McCormick Theological Seminary : 2000 Seminar
I. Context and Issue
McCormick is a seminary of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and, as such, is rooted in the Reformed tradition and committed to providing leadership for the denomination. McCormick is at the same time ecumenical, committed to learning with and teaching those preparing for ministry in a number of other Christian traditions. This dual identity is at the center of our work with the Lexington Seminar.
Our narrative focused on the set of questions around our identity as Reformed and ecumenical. What does it mean that we are committed as a seminary both to the Reformed tradition and to learning and teaching ecumenically? What does it mean for our students, for our faculty, and for our work together as a learning community? What are the implications for curriculum design, for the classroom, and for the wider life of the community?
Dual identity is not unique to McCormick. There are a number of seminaries that describe themselves both in terms of denominational affiliation and ecumenical commitment, including a number of other Presbyterian seminaries. What may be distinctive at McCormick is the breadth of our ecumenical involvement and the fact that our denominational diversity is not primarily within the “mainline” churches. Students come from several Pentecostal traditions and from traditionally African American denominations. Diversity at McCormick has to do with racial and ethnic background as well as a wide spectrum of Christian faith traditions. We recognized the need for a much deeper understanding of the traditions represented among our students.
McCormick offers two degrees at masters level, the Master of Divinity and the Master of Arts in Theological Studies. In every year since 1990, no single racial/ethnic masters level student group has had a majority at McCormick; the number of African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Asian American students has exceeded that of Euro American students. Presbyterian Church (USA) students make up approximately ½ of the masters level student body. Other traditions represented include Baptist (ABC, General, Missionary, National), Pentecostal (Assemblies of God, Church of God in Christ, and others), Methodist (AME, AME Zion, United), and others. Each year between 10 and 15% of the some 180 masters level students come from outside the United States. Among the faculty, approximately 2/3 are from the Presbyterian Church (USA); the others are United Methodist (2), Mennonite, Jewish, American Baptist, Church of God in Christ, Episcopalian.
Every classroom at McCormick reflects this diversity, with teachers and learners representing both theological and cultural diversity. We recognize this as both significant challenge and as remarkable opportunity; those who have lived, learned, and worshipped together will be better prepared to work in partnership across faith tradition and cultural lines when they graduate. The challenge presented by this diversity is at the center of nearly all of our discussion and reflection on pedagogy and curriculum design.
Our narrative focused on an incident in the fall of 1999 in Pilgrimage in Faithfulness, a course required of all entering masters level students. One of the goals of the course is “to find an initial point of integration around call, baptism, communion and ministry which is open to growth and development.” The course is designed to introduce students to theological reflection on faith, to McCormick’s multi-cultural and ecumenical learning context, and to issues of call to ministry and service.
Among the students in PIF that year, ordained ministers from African American Pentecostal and Baptist congregations met second career Presbyterian women who had left various vocations to follow God’s call to ministry. Young adults who had spent a year or two after college in volunteer service around the world struggled with the clarity of both faith and call. Two men in their early sixties who had sold businesses and entered seminary seemed very clear about what God wants for their lives. There were pastors from Ghana, Kenya and Cuba, as well as students from Korea, most with one theological degree behind them. The faculty team consisted of three women and five men, two African American and six Euro American, six Presbyterians, a Pentecostal minister, and an Episcopalian. Faculty members believe (and say in the syllabus) that this mix of teachers and learners is as much a part of the curriculum as readings and lectures.
The class meets once each week with each class session lasting four hours and consisting of four parts: lecture, worship (planned and led each week by a different discussion group), a meal, and small group discussion. In the week in question, worship was led by the Pentecostal minister and his discussion group. As eucharist was the topic of the week, the group included communion in the worship service. But during the faculty debriefing of the week’s session, some voiced concern about the worship: “so where was the Great Prayer of Thanksgiving? The leader went from homily-like comment to Words of Institution. It felt like eating a meal without the blessing. Besides, aren’t we supposed to be modeling something about worship and how it should be done?”
