Finding a New Way: A Call to Reconceptualize Theological Education

by Jeffrey D. Jones , Robert W. Pazmiño

The verdict is in. A growing body of national studies and initiatives all indicate that cultural shifts in society and demographic changes among seminary students demand a reconsideration of how we educate and train people for ecclesial leadership for the third millennium. Students have educational needs and backgrounds significantly different than they did 25 years ago, when many current seminary leaders began their careers in theological teaching. Churches themselves have needs that are significantly different from those they had 25 (or even 10) years ago, and they are looking for new kinds of leaders to meet those needs. These changes have led to a growing realization that old modes of theological education are no longer adequate and in many cases fall far short of what is needed to provide leadership for today’s church.

Early Efforts

This realization has been growing for several decades. In the 1960s, action trainers issued a call for change as they attempted to respond to the urban context, with its new demands for the relevance of theological education. Bold experiments conducted by the Inter-Faith Metropolitan Theological Education program (Inter-Met) from 1971 to 1977 and New York Theological Seminary from 1969 to 1975 sought to respond to substantial population shifts to urban centers and the rise of diverse constituents from under-represented communities, including women, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans. At New York Seminary those previously excluded from theological education became new and vocal partners. In the case of Inter-Met, the experiment ended, but New York Theological Seminary has sustained its distinctive emphases on urban realities and gender and ethnic diversity to this day.

In addition to these efforts, the rise and development of doctor of ministry programs sought to address the ever-present needs for continuing education among clergy as they addressed the changing contours of their ministries with resilience and faithfulness to the Christian Gospel.

Calls and actions for reform in the content and shape of theological education emerged from changes in the kind of people attending and being served by seminaries—such as increasing numbers of women and ethnic minorities—and from shifts in their contexts, with urbanization influencing life in suburbs, small towns, and rural settings in addition to cities.

Today, calls for reform in theological education are coming from people within the walls of theological seminaries and their various constituencies who are responding to shifts in the wider world. The demise of Christendom and the end of modernity are two of the most obvious of these. They have placed us in a post-Christendom, postmodern world in which most of the answers and even many of the questions that were valid in a modern Christendom world are no longer pertinent. Without the cultural support for Christian values and activities, lacking a means of effectively communicating the faith in a world that is skeptical about truth, Christians are in many ways a people living in exile. Much of what we depended upon to bring meaning, purpose, and direction to our lives and faith is gone. Our current model of theological education is a product of a world that no longer exists. It worked effectively in the world for which it was intended, but no longer enables the effective and faithful formation of the pastoral leadership that is needed in our churches. Change, therefore, is essential.

Recent Research and Experiments

In response to changes in the now globalized and increasingly fragmented world and the skills required for ministerial leadership, seminaries are required to assess how they go about informing and forming church leaders. While some essential skills are not new ones, all of them require both a revitalized understanding and new insights for implementation in order to be effective in today’s world. Some of the most significant of these skills are communal and societal analysis, community organizing, and the ability to lead transformational change, nurture spiritual formation, and encourage faith practices.

Denominations and local churches are beginning to propose alternatives to traditional master of divinity programs, and some megachurches are opting to develop their own educational programs for the formation of leaders they desire. The emerging church movement and related networks are fostering linkages across seminaries to respond to the needs of developing leaders for “the missional church” in the third millennium. Discernment and historical perspective are required to distinguish priorities and how best to respond to the call for reform.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, under the leadership of Charles R. Foster and an able team of researchers, completed a landmark study of theological education in 2006. Their study is described and analyzed in Educating Clergy: Teaching Practices and Pastoral Imagination, which is being widely read and digested by theological faculties across the nation.(1) This study provides a common terminology for understanding the processes of professional preparation for pastors, priests, and rabbis and how best to reflect upon current practices in theological education while planning for the future. Theological faculties are revisiting their priorities and reconceptualizing theological education as the formation of character and virtues in relation to the mentoring of students.

