I. Issue and Context

Austin Seminary's project for The Lexington Seminar was to study the relationship between the curriculum for the Master of Divinity degree and the delivery of student services. In a time of institutional and cultural change, the institution sought to reflect on the relationship between its formal curriculum and its informal curriculum, recognizing that students learn not only from the classroom, but also from the way they are assimilated into the seminary community.

Why did Austin Seminary choose this issue? The short answer is that the issue emerged as the result of discussion and self-reflection on the part of the faculty. The process was as follows: Our invitation in 1998 to join in the work of The Lexington Seminar came with a request that the faculty identify an issue significant to its life and mission. In good Presbyterian fashion, the faculty gathered to discuss the invitation to join the seminar and it was agreed that Austin Seminary should commit itself to participate. In consultation with the president and academic dean, it also accepted the appointment of a committee (i.e. what became the six members of The Lexington Seminar team) to make a recommendation with respect to Austin Seminary's issue. When the committee (= Lexington Seminar team) made its recommendation, the faculty accepted it and discussed it further in executive session.

When the committee met, we began with some reflection on the issues that concern us all as faculty members. Three factors in the institution's life were formative at this point: (1) the recent election of Robert Shelton as the eighth president of Austin Seminary in May 1997; (2) intensive preparation in 1997-98 for the seminary's two-year accreditation review; (3) the writing and adopting of a Master Plan* for the institution's future, completed in May 1999. All three of these factors led to increased collection of data with respect to Austin Seminary and sustained reflection on institutional identity.

The guidelines from The Lexington Seminar staff were kept in the committee's mind: we needed to put our "issue" in narrative form. Thus began the process of refining our conversation and of drafting a narrative sketch of the issue. Our narrative portrayed a student who came to visit with the academic dean about her unhappiness with her academic program and her place in the seminary community. She, a United Methodist single parent with a busy personal schedule, had a difficult time participating in community activities. Being a commuter student was a burden, plus she found some of the classes to be too academic and not affirming enough of the kind of spirituality to which she was drawn.

Our fictional student represented the configuration of problems/tensions felt by the faculty in a period of institutional and cultural change. Austin Seminary has served since 1902 as a regional seminary with close ties to constituent churches. It has prided itself in forming a residential community of learning. Twenty years ago, 90% of the students were Presbyterian, living in campus housing, and enrolled full-time in a degree program. Financial aid and subsidized housing were generously provided for those who lived on campus. Those who lived off campus were a small percentage (10%, if not less) and not even eligible for financial aid. In the last 20 years the seminary student body has changed significantly. Currently the percentage of Presbyterian students in the M.Div. program is approximately 66%. A matriculating student is approximately 35 years old, and many of them lack an undergraduate degree in the humanities and/or long-term experience in church life. There are increasing numbers of commuter students and those who prefer a part-time schedule. When one adds to this an ever-increasing diversity of theological and cultural concerns among students, it is easy to understand why some tensions points have arisen in the seminary community.

II. Project Design

The project design had three major components. The first was an M.Div. curriculum review carried out by the faculty in 1999-2000. The second was a 1999-2000 study of student services at Austin Seminary carried out by a committee appointed by President Shelton. The third was a retreat for seminary personnel and trustees, led by two consultants, with the assigned topic of reflecting on the processes of the curriculum review and the examination of student services. In summary, our project design provided needed structure over a two-year period to a fundamental conversation about the seminary's delivery system.

Curriculum review. Thirty years previously the faculty undertook a very thorough review of the M.Div. curriculum. At that time it agreed to an extensive list of goals for the curriculum. On two occasions in intervening years, the curriculum was "tweaked"; one occasion came in the early ‘80s and the second in the late ‘80s. In light of the intensive analysis of both the accreditation review and the processing of developing a Master Plan, a review of the M.Div. curriculum seemed appropriate.

