Skip to main content

How to Destroy a Seminary: 2. Hire and Advance Faculty Mainly on Academic Merit

This point is in no way meant to undermine the essential importance of academic merit.  The point rather has to do with raising academic proficiency above other essential commitments that a seminary must have.  The weaker a seminary's connection to a particular constituency, such as a denomination, the easier it is for those driving the seminary to turn to non-ecclesial, non-theological concerns in hiring faculty, shaping programmes, planning, etc.  One of the obvious emphases that emerges is justifying the hiring of a faculty member because of his or her academic strengths.  As there are plenty of would-be faculty running around with PhD degrees these days, 'academic merit' is usually a criterion that hides other interests of those pressing for a particular hiring of a faculty member.  In this era, in particular, agendas to move away from Biblical infallibility, the centrality of the Bible for theology and ministry, racial issues, feminist issues, 'diversity,' and even sexual deviancy are agendas some have that can be cloaked under 'academic excellence.'

This point may apply to others in the seminary community, not just faculty.  Seminaries are destroyed when members of the board, the administration, or the faculty act in such a way as to undermine the seminary’s mission, vision, values, or ethos.  Yet the destruction is seldom due to a single action or even several acts; it comes in a package of various matters driving individuals, such as personal agendas, character traits, friendships, activities, or deep commitments.  People do not usually contribute to the seminary overall from their areas of expertise as they make decisions.  Rather, as they engage in the community, influence others, form cliques, let their theological convictions express themselves in hiring and other faculty activities, and model a certain character that others imitate, they contribute significantly to the seminary.  The faculty member might teach courses in preaching or early Church history, but all these other matters are what really make the community.  Persuasion in a community is occasionally by rational argument; more often it comes through relationships and political pressure from those in power or influence.  Thus, hiring persons on the basis of their academic strengths, while essential, is a weaker concern when the ethos of a seminary is at stake.  Woke universities, of course, know this, and that is why they want to cancel people without the politically correct views.  We can say that they have a rather pathetic understanding of academia, but we need to understand that a seminary does not serve higher education like a university.  The university thrives with academic debate, but the seminary is, as the name implies, a place to help seeds grow and flourish; its emphasis is nurture within the Christian faith and for Christian ministry.

I cannot recall witnessing a good process for hiring persons who are not already known at the personal level, despite the usual written materials, committee meetings, interviews, lectures, discussions, and voting that make up the hiring process.  Interviews end up like speed dating for marriage.  The best approach to hiring someone is to recruit people already known well as persons and by their ministry.  While academic competence, even excellence, can be essential, even more essential is the faith, witness, and potential spiritual contribution of the candidate.  Evangelical seminaries should not hire faculty members who have remained in non-Evangelical denominations (this might have been done back in the 1970s, but getting out of mainline denominations is long overdue and sheds light on some problem or problems with the candidate by this point in history).  Understandably, some churches and their ministers have been 'caught' in mainline denominations, but no seminary professor should still personally be in such a denomination.  It is like hiring a person claiming to be orthodox theologically who is a Mormon, e.g., as the mainline denominations do not represent Christianity.  When academics are made the key concern, denominational affiliation is made a minor concern, and sometimes seminaries are only concerned with local church involvement.  This has proven to be the undermining of a seminary.  Candidates should also be known in their ecclesial or missional roles as persons tested in ministry and put forward by their denominations or mission organisations.  Frankly, denominations should pay the salaries of faculty members rather than the seminaries themselves.  Communal recommendations, not simply personal recommendations, should play a key role in the hiring process.

One of the key roles certain people play in the seminary is that of being agents of memory.  These people know the institution well through its history.  While candidates’ academic preparation and accomplishments are very important, agents of memory for the institution should play a prominent role in any hiring process, looking to see if there is a ‘hand-in-glove’ fit.  Agents of memory play their role along with others and should not dominate the hiring process, but they need to be listened to over others newly hired or who are still fitting into the ethos of the seminary.  Giving everyone an equal vote for a candidate is a sure way to change the ethos of the seminary—for good or for ill.  If this is done, then the preceding process should only put forward candidates who have passed the earlier stages.  In fact, recently hired faculty should probably not be given a vote on key matters until they have fit into the community and become part of its ethos (five years?).

In summary, candidates for the faculty should have the following qualities.  They should, of course, hold academic credentials suited to their role and be competent to teach their subjects.  They should be known personally for their personality, convictions, lifestyle, activities, etc.  They should be recruited on this basis and because they have been put forward by the constituencies the seminary serves as worthy to train people for their ministry, and this should be done with a community’s approval and recommendation.  They should be assessed and commended by particular gate-keepers in the seminary, particularly agents of memory, before any final, equal vote by all faculty members.  If you want to destroy a seminary, make academic merit the main concern and be sure to have a weak interview and advancement process apart from this criterion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘For freedom Christ has set us free’: The Gospel of Paul versus the Custodial Oversight of the Law and Human Philosophies

  Introduction The culmination of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and particularly from 3.1-4.31, is: ‘ For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery’ (Galatians 5.1). This essay seeks to understand Paul’s opposition to a continuing custodial role for the Law and a use of human philosophies to deal with sinful passions and desires.   His arguments against these are found in Galatians and Colossians.   By focussing on the problem of the Law and of philosophy, we can better understand Paul’s theology.   He believed that the Gospel was the only way to deal with sin not simply in terms of our actions but more basically in terms of our sinful desires and passions of the flesh. The task ahead is to understand several large-scale matters in Paul’s theology, those having to do with a right understanding of the human plight and a right understanding of God’s solution.   So much Protestant theology has articulated...
Post a Comment
Read more

Alasdair MacIntyre and Tradition Enquiry

Alasdair MacIntyre's subject is philosophical ethics, and he is best known for his critique of ethics understood as the application of general, universal principles.  He has reintroduced the importance of virtue ethics, along with the role of narrative and community in defining the virtues.  His focus on these things—narrative, community, virtue—combine to form an approach to enquiry which he calls ‘tradition enquiry.’ [1] MacIntyre characterises ethical thinking in the West in our day as ethics that has lost an understanding of the virtues, even if virtues like ‘justice’ are often under discussion.  Greek philosophical ethics, and ethics through to the Enlightenment, focussed ethics on virtue and began with questions of character: 'Who should we be?', rather than questions of action, 'What shall we do?'  Contemporary ethics has focused on the latter question alone, with the magisterial traditions of deontological ('What rules govern our actions?') and tel...
Post a Comment
Read more

The New Virtues of a Failing Culture

  An insanity has fallen upon the West, like a witch’s spell.   We have lived with it long enough to know it, understand it, but not long enough to resist it, to undo it.   The very stewards of the truth that would remove it have left their posts.   They have succumbed to its whispers, become its servants.   It has infected the very air and crept along the ground like a mist until it is within us and all about us.   We utter its precepts like schoolchildren taught their lines. Its power lies in its claims of virtuosity, distorted goodness.   If presented as the vices that they are, they would be rejected.   These virtues are proclaimed from the pulpits and painted on banners or made into flags.   They are established in our schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries.   They are the hallucinogen making our own cultural suicide bearable, even desirable.   They are virtues, but disordered, or they are the excess or deficiency of...
Post a Comment
Read more