In his recent book God’s Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations, Jackson W. Carroll calls for excellence in pastoral ministry and excellence in the theological education that prepares people for that ministry. He proposes combining the best of formal, basic theological study in seminaries with apprenticeship and continuous reflection on the practice of ministry throughout one’s service. The current dominant model of graduate theological education is to be supplemented with the earlier model of apprenticeship that predated the Andover experiment that began in 1808, combining the ideals of piety and intellect in the formation of pastor/scholars. The Andover model later became the Andover Newton model, which linked effective practice to the formation of piety and intellect. Over time the implicit curriculum that shaped piety was stretched thin, partly due to the decreased time many students spent on campus as increasing numbers of commuters entered the student body, and partly as the result of the arrival of people with limited actual church experience who responded to God’s call for professional theological education. To address this deficit, theological schools are called to attend more directly to the spiritual and faith formation of students in nurturing their pastoral identity and imagination.

One noteworthy broader-based effort has emerged from the Allelon Foundation with its Missional Schools Project. A group of 26 schools of theology from diverse traditions are exploring missional leadership formation within the changing context of North America. Their hunch is that a new understanding of the church as missional calls for new leadership that can respond to new demands and expectations for pastoral leaders. This effort sustains connections with the emerging church movement and Church Innovations. What has become apparent in this effort is the need for schools of theology to renew their partnerships with both churches and denominations in forging a new educational ecology or configuration of interlocking institutions and organizations committed to effective Christian witness and mission in the world. From the perspective of theological schools, such renewed partnerships in the formation of church leadership call for both revisiting field education programs and spiritual formation efforts in a direct way.

Once seminaries deepen their church connections, the issue of the theological education of laity re-emerges along with the formation of clergy to work in partnership with informed laity if Christian mission is to happen in the world. In discerning the relationship between laity and clergy, Gabriel Fackre, Abbott Professor of Theology Emeritus of Andover Newton, proposed that clergy have ministries of identity and laity ministries of vitality in their joint mission. Ministries of identity are afforded clergy with their access to church traditions and histories through their theological study. Ministries of vitality are afforded laity with their larger daily engagement with the world. It is obvious that both clergy and laity are bound together in being the whole people of God formed to bear witness to their living faith in the world. For such engagement with the world, creative and critical theological reflection, spiritual imagination, and transformative practice are needed by both clergy and laity. The danger exists in forging new partnerships that settle for quick fixes that fail to honor the particulars of distinct settings while grappling with a common challenge.

No one knows yet what a seminary of the future will look like, but we can make some guesses about the kinds of questions that will need to be asked in the discovery process. It appears that this new form of theological education probably won’t be theological education at all—at least in the exclusively graduate, professional, degree-granting school understanding of the term. While Educating Clergy makes a significant contribution to this discussion in its in-depth look at the pedagogy used in a limited number of seminaries, it offers a largely in-house perspective on the issue. It assesses what is happening and in doing so points to some best practices. There is a need, however, for a broader discussion, one that looks beyond the academy and even to the margins in order to gain insight for what the seminary of the future might be. That discussion can follow three separate yet related avenues: re-shaping clergy formation, re-imagining the purpose of the seminary, and re-envisioning the place of the seminary.

Re-shaping Clergy Formation

Seminaries need a dynamic new partnership with congregations and practicing clergy. Jackson Carroll’s work starts in the right direction in that it moves beyond the academy to the congregation, drawing on its understanding of leadership needs, skills, and arts. It is no longer a semi-isolated field work experience that provides practical experience. Rather, practical experience becomes the very grounding of the formation of clergy.

Jeff’s younger son, Ben, a recent college graduate, has begun work in a small financial planning and investment firm. The core of his experience is an apprenticeship, as he works closely with the president of the firm. But there is another essential dimension to his formation. It is a rigorous series of certifications he must pass to qualify as a certified financial planner, to trade securities, to offer insurance, and more. It is through these that he acquires the knowledge he needs to practice his profession. That knowledge is essential, but it is of little use unless it is coupled with the “art” of financial planning that he is acquiring through his apprenticeship experience. The certified financial planner “imagination,” to adopt a phrase from Educating Clergy, cannot simply be taught. It has to be lived into. If, in a similar fashion, pastoral imagination cannot be taught but must be lived into, that suggests a reordering of the focus of clergy formation. At the very least it requires a movement away from semi-autonomous field education programs to an approach that thoroughly integrates practice into every dimension of theological education. In a more radical form, it suggests moving the locus of theological education from the academy to the congregation so that academic work provides the essential knowledge but is no longer the primary experience.