The faculty committed itself to a series of meetings over the course of 18 months. Dr. Ismael Garcia, a member of our Lexington team and the chair of the faculty's program of study committee, moderated the discussions. The curricular goals were first on the agenda. It became apparent immediately that the extensive goals set out in the early ‘70s were too long and specific for cursory examination. We also quickly learned that faculty who had come to the seminary in the last 15 years were not very familiar with them in their complete form. They continued to be printed in their entirety, in the student handbook (which faculty don't read!), but only a very shortened form appear in the seminary Catalogue as part of the introduction to the Master of Divinity degree program. The conversation about them was useful, nevertheless, for two reasons. One, there was admiration for the work of a previous faculty, particularly with respect to detail. In broad measure there was affirmation for the continuing relevance of the goals. Secondly, there was recognition that some elements among them were either absent or needed changing (e.g. women's concerns, more emphasis on mission). The faculty agreed that the brief summary of goals should remain in the Catalogue. The complete list of goals has been removed from the student handbook.

Rather than proceed directly to possible changes in the curriculum, the faculty agreed that it would be better to spend time looking more closely at the way the current curriculum is implemented, i.e. the way professors teach their classes. A lesson related to the examination of goals was instructive: Perhaps the faculty collectively doesn't know enough about what is in place and currently being done by individual members. As a result, each professor was given an hour to present what/how he or she teaches. Typically this meant sharing the syllabus of a required course, plus a discussion on the goals the professor had in offering the course. The learning that went on as each professor presented was quite dramatic. In fact, most faculty did not know this much detail about the work of colleagues. The impact on the curricular discussion was also dramatic, in that most colleagues concluded that the curriculum currently in place is relevant and effective. It made the possibility of major revision less likely as the sense of ownership and understanding increased. The flip side of this increase in ownership was the realization that most suggested changes would likely have a "ripple effect" and threaten a balance that was now more appreciated.

Two matters remain outstanding from the 18 months of discussion. The first is the mode and sequence of teaching Hebrew. Currently beginning Hebrew (a required course) is taught in the intensive mode in the January term. The faculty was unable to agree to any suggested changes in format, other than acceptance of the fact that some students will take Hebrew elsewhere in Austin rather than take the language in the intensive mode. The second matter is that of diversity in the assignment of texts and reading materials. Most faculty members are supportive of increased attention to racial-ethnic and cultural concerns, and they would like for syllabi to reflect this. No means of "enforcement" or monitoring were put into effect, so that this concern remains open-ended.

Although the academic dean remains convinced that the curriculum review did not result in enough changes, he is gratified at the level of commitment shown by the faculty in its deliberations and in the levels of support and awareness the faculty now possesses about the curriculum.

An anecdote from the curriculum review. At one point in the conversation, it was agreed that more discussion should be had with respect to required courses. How should we go about that difficult subject? A suggestion was made that everyone who teaches a required course should take some time and present the syllabus and learning goals of the course. This struck a responsive cord initially with most faculty, but it became apparent from the reaction of faculty members who don't teach a required course, that such an approach made them feel left out. After some discussion, the decision was made to give every faculty member the same opportunity and allotted time to present whatever course(s) he or she wanted. It was a significant commitment of time, but more importantly perhaps, a commitment to the value of all faculty members and their contributions to the teaching enterprise. The matter of required courses did receive additional discussion, but the emphasis of the conversations fell more on discovering the value of the contributions of every faculty member. That emphasis was the most valuable learning experience from the review.

Student Services Review. In the 1999 fall term, President Shelton convened a committee to study the matter of student services at the seminary. The committee was comprised of a trustee, the interim campus pastor/dean of student life, the president, the director of admissions, an M.Div. student, and one faculty member. That committee met over the course of a year and issued its report in December 2000.

The committee's task was prompted by several factors (see I above), but one of the most significant was the retirement after 16 years of the seminary's first campus pastor/dean of student life. That retirement, in conjunction with the changes in the student body and the recently completed Master Plan, made such a review propitious.