“This really cuts both ways,” said the Pentecostal faculty member. “I’m not from the Reformed tradition and neither are about half of these students. What are we telling them, that the only right way to worship is the ‘Reformed’ way? Some students wonder whether, if they express their own faith commitments, they will be graded down when they disagree with the Reformed tradition.”
How does McCormick, grounded in the Reformed tradition and intentionally ecumenical, live out its identity in the classroom and in worship? Is one tradition normative and others alternative? Does the Reformed tradition function as one of many templates or as a standard against which to be judged? How can faculty balance being part of a confessional tradition and being open to varieties of Christian expression and experience?
What does formation for ministry and leadership look like in such a setting? Does studying in a school representing a faith tradition different from one’s own represent an opportunity for growth and dialogue or a barrier because of lack of affirmation? Does diversity in theological education represent for students an opportunity for growth in knowledge and experience with the ecumenical church or a place of resistance to any truth but “my own?”
Following our presentation and discussion of these questions during our first week of the Lexington Seminar in Maine, exercises were posed for the table groups that we found very helpful. We were asked to consider what a non-Presbyterian graduate would say were the signs that he or she had received a good seminary education at McCormick and what Presbyterian students would say prepared them for Presbyterian ministry. These discussions and our own reflection helped us to focus the question of McCormick's institutional identity (as Reformed and ecumenical) as a question about teaching and learning in preparation for ministry.
This led us to wonder how much we as a faculty know about what a good, well-formed candidate for ministry looks like in the current Presbyterian Church (USA) as well as in the wide variety of denominations from which our students come. Given that the denominational diversity of those of us on the Lexington team (one Mennonite, one COGIC, four PC (USA)) roughly reflects our faculty as a whole, we began a conversation among ourselves about pastoral formation and pastoral roles from our traditions and backgrounds. Our own conversation began to give evidence of the ways these ecclesial traditions shape our understanding of ministry and our commitments to teaching.
II. Project
Our project grew out of these conversations. In order for our faculty to contribute to the discussion of what it means for McCormick to be both Reformed and ecumenical, we recognized that we as faculty need to know more than we do about each other and about our individual faith journeys. We also need to know more about the ecclesial traditions from which our students come. We designed the project in two parts to reflect on each of these issues. The first part, a faculty retreat described below, was completed using the Lexington grant. The second part will continue over the next few years as part of our on-going faculty development program. Leaders of various denominational traditions will be invited to talk with us about what they expect in a well-formed candidate for ministry in their tradition and what these expectations mean for McCormick. We will invite leaders from a number of Pentecostal traditions, Baptist traditions, African American denominations, and from various Reformed groups, including PC(USA) and Korean American and Hispanic representatives. These conversations will inform on-going conversations about revision of the Masters Level programs.
Part one of the project was a retreat for faculty to explore the answer to the first question posed above. The faculty set aside September 12-14, 2001 for a retreat at the beginning of the 2001-02 academic year. We reserved very comfortable accommodations at the Osthoff Resort at Elkhart Lake in Wisconsin which provided space for both formal sessions and informal conversations and activities. We selected the Oshoff for a number of reasons. The accommodations are spacious and arranged in large suites, each having both living and sleeping rooms; this provided for a number of comfortable locations for informal conversations. The excellent conference facilities provided for our plenary and small group meetings. A number of activities were available for free time. And the distance from Chicago (2 1/2 hours) was just about right; far enough away from our usual routines but not taking up too much time in travel.
Each faculty member was asked to prepare for the retreat by responding to the following questions in writing:
o How was your faith formed? (Include, as you wish, the places, persons, and events that formed you.)
o What role did that formation and your commitments have in your coming to McCormick?
o In what ways does your denominational context affect your view of McCormick’s Reformed and ecumenical vision?
o How does your faith tradition influence or shape the way you teach, lead or administrate?