Brian McLaren, one of the leaders in the emerging church movement, briefly alludes to the possible seminary of the future in his popular book A New Kind of Christian. It will be, he says, “one part monastery, one part mission agency, and one part seminary.”(2) The monastery would care for spiritual formation, the mission agency for involvement in God’s work in the world, and the seminary for the essential knowledge. It’s an intriguing notion. Certainly not a full-blown plan for re-forming the seminary, but it does move beyond the essentially academic model that has shaped theological education the past 200 years.

Re-imagining the Purpose of the Seminary

But it does not stop there. The seminary of the future will need to address the formation of laity for their discipleship in much more significant ways than it has to this point. The financial realities facing many congregations, as well as the reinvigoration of the theology of the priesthood of all believers, will demand it. Congregations that take seriously their role in the equipping of laity for their ministry in both the church and the world are looking for partners in meeting this challenge. These congregations are already providing the place of apprenticeship. What they need is a way for laity to acquire the knowledge they need to minister faithfully and effectively. Might a seminary contract with a congregation that is already nurturing potential leaders to provide the knowledge base those leaders need? There would be little attention to formation issues on the part of the seminary because the congregation itself would already be providing that. There would be no comprehensive curriculum requirements to meet to qualify for a degree, for that would not be wanted. The seminary would simply respond to the request of the congregation by contracting with it to provide essential credentialing in a specific area, be it Christian education, Bible, leadership, or the theology of institutions.

Businesses today are re-forming themselves around core competencies. What if seminaries were to determine their core competencies and begin to offer them in a variety of different packages, each tailored to meet the needs of a specific audience? What if a seminary were to offer not just degrees or programs but portfolios of knowledge, constantly adapting to new realities, appearing in different forms but always based in its core competencies—the unique, special, and essential wisdom it has to offer?

Re-envisioning the Place of the Seminary

There is yet another, even broader, avenue of discussion. That is the role of the seminary, not just in relationship to the church but to society more broadly. For this discussion a return to the insights of Robert Greenleaf might be helpful. Writing more than 25 years ago, Greenleaf posited a hierarchy of institutions in which seminaries played a primary role. The lower level of the hierarchy consists of the institutions that directly serve the public—banks, hospitals, businesses, etc. The middle level is composed of churches on the one hand and universities on the other. Both these institutions serve the lower level institutions by providing the leadership they need to effectively serve society. The third level consists of seminaries (which relate to and serve churches) and foundations (which have the potential to play the same role in relationship to universities). As Greenleaf wrote, “I see the opportunity for the seminary to stand as a constant source of intellectual rigor and prophetic vision, of spiritual energy, and as the support and inspiration for strong leadership and society-shaping influence in churches.”(3)

What is intriguing here is that an outsider has provided a vision of the role of the seminary as one of the most important institutions in society—an institution that exercises primary leadership in the transformation of society. It is a vision that has largely been ignored by seminaries themselves. Perhaps it’s not the vision itself that is troubling but the changes in seminaries that Greenleaf wrote about—changes he believed were essential to being able to play this role. These included a new and enhanced role for trustees, a movement away from academics to formation, and significantly stronger ties to local congregations that would enable a genuine servant relationship to develop. He also called for a major seminary effort in the development of a theology of institutions that focused on ways institutions engage issues of sin, power, and redemption.(4)

Another perspective on this issue comes from the work of Kenneth Underwood in the 1960s. He explored how seminary education related to the church, the world, and the university. This issue of relationship and the crises that Underwood explored in The Church, the University and Social Policy: The Danforth Study of Campus Ministries must be creatively revisited today if theological education is to maintain its relevance to its wider publics.⁵ The crises Underwood named were the crisis of integrity and community, the crisis of celebration and conservatism, the crisis of understanding and inquiry, and the crisis of action and governance, all of which have parallels with recent discussions among theological educators. Theological schools too often fail to effectively interface with the world, the church, and the university, and creative models that will enable these relationships to flourish must be renegotiated today.

We have suggested three areas of essential change that we believe are vital in determining the future shape of the seminary: (1) the reshaping of the process of clergy formation to focus on active engagement in ministry; (2) the re-imagining of the purpose of the seminary to include the equipping of laity for discipleship, and (3) the re-envisioning of the place of the seminary to assume a significant role in the transformation of society through its institutions. Followed to their logical conclusions, discussions in each of these areas will inevitably lead to deep and profound change in the purpose, structure, and offerings of seminaries.