One major recommendation came from the committee's work: To create a new position of Vice-President for Student Affairs. This position would incorporate that of the campus pastor/dean of student life, so in one sense it is not a new position. On the other hand, this position is raised to the level of Vice-President, it will have significant budget items under its control, and will include supervisory duties (director of admissions). It also comes with a full-time administrative assistant. In making this appointment, the president has stated that he prefers "to pave paths rather than to create sidewalks." He means that part of the job description of the Vice-President for Student Affairs will come from the commitments and time investments made by the VP, rather than relying on an exhaustive job description. There are perhaps two reasons why APTS might take this approach. The first is simply a reflection of institutional history. Twenty years ago there was no campus pastor/dean of student life at Austin Seminary. Pastoral matters were the responsibility of the whole faculty, though in practice more responsibility fell on the president and academic dean. A number of changes came with the first campus pastor (who had recently retired). The next person, who also will be in a new position, should have the opportunity to mold it somewhat to her strengths and commitments. The second reason is that leadership in the seminary community comes essentially from presence and commitments rather than simply by virtue of office. Raising the position to that of vice-president is meant as a political statement and an indication of accountability, but there is a very real sense in which the first holder of this position will make it her own. While she will have pastoral responsibilities with students and their families, it is not assumed that she alone has these responsibilities. While she will be involved with the worship life of the community, it is not assumed that she will have primary oversight of that important matter. The VP for Student Affairs will report directly to the president and have primary responsibility for working with the student senate. It is hoped thereby that the president (and to some extent the academic dean) can be freed from some of the day-to-day matters of student affairs.

Board/Seminary Personnel Retreat. The retreat was the capstone of Austin's project. It was held April 5-7, 2001, at a conference center near Boerne, TX, in the Texas hill country . Two consultants were hired to lead the retreat. Both read a number of institutional documents in preparation for the retreat, including a summary of the curriculum review and the report of the committee appointed to study student services. In turn, they asked that all attending the retreat read these and other seminary documents, plus two summary chapters from the volume Being There: Culture and Formation in Two Theological Schools, by J. Carroll, B. Wheeler, D. Aleshire, P. Marler (Oxford University Press, 1997).

As defined by the consultants, the goal of the retreat was not to assess the recent review work conducted by the institution or recommendations which resulted from it, but to assist seminary personnel to think more deeply and critically about the educational culture of Austin Seminary. How does one define the seminary's culture? How can one become more self-aware and reflective about implicit expectations in the seminary community? And, given its mission statement and Master Plan, how might the seminary take steps toward desired changes in its educational culture?

There are two significant matters from the description above which impacted Austin's project. The first was the timing of the retreat. In the project proposal, November 2000 was set as the time for the retreat. Since the board of trustees has a stated meeting during that month, it was assumed that the retreat would also incorporate the business meeting of the board. The proposed timing was such that both the curriculum review and the study of student services would be well into their work, so that a thorough, reflective conversation between seminary personnel and the trustees would help bring all parties on board. A year earlier, however, the board had approved a half-year sabbatical leave for the academic dean (June-November 2000). The president did not want to have the retreat without the presence of the academic dean, so the retreat was postponed until April 2001. By that time, both reviews had been completed.

The second matter concerned the stated reasons for the retreat. As the consultants noted, both reviews had been completed and there would be recommendations coming from them. They did not see any reason to discuss the recently completed processes or specific recommendations; instead they wanted to concentrate on a reflective process that would assist participants in greater institutional understanding. Thus there were two different expectations at work among those who attended. The seminary personnel and trustees assumed that the topics of discussion would be the M.Div. curriculum and plans for reorganizing student services (i.e. the stated topic of The Lexington Seminar project). The consultants wanted to lead participants in a somewhat different direction, albeit one which reflects on the kind of educational culture one has and which one would like to create.

Thankfully the retreat resulted in a great deal of discussion with a lot of interaction between trustees and seminary personnel. Our consultants succeeded in provoking conversation (below). We followed a format similar to that of The Lexington Seminar meetings in Maine. We choose a lovely retreat center in the Texas hill country with decent amenities, and we built in time for informal conversation and recreation.