We suggested that faculty write at least one page and invited them to write more if they wished. We included administrators in the project, using the simple guideline of usual attendance at faculty meetings; that is, the seminary vice-presidents, the registrar, director of recruitment and admissions, etc. were included. This enlarging of the conversation beyond the usual teaching faculty proved one of the more significant aspects of the time together. Written responses ranged in length from one to six pages. We gathered these in early August, bound them together, and distributed to everyone. We also circulated an outline of the plan and schedule for our time together. The retreat took the place of our customary fall faculty conference. Our usual tradition is to spend a day together preparing for the coming year and an additional half-day on a topic or workshop for faculty development. The plan for the retreat was significantly different; we scheduled time for worship and for work in small groups and plenary on issues of faith and learning, not the usual agenda items of our faculty meetings. And we allowed plenty of free time for conversations and play. (This, of course, a clear reflection of the exceptional experience we had had Maine.) We did allow one brief session at the end of the three days for the routine business of beginning the academic year. We decided not to engage a process consultant to work with us, believing that the culture of trust and communication among the faculty is strong enough to support good communication and that someone invited to bring an external process would likely hinder rather than help our conversations. In retrospect, we believe this was the correct decision.
At the retreat we met first in small groups (of four) to consider how to present our stories to the full group. Some decided to give four vignettes, but most gave a group presentation, often including skits and other forms of acted storytelling. We presented to each other following a relaxed timetable and found, as the planners had hoped, that the conversations continued beyond the formal session. Then, again in small groups and finally in plenary, we gathered what we had heard and learned and what all this has to do with teaching and learning.
It was a remarkable time as a faculty and administration, not only for the specific issues that were addressed and the personal stories and commitments that were heard, but also for the time together in the hours immediately following the events of September 11. It was very important for us to be together, as a seminary faculty, at that time – to worship together and to talk with each other about our common calling. Mid-day on the 11th, those of us planning the retreat had met to consider whether we should cancel and stay at home due to the uncertainty of the moment. But we decided to continue; it seemed to us that our work as a seminary and the issues we wished to discuss together were even more significant in the light of the unfolding events. In the written evaluations, which were completed by all participants before we left the retreat on the 14th, nearly everyone indicated gratitude for the time together, at that particular time. In some of the written evaluations, the only recommendation for improvement had to do with finding a time when everyone could be present; two members were not able to travel as planned, and one was ill.
III. Response and Results
We collected and collated material from our time together at the retreat and then met as faculty to review what we had heard and learned. We were particularly interested in how our conversations and recommendations would be woven into the design of our new masters level curriculum and what significance they might have for the revisioning of our Doctor of Ministry programs.
The following list represents issues identified at the retreat and in the following review meetings as concerns, suggestions, and questions that should be carried forward into the continuing curriculum revision work and the strategic planning process and to inform our life and work as a seminary.
- Connecting with students
- Faculty need to connect in a more personal way with students, recognizing the significance of personal relationships for learning and formation as well as building community.
- We need to learn the different grammars students bring from their various contexts, especially from non-mainline denominations.
- We speak often of being inclusive, yet we could do much more to understand our students and their contexts.
- How available are we to our students? Is this adequate?
- We are committed to hospitality. The Language Resource and Writing Center is a good example of living out this commitment. We should consider a “third place” (other than classroom or personal office / home space), such as a pub or coffee house where we can be with students. The LRWC is a good model.
- Formation and Curriculum
- We recognize the importance of student spiritual formation. Are we providing adequate institutional framework for formation?
- Everyone in the seminary community should be part of creating a culture or ethos of formation. This is especially an issue for commuter and evening students.
- How can DMin students come into this conversation? Is there a way to integrate the DMin and MDiv programs? Is the DMin program a resource we might make better use of, possibly by involving pastors from that program in MDiv classes and with MDiv students?
- M404 Reflection on Ministry (the course that accompanies supervised ministry) might be used as a forum for extending the Reformed / ecumenical conversations
- A new course might be developed on ecumenical dialogue. Additional work should be done on interfaith issues.
- Should we undertake “reorientation” via a senior seminar?
- How are the three parts of theological education – formation of the person, development of professional skills, and intellectual formation – balanced or held in tension at McCormick?
- Faculty and Administration
- Teaching is recognized as a pastoral concern, as ministry. We have a plurality of voices, but there is consensus that we need to become more sensitive to the needs of students.