Clearly, discussions in these three areas would serve only as a beginning. The realities of the changing face of mission, technology, the impossibility of ignoring diversity, and the developing global consciousness are all issues that have a profound impact on theological education. Many of these will emerge in discussions in the three areas we have described. None of them, however, can be ignored as the discussion continues.

Discussions such as these are not easy. They call into question virtually everything we are about in seminary education—not to criticize or condemn but to evaluate and enhance, to test and transform. They require more than adjustments in pedagogy and revisions of curriculum. They demand deep change. When the challenge to something we care deeply about is this great it is easy to feel overwhelmed, even defensive and depressed. But there is reason for great hope in the midst of this challenge and every reason to enter these discussions in the spirit of hope. God is at work in our midst to call us to greater faithfulness and more effective ministry. The seminary of the future can be an even more faithful and effective instrument of God’s mission than it has been in the past. The words of a graduate of Andover Theological School from another era who pioneered new forms of God’s mission are important ones to keep in mind any time the challenges are great; Adoniram Judson reminds us today that “the future is as bright as the promises of God.”

_______________

NOTES
1. Charles R. Foster, Lisa Dahill, Larry Golemon, and Barbara Wang Tolentino, Educating Clergy: Teaching Practices and Pastoral Imagination (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005).
2. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 150.
3. Robert Greenleaf, “The Seminary as Servant” in The Power of Servant Leadership, edited by Larry C. Spears (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1998), 176.
4. See “Toward a Theology of Institutions” by David L. Specht with Richard R. Broholm in Practicing Servant Leadership: Succeeding through Trust, Bravery, and Forgiveness, ed. by Larry C. Spears and Michelle Lawrence (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004), 167–200.
5. Kenneth Underwood, The Church, the University and Social Policy: The Danforth Study of Campus Ministries (Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1969).

This article is presented by The Alban Institute. Click HERE for the original article.

What happened at Seabury

By Steven Charleston

Have you heard what happened at Seabury? That’s a question some of us have been asked a lot, especially if we are connected to theological education in the church.

But if you are one of the folks who may have missed the story, the question about “Seabury” refers to Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, one of the historic Episcopal seminaries, located in Evanston, Illinois. After years of training priests and lay leaders for the church, Seabury has announced drastic changes for the future. Faculty are being let go and programs shut down. In many ways, they are closing up shop under great financial pressure in the hopes of being able to reopen after extensive remodeling.

So what happened at Seabury? That’s the question. Why did this have to happen and is it an omen of dire things to come in the Episcopal Church?

Here is my short answer:

What happened at Seabury was an honest effort to deal with a reality that affects 95% of the seminaries in the United States. If it is a sign of things to come, it is a good omen of long overdue attention to the critical issue of leadership development in our church.

The men and women of the Seabury Board, faculty and staff are facing the harsh truths of trying to sustain our seminaries as “mini-colleges” in an era when the rules of the theological training game have completely changed. This is not a “failure” on their part, but recognition of the future. The truth is, we are in an adapt-or-die evolutionary moment for theological education. It is not necessary for us to wonder what went “wrong” with the past: it simply is the past.

Theological training today can not be sustained by the old models of education. And I am not just talking about the need to adapt to technology. Eventually, in spite of the efforts to pretend that our kind of learning is so special we can not rely on technology, history will force us to keep pace with other educational institutions. The truly more difficult issues will be in our ability to redefine formation itself, and along with it, the meaning of ordination and community. Next to those issues, technology will be a piece of cake. Change is the underground current that has carried Seabury to the place where it finds itself. We are all on that river together.

The deeper question is not what happen at Seabury, but, what is happening in the Episcopal Church? Where are we in regard to our commitment to academic excellence and spiritual formation? Right now, the answer is chaotic. We are grappling to find new models, new methods, and new mandates. Our seminaries and the national church are working together in fresh ways that promise new hopes. There is lots of action, but the climb will be uphill. Not only will our seminaries need to find new ways of working together, the whole church is going to have to find a way of actually supporting the development of its leadership rather than outsourcing its education to other, less expensive alternatives.

Seabury is not the canary in the mine. Seabury is the light at the end of the tunnel.

We now have an opportunity to reclaim our role as a Christian community in the forefront of education. We have let that priority slip over the last 30 years. We have a training system marred by ideology, stuck in a cafeteria design for education, limited in technology and financially strapped. But we have outstanding people in place and creativity in abundance if we choose to use it. The common sense and courage of Seabury is a call to us to join them in waking up to reality. If we want the Episcopal Church to remain one of the best educated faith communities in the world, we need to invest in the kinds of change that will make that possible.