III. Resources Used

The most important resource we used was time. There is simply no substitute for setting aside adequate time for deliberation. This was especially true for the hours set aside for curriculum review, since these conversations included the whole faculty.

Two consultants were used to facilitate discussion at the retreat. They were satisfactory and contributed to the success of the retreat. Overall, however, the quality of the conversations in Maine and those in the curriculum review were the most influential factors in carrying out the project.

IV. Project Results

In carrying out the project, we learned that community is a mysterious and wonderful thing. Beginning with the 1999 conversation in Maine, our Lexington team began to sharpen its self-analysis in conversation with our team advisor and in light of the many conversations among the participants. In constructing our narrative, we presented a student who had trouble fitting in the seminary community and who had a number of personal needs. The Maine conversations helped us see that our concern to meet the needs of students, while positive in its own right, should be balanced by a proper setting of institutional boundaries and boundaries for demand on faculty time. While we began with the assumption that the seminary community should work harder and be more effective at assimilating students, we learned that it is crucial for the seminary to be more explicit about its goals and its expectations.

At the retreat, our two consultants also pressed the issue of explicit versus implicit expectations in forming a community. They suggested that the mode of relating among the faculty was analogous to the dynamics of a stable marriage or family. Faculty members enjoy one another and spend a lot of time in conversation and cooperation. In stable marriages, relationships can be close and satisfying for the spouses, but tensions can arise when change is forced or children impatiently intrude on the parents. By analogy it was suggested that perhaps some of the students at Austin Seminary do not pick up on the implicit structures of the seminary family or they fail to recognize certain unstated assumptions about how the family lives together, and so tensions arise. The consultants noted that the term most often used in discussion by seminary personnel was "community." It pervades our conversation and our self-understanding. There is marked commitment to it. Why, then, were there also frequent references to meeting student needs? Their suggestion was that community is indeed a core value of Austin Seminary, but perhaps not as well defined as seminary personnel think, so that the increasing diversity of students puts strains on the implicit assumptions about what comprises a community engaged in learning and theological reflection.

Three other instructive matters emerged from the retreat. The faculty discovered the importance of the administrators as conversation partners. Much of what was discussed at the retreat is a staple of faculty conversations. It is not frequent, however, to have administrators involved with them in such deliberations. The good news is that administrators felt free to express themselves, and this served to place them in a new and more appreciated light for the faculty. The second matter came from a consultant's comment about who was not present at the retreat (students). No student voices were heard directly. The question was thereby raised, whether it is adequate format to talk about student needs when they are not present? The third matter came in the general discussion about the work of the student services committee, and more particularly, the recommendation to create the position of Vice-President for Student Affairs. It became apparent that most seminary personnel saw the written report of the committee for the first time in preparing for the retreat (the consultants, who had read the report, requested that all retreat participants get a copy of the report). The president, of course, believed that since he and the committee had conducted extensive conversations among themselves, that the gist of the committee's work had also made its way through the seminary grapevine. While that was partially correct (the "grapevine effect"), we learned at the retreat that many seminary personnel had only sketchy information, plus they were eager to talk about the position and its implications.

As a result of these intensive discussions over the last two years, the faculty as a whole has gained some clarity on defining its mission. Given the increasing diversity of students, the seminary's Master Plan and faculty self-understanding line up together with respect to basic commitments. Austin Seminary will remain primarily a residential-based community and its M.Div. curriculum will be structured for students who finish the degree in 3-4 years. The faculty remains committed to teaching and learning in a community where students are also encouraged to develop personal relationships with faculty and to see them as mentors. While remaining open to further changes, the institution is committing itself to offering the best that a residential-based community can offer.

One of the surprising results of the project has been the realization on the part of the faculty that it likes the current M.Div. curriculum, and that for the near future it prefers an openness to fine-tuning rather than systemic change. It will be a challenge, therefore, to work with a diverse student body and to be more explicit about community expectations and commitments.