- We need to continue these informal / vulnerable conversations with each other about our faith and personal stories, and do so without the usual boundaries.
- We need opportunities to talk about leadership and pedagogy and a process for tackling various issues in more intentional and substantive ways.
- Time is needed for faculty to work on major issues. Suggestions:
i. divide faculty meetings, using the first half for substance and second half for business
ii. take one issue/project each year, using the faculty lunches for discussion
iii. reduce teaching responsibilities for a small group of faculty to work on a common project
iv. use J- term in the new curriculum
- We need to clarify the mission of the seminary, especially regarding our Reformed / ecumenical vision and how this vision informs our identity.
- We need to work on how we articulate the Reformed tradition in and for our context.
- We need to articulate our core values of justice, diversity and ecumenicity.
- There is a need for more intentional ecumenical formation of the faculty, administration, and trustees.
- Book Project
- We recommend that we undertake a study process as a faculty – possibly on the Holy Spirit – and follow up with writing and publishing a book.
As this list reflects, the faculty/administration retreat yielded both expected and unexpected results. In many areas, the implications for teaching and learning had to do with things that we know but are not doing particularly well. The retreat and related conversations gave us time to work on practical ways to move forward. The emphasis on connecting personally with students, particularly on issues of formation and faith, was surprising. There was not as much about formal worship as expected, though there has been much attention to worship in other conversations this past year. The retreat helped form the framework needed for the discussions we are having now about changes needed in the ways we worship as a community.
The conversations at the retreat and the documenting and discussion that followed have provided significant resources for masters level curriculum work. The primary design work on the curriculum had been done before the Lexington project, but the retreat and the many related conversations have gone quite some way in provided us with a common vocabulary and focus on this aspect of our academic mission. Every course that is proposed for the new curriculum must include an explanation of the way the course addresses the Reformed / ecumenical commitment. The related needs of students, who are preparing for very different locations of ministry, are in clear focus in all aspects of the work on the new curriculum. Faculty understand very clearly their responsibilities for students from the Reformed tradition and students from other traditions, a clarity that is reflected in the classroom as well as in course design.
The retreat and the conversations related to the Reformed / ecumenical identity of the seminary have played a significant role in strategic planning. The seminary began a strategic planning process a few months before the retreat, and issues of identity were naturally at the center of the early stages of the strategic planning work. The commitment to being Reformed and ecumenical can be seen in the draft of the new mission statement, and in several of the goals.
In the light of our expectations when we set out, we have taken a few steps, but we still have a long way to go. Of the four goals listed in the original grant application, we have achieved three. The faculty response to the retreat was uniformly positive, with appreciation for the time to hear and learn from each other at a level not possible in our usual faculty process and timetable. From one of the written evaluations: “It was wonderful to be together in this beautiful setting with a relaxed atmosphere to really reflect and get to know each other at another level. I think we will engage the issues we have discussed (and one another) in altogether deeper ways and more effective ways than before this experience.” We accomplished the first goal, to engage the faculty in conversations around our own faith formation and understanding of ministry, and the third and fourth, which had to do with using these conversations in curriculum work and in our strategic planning process. We have not accomplished the second goal, that we would gather information from church leaders from a variety of the traditions represented in our student body regarding readiness for ministry in those traditions. This part of the project continues, providing a significant part of our faculty formation over the next two years.
When we reflect on the set of questions that formed the foundation for the project (as set out on the first page of this report), we recognize how far we still have to go. We have made some headway: we have recognized that the sensitivity we have learned to have for the faith traditions and journeys of faculty colleagues is a model for the affirmation and openness needed in the classroom. We have learned about the importance of time together, both as colleagues and as members of the seminary community. As one faculty member wrote: “It was very helpful to connect the personal stories to the institutional mission in its concrete ramifications.” We have also learned that the journey will not end, but that regular learning and relearning from each other and as well as from our students provides some of the most important aspects of the framework for our work together.
(Parts of this report have been taken from earlier submissions to the Lexington Seminar.)