What happened at Seabury? Something sad, yes, but also something good. Something to be proud of. Something hopeful.

Should we mourn the passing of the old Seabury? Yes, of course, but we should also celebrate the doors Seabury has just opened to the future. We may not like what that future requires of us, but change is never the first path we choose to follow. Seabury offers us a reminder that our leadership, identity and vision are not accidents, but the results of what we choose to invest in. For generations, we have invested in education that is the best we can create. It is time to do it again.

The Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, former Bishop of Alaska, is president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School, and keeper of the podcasting blog EDS's Stepping Stones. A citizen of the Choctaw Nation, Bishop Charleston is widely recognized as a leading proponent for justice issues and for spiritual renewal in the church.

The original document was posted at Daily Episcopalian in Episcopal Cafe. Click Here for the original article.

Why Give to Seabury now? Trustee and Alum Lane Hensley shares his thoughts

I’m writing as an alum of Seabury as well as a Trustee. Those of us who are trustees are hearing good, honest, and difficult questions about Seabury’s major announcements and about its future. Chief among those questions has been, “Why should anyone give money to Seabury now, if Seabury is getting out of the residential M.Div. business? Does the Seabury I know even exist anymore?”

Yes we do, and I want to offer my own thoughts to explain why I think it’s imperative that everyone continue to give to Seabury. It’s this simple: Seabury still has 20 M.Div. and 35 D.Min. students enrolled, students who bring valuable gifts and hopes for ministry that everyone preceding them did. They deserve the same high-quality educational formation for ministry that Seabury has been giving and continues to give, and the church deserves to have them equipped as leaders for Christ. We need to make that happen.

My wife’s work paid my way through Seabury without my receiving any financial aid, and I often make the mistake of saying that we paid for my education. We didn’t. We paid my full tuition and fees, but it’s always been the case that tuition and fees pay for only a fraction of the total real cost of educating a student.

We need to make sure that the total cost of educating the continuing Seabury students is provided for. Each student will be paying a significant tuition bill from their own resources, but the rest of the real cost must be covered as well. In large measure, it is the annual appeal that helps us to meet this important obligation. Remember that gifts to the annual fund go directly to the education of current students, and not to the retirement of debt.

The Bottom Line: What Do I Want From You?

Becky and I made a significant gift to Seabury in October, and my parish did the same. We plan to do it again for the upcoming fiscal year. I’m also giving a $150 gift today in thanksgiving for Seabury’s 150th anniversary. I’m asking you to consider the following: If you haven’t given to Seabury in recent years, make a gift of at least $150. If you already are a regular Seabury donor, increase your gift by $150. The current students need and deserve our financial support right now.

I am more proud than ever to be an alumnus of Seabury, and I hope you’ll join me in equipping the current students so they can say the same.