As a result of The Lexington Seminar project, the faculty is more aware of the delicate balance between maintaining a stable community of learning and openness to change. The fact that seminary personnel essentially like their work setting, and more particularly their opportunities to teach and learn, should not blind the institution to the strong pull that cultural and societal trends will make toward change. It is not a question of whether innovation will be required to meet demands for change; the issue is whether the institution can be responsive and do so with a clear sense of its identity.

Would we do anything differently? The answer is probably no, if different means choosing another issue on which to work. If possible, we probably would change the schedule of events, so that the retreat came earlier in our process of deliberating about curriculum and student services.

V. Sharing the Wisdom

We have learned in a fresh way that theological education is a collaborative enterprise. Austin Seminary's faculty has rightly prided itself on its collegiality, which has meant, among other things, that the faculty talked with one another and had commitments to work together. And by and large that self-affirmation is true. Nevertheless, to a person The Lexington Seminar team regards our project as an important catalyst for thinking about different ways to encourage conversation and to work together. We think that we are now better positioned to think about community and diversity in ways that transcend the family metaphor and yet do so in ways that build on our shared history and commitments to the church.

This view has made itself felt across the faculty. The cross fertilization that came from conversation with faculty from other schools also enabled our team to assist the whole faculty to "think new thoughts" and to gain added perspectives.

In our particular case, the seminar project has resulted in increased support for the M.Div. curriculum. That support came largely as a result of conversation among faculty about courses that each member of the faculty teaches. An increased level of understanding led to an increased level of support for the curriculum as a whole and appreciation for the contributions of individual faculty members.

Where tensions or differences remain among faculty members with respect to the curriculum, the faculty as a whole has resisted the idea of giving more autonomy to individual departments, preferring instead to keep the more laborious practice of making decisions about course offerings as the work of the whole. This is a clear illustration that the enterprise of teaching is still regarded as the work of one faculty rather than the listing of courses from a collection of scholars.

Finally, in reading a draft of this report, two of the seminar team members concluded that it reads more like a report of three interrelated projects (curriculum review, student services review, faculty-board retreat) than the examination of a single issue. The academic dean (who wrote the draft) is one of those who feels this way. In subsequent conversation among team members, we agreed that likely we have just begun the intensive work of exploring more fully the relationship between curriculum and student services; but now that Dr. Ann Fields (the new Vice-President for Student Affairs) is in place, we will be even more intentional about the evaluation of that relationship.

To a person we are grateful to the Lilly Foundation and The Lexington Seminar staff for the privilege of participation in this enterprise, and we are convinced that our institution is considerably better off because of this gift which came our way.

*The Master Plan of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Building on its tradition of excellence in theological education, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary will become nationally recognized for the high quality of its education, formation, and training of pastors and other church leaders.

Increased Academic Excellence and Enriched Curriculum - APTS will provide academic programs that enable pastors and other church leaders to interpret life and ministry in a theological way.
Seminary Life - APTS will provide an environment that is conducive to the spiritual, personal, and academic needs of its students, staff, and faculty, and also to the families of all members of the seminary community.
Development of Fiscal and Human Resources - APTS will substantially strengthen its long-term financial resources.
Physical Plant and Grounds - APTS will provide sufficient and attractive educational facilities to accomplish its mission.
Institutional Leadership - APTS will enhance the leadership potential of its trustees, administrators, faculty, and staff.
Church Relations - APTS will clarify and strengthen its relationships with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and other denominations, particularly the United Methodist Church.
Institutional Partnerships - APTS will pursue its mission through relationships with other educational institutions.
Institutional Planning and Evaluation - APTS will develop a culture of institutional planning, including the setting of goals, long-range planning, and evaluation.
Institutional Technology Development - APTS will have the technology to support its mission.

For the glory of God and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary is a seminary in the Presbyterian-Reformed tradition whose mission is to educate and equip individuals for the ordained Christian ministry and other forms of Christian service and leadership,. to employ its resources in the service of the church,. to promote and engage in critical theological thought and research; and to be a winsome and exemplary community of God's people (Statement of Purpose adopted by the Board of Trustees).

Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary : 1999 Seminar