters decline was offset by a large increase in DMin students.) That decline does not seem to be normal for a seminary. It's relevant, because it is an indicator of the health of the institution, the ROI for denominational support, and the overall direction of the school. While it would be a bit speculative to suggest why the drop has happened, it is perfectly legitimate to acknowledge the significant decline. Hutl1908 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)