Faithfully,

The Reverend Lane G. Hensley, 01

THE CHRISTOPHER, MAY, 2008

THE CHRISTOPHER, MAY, 2008
C. Davies Reed, Associate Rector
Last week, during the 150th Celebration of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary I came upon a plaque at the entrance of a friend’s home which reads, “Bidden or Not Bidden, God is Present.” I love that. I researched the phrase and discovered the following.
The phrase is most frequently attributed to Carl Jung, a psychologist, who is reported to have posted this phrase not only by his front door, but also engraved on his gravestone. The phrase comes from the Latin, “vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.” Translated it means roughly the same thing as the English, although not quite as poetic. Jung discovered it when studying Erasmus. The phrase comes from the Oracle at Delphi which gave it as the answer to the Spartans when they were planning a war against Athens. Regardless of how it came to be in my world, “Bidden or Not Bidden, God is Present” is a great quote.
Those words stuck with me because, while my seminary is celebrating its 150th birthday, it is, at the same time, undergoing a complete restructuring and re-envisioning of who it is and what its purpose is to be. My seminary is experiencing a kind of death with the hope that it will experience a subsequent resurrection. Unlike our hope of resurrection, the seminary’s will depend, just a little, on on-going financial stability. None-the-less, this theme of death and resurrection has been rather poignant in our lives at St. Christopher’s this month as we have experienced three deaths, one right after the other, in the sure and certain hope of resurrection. This has been a heavy month. It does not really matter that Jack Barney, Dottie Cross and Nancy Jonathan each was in failing health; what matters is that three times in four days we came together as a faith community to celebrate the lives of God’s loved children. It came to us hard and it came to us heavy and it makes us sad. But it is not nearly as heavy as being the spouse, or parent, or child, or step-child of one of these who has passed. It is not nearly as heavy as coming in touch with a common everyday thing and having the flood of grief descend all over again. I am particularly aware of this after the week of events, but it is true each time any one of our loved ones passes, expectedly or unexpectedly.
What are we to do when we unexpectedly get hit with a flood of grief? Platitudes about how our loved ones suffering is abated or how we should “buck-up, and carry on like they would want us to do” don’t help. What we need to remember and to carry in our souls is that we are not alone when we most feel alone. We are not abandoned when we most feel abandoned. And this is true even when we are angry at God for taking the loved one from us and when we blame God for “causing” all this grief to come into our lives. “Bidden or Not Bidden, God is Present.”
At the Sesquicentennial Eucharist at Seabury, the Bishop of Chicago, Jeffrey Lee preached. He asked how we might give thanks for the challenges God puts before us. He referred to terrorist attacks, natural disasters and the restructuring of the seminary and suggested that there are ways in which we could give thanks as we move through tragedy and times of sadness in the hope of resurrection and new life. I wonder if we, too, can find ways to give thanks for the dark and sad times, the times when we hurt most, when we are angriest with God. That we are able to survive these times and slowly begin to live into a new day is a tall order, especially after decades of friendship, marriage and relationship. Perhaps, sometimes the only thing we may have to give thanks for is that God has not left our side. We are not alone. No matter where we are, no matter how we feel, we can count on one thing with absolute certainty, “Bidden or Not Bidden, God is Present.”

Dean Hall reports on board actions and summer plans

Dear Friends of Seabury:

The Seabury community celebrated the seminary’s 150th anniversary on May 15 and 16, 2008 in a celebrative, if subdued spirit. On Friday morning, Bishop Steven Charleston, honorary degree recipient and President and Dean of Episcopal Divinity School gave a rousing address. (A link to the audio of that is available at Seabury’s website.) On Thursday night we marked the school’s history with the opening of a student-curated art exhibit on campus, an extensive historical display and a slide show of our history, also on the website. At our 150th Anniversary Eucharist on Thursday evening our two diocesan trustee bishops, Jim Jelinek of Minnesota and Jeff Lee of Chicago presided and preached at a special liturgy commemorating an early Seabury graduate now listed in Lesser Feasts and Fasts, Enmeghabowh. Though the recent decisions about faculty and staff positions affected everyone’s spirits in major ways, we all were able to come together and to give thanks for this wonderful place and its extraordinary history.

Since the news we shared in April about faculty and staff cuts, many people have written to share their sadness that “Seabury is closing.” I’m not sure how to say this in a way which anyone will find credible, but Seabury is NOT in fact closing. We have taken some hard decisions and made some difficult choices, but we have done these things precisely so that we WON’T close. Continuing to spend on a deficit basis would have required that we close. By facing into financial realities, we have been able to treat faculty and staff members to just and generous severance arrangements, and we believe that when we are done with our reorganizing we will have sufficient resources to go forward on a new institutional footing. I wish I could tell you as of today what that footing looks like, but the truth is that it has yet to emerge. Our priority thus far has been to take care of faculty, students, and staff affected by the changes underway. We have done that as well as we can, and now we are facing toward the future. Here are some specifics about board actions and summer plans:

Board Leadership: The May 2008 Annual Meeting marked the end of the terms of our board officers. Salme Steinberg, Chair; Gene Lowe and Jim Hawk, Vice Chairs; Galen Burghardt, Treasurer; Talbot McCarthy, Secretary. This group has served both the school and me tirelessly and generously, and I am deeply grateful for their personal and institutional support. A board nominating committee proposed the following trustees as our new officers, and they were elected at the May meeting: Bob Bottoms, Chair; Anne Tuohy and Wendell Gibbs, Vice Chairs; Roger Lumpp, Treasurer; Gwynne Wright, Secretary. (see bios on our website). These new officers began their terms immediately and will work with me over the next three years to chart Seabury’s course. We will begin our work with a two-day planning retreat in Greencastle, Indiana in early June.

Mission, Model, and Property Committee: In February the board established a Planning Committee, charged with making budget proposals and for making plans for the future of current programs and attendant personnel recommendations. In May the board received their work with thanks and voted to establish a new committee charged with doing the next steps on articulating Seabury’s mission, describing the institutional model which will best enact that mission, and evaluating options for our property.

The questions before us are these: what, in the changing worlds of church and academy, is Seabury’s particular mission as a theological seminary? What institutional form should best embody the service of that mission? And what is the best possible use of the Evanston property in the furtherance of that mission and model? As you may know, we own about half our property; Northwestern owns the other half which we lease perpetually from them. There are obviously many points of view about the future of this campus, and we are committed to exploring all options before recommending one course of action to the trustees.

Institutional Collaboration: It is clear that whatever form Seabury takes will involve increasing collaboration and sharing of resources with other institutions. Bishop Lee has quite openly and generously invited Seabury into a partnership with the Diocese of Chicago. I am committed to strengthening our historic relationship with the Diocese of Minnesota as well. The other Christian seminaries in Chicago continue to be important partners for Seabury, and the Council of Episcopal Seminary Deans is working on several cooperative initiatives which will tie our schools more closely to the church. In light of that, Seabury and Bexley Hall Seminary in Columbus, Ohio, have begun a joint board discussion process to determine if there is a possibility of closer institutional collaboration between the two seminaries. We both serve a common territory, Province V of the Episcopal Church, and we both are committed to a primary presence in our two locations, Columbus and Chicago. But there are significant indications that sharing of resources and work across the two seminaries might make us both stronger and better equipped for ministry education and service to the wider church. We have been fortunate to secure the services of Martha Horne, Dean and President Emerita of Virginia Theological Seminary as our primary consultant, and she will be carrying this work out with us under the auspices of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York. This work will be done by the two boards together and will be reported at our winter meetings in February.

At the close of Seabury’s 150th Anniversary Celebration I had this to say:

What does it mean, in Shakespeare’s phrase, to “bear us like the time?” It means being alive in and responsive to the challenges and gifts of the present moment. We are, together, the custodians of a glorious and noble history. We are the stewards of that history, being asked right now to help envision what it might look like to live it out in the years ahead. But, right now, we are being asked to “bear us like the time.” We stand in both grief and glory. We weep at the loss of a way of being together in this place and in the dispersal of a community which has meant so much to so many. And we glory in the possibilities of responding to God’s call to live and love and organize ourselves for mission in ways we haven’t even imagined yet. There is no way to stand in both of those realities but fully to be present to them. Let us go “off/And bear us like the time.”

I love what Seabury has been. I mourn for what we are losing. And I exult in the possibilities of refashioning a school that will, coherently with its historic mission, be able with faith and creativity to face into the realities of the world which God calls us to love and serve as witnesses of Jesus and his resurrection. It is into this work that we step in the months and weeks ahead, and I ask for your prayers, your collaboration, and your support as we move ahead.

Sincerely,

Gary R. Hall

Financial crisis hits Seabury

Seminary cuts faculty in dramatic overhaul
Elise Foley
The Daily Northwestern

Issue date: 5/7/08

Frank Yamada was awarded tenure at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary on April 24 after eight years of teaching.

Fifteen minutes later, his job security was taken away.

Seabury's board of trustees voted to dismiss all faculty members after their next school year ends in June 2009 as part of a dramatic overhaul of the seminary, 2122 Sheridan Road.

After decades of financial trouble and months of deliberation, faculty, administrators and students said the decision was painful, but not a surprise.

"There's an odd sense of relief, because I think that the faculty has known all along that the seminary was in trouble," Yamada said. "It's like we're not denying the economic realities that are in front of us anymore."

The seminary has about $2.9 million in debt, which is expected to reach $3.5 million later this year due to additional costs related to transition. Tuition, fees and the school's endowment are insufficient to overcome these expenses, and a capital campaign did not earn enough to offset the costs.

The board of trustees suspended admissions in February and asked a planning committee made up of board members, administrators and faculty, including Yamada, to create a financial plan to make the seminary earn as much as it spends.

After hearing different options, the board chose to declare a financial crisis, meaning they could terminate even tenured faculty. They also voted to eliminate nine staff positions.

"All of us hoped that we could raise the money necessary to avoid this. I'm in charge of that, and I certainly hoped to," said Elizabeth Butler, vice president for advancement and administration. "We did raise quite a bit of money that we hadn't seen before. We just didn't have enough to continue business as usual."


A wider problem

As costs of education skyrocket and demand for religious education shrinks, Seabury is not the only seminary facing financial problems. Of the 11 Episcopalian seminaries in the U.S., two others also had to downsize recently.

"It's not just Seabury's problem, it's a problem in theological education in general," Yamada said. "It's becoming increasingly expensive, and there are fewer and fewer students."

Seabury charges about $13,000 in tuition but spends about $50,000 per student each year, Butler said. But raising tuition was not an option.

"We can't charge what Kellogg charges, because we don't have people graduating from seminary going into positions with salaries that can pay back that cost," Butler said.

The market has also had an effect, Butler said. As Episcopalian priests are increasingly trained in non-Episcopalian seminaries, there aren't enough students to continue offering a Masters degree in Divinity, a three-year program that was once a Seabury staple.

Jim Hamilton, who is in his third year of the Masters of Divinity program at Seabury, said the problem is bigger than Seabury and the other Episcopalian seminaries.

"It has to do with the lack of calling and discernment within the church," he said. "Our church in general is experiencing a shift in its relevance in society."

An uncertain future

Seabury is not closing its doors, administrators insist, although it is one year away from being without a faculty and two years away from being without students.

The planning committee is considering several options, including merging with another institution and offering non-residential programs or distance learning, Butler said. Current students will be able to complete their degrees by taking courses at Seabury and other seminaries.

Faculty will have to find positions at other schools, or even change careers. Yamada said some faculty members are in "vocational discernment" and might leave theological education. His position at Seabury, where he is a professor teaching the Hebrew Bible, was his first job, and he does not know what he will do next.

Milner Seifert, a lecturer in Sacred Music, has worked at Seabury for four years after teaching at Evanston Township High School for 34 years. He said he has a pension to fall back on, but he worries for his colleagues.

"I feel very, very sad for them and concerned for them," Seifert said. "Some of them have worked all their professional career to get to this point. When you're highly educated in a specialized field, there aren't that many jobs out there."

After working and even living on the campus, faculty and administrators said they are still grappling with the idea that Seabury as they know it will no longer exist.

"It's a very challenging time, but one that I do hope we will come through on the other side," Butler said. "God is at work in these things, and while all of us tend to like to preserve things the way they have been, that's not how things are in life."

Faculty at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary to lose jobs

Officials at Evanston Episcopal school insist it is not closing

By Manya A. Brachear | Chicago Tribune reporter
April 25, 2008


Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, one of 11 schools in the U.S. dedicated to preparing Episcopal priests, told tenured faculty on Thursday that their jobs would end next year.

Officials at the Evanston seminary insist the school is not closing, but that it is redefining its approach for preparing men and women for priesthood. Earlier this year, the school stopped accepting new candidates and advised first-year students that they should enroll in other seminaries if they wish to earn their degrees from an Episcopal institution.

For more than a century, seminarians have traditionally enrolled in a three-year residential program to earn a master's of divinity degree that prepares them for the priesthood. Seminary officials said the school would explore the possibility of offering the degree in other formats such as distance learning or short-term residential stints.

"We want to bring the traditional excellence and depth of residential theological education to the new challenges and realities of the 21st Century," said Rev. Gary Hall, dean and president of Seabury-Western. "People can't afford to come here. We need to figure out how to bring it to them."

Of the nation's 11 accredited Episcopal seminaries, three have taken steps to downsize. In recent months Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., sold some of its campus to Lesley University in Boston. And Bexley Hall Seminary closed its campus in Rochester, N.Y. to consolidate its program in Columbus, Ohio in partnership with Trinity Lutheran Seminary.

Seabury-Western is the only school to stop admitting students.

Experts say its fate highlights the challenges facing many shrinking mainline Protestant denominations. Some also suggest that it's a symptom of the theological polarization within the church since the 2003 approval of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson—the church's first openly gay bishop.

On Thursday, the seminary's board of trustees declared an imminent financial crisis, a required step in order to end the employment of tenured faculty. The seminary's budget is projected to run a $500,000 shortfall for the current fiscal year. Annual expenditures are projected to run $2.9 million. Seabury-Western also carries a $3.5 million debt.