Theology and the Experience of Women

By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus

March is women’s history month. As I reflected on this, I found myself wondering about the lack of voice of women in the church. Despite the diligent and excellent scholarship of godly theologians who affirm the full equality of women, there remains in the church a widely held belief in the subordination of women. Many who affirm this subordination also affirm the dignity and value of women, suggesting that subordination is only a matter of function and not of being. As I look around me, however, it is difficult not to conclude that a belief in the subordination of women leads to a devaluing of women, with often tragic results.

I’m sure you, as I, have seen news reports and read stories about the experience of women around the world. But have we considered the real human tragedy of this devaluing of women?

In China, the devaluing of females has led to an epidemic of sex-selective abortions. In 2009, a study published in the British Medical Journal estimated that in 2005 there were 32 million extra Chinese men under the age of 20 because of this selective abortion of female babies. This has led to an eruption of a human trafficking problem in the sex industry in China that is only just beginning to be understood.

In India, angry husbands and rejected boyfriends respond to women by throwing acid in their faces. This results in disfigurement, blindness, and sometimes death. The BBC reported one such story of Mamata. Her crime was that she refused to stay with her husband who had decided to take a second wife. After months of efforts to persuade her, he met with her and threw acid over her face and arms, leaving her permanently scarred. The BBC reports that, in a society where “looks are everything,” especially for women, it has been difficult for her to get any kind of job, even as domestic help.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban know that terrorists are less effective in recruiting when women are educated. Therefore, one of their campaigns has been to destroy girls’ schools. Attacks on the girls might take the form of gunfire, grenades, or as in India, throwing acid in the face. Despite this terror, many Afghan girls are determined to obtain an education and continue despite the threats to them for attending school.

In Darfur in Sudan, in Rwanda, and elsewhere, rape is a tool of war and genocide. In Sudan, over 2 million Sudanese of minority ethnic groups were herded into camps. According to the New York Times, the soldiers then inflicted gang rape upon thousands of women and girls, as many as 20 men raping one woman, often in front of their mothers and fathers or children. Babies conceived through these rapes are considered unpure because their blood is diluted, and are often killed or abandoned.

And don’t think that this kind of abuse of women is limited to “over there.” Human sex trafficking is a significant problem in the United States as well. Charlotte, for example, has been rocked by the exposure of its own sex trafficking problem. It has been labeled by police the center of sex trafficking in the Southeast United States. Hundreds of young women are kidnapped and forced to work as prostitutes here in Charlotte alone. The violence of sex traffickers reported elsewhere in the world, including the drugging, beating, and rape of their victims, happens right here.

Ken Fong, senior pastor of Evergreen Baptist Church of Los Angeles, asks some important questions, as reported in CBE’s Arise E-Newsletter: “When some Christian groups interpret the Bible as teaching that God created women to live in a male-ruled hierarchy, that they must obediently submit to male 'heads' or risk violating a divine mandate, aren't they also contributing to the oppression of girls and women? . . . Even if the point is made that the Bible teaches that women are of equal value before God, if a person's being a female automatically and always means that she is overtly or subtly denied equal opportunities to learn, to lead, to teach, etc., that is oppressing her in the name of God.”

The first Sunday in March, my church celebrated the gifts of women. I would like to end with the Prayer of Adoration and Confession of Sin which we prayed in church that Sunday:

“Created in your image, O God, male and female, we confess that we often forget this fact of life. As men, we forget that our God is a nurturing, sustaining and loving God. As women, we have forgotten to speak out against unacceptable patterns of domination and abuse. As people of faith, we forget that God saw everything made and, indeed, it was good. God, help us to see everything you have made and, indeed, to know that it is very good. In our worship, may we be less like Martha, who was distracted, and more like Mary, who sat at Jesus feet and listened. Mary chose the better part; may we do likewise, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Fredrick Douglass, the Gospel and Me

By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

Fredrick Douglass, the nineteenth-century abolitionist had this to say about American Christianity:

“…I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. …I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members….The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of the week meets me as a class leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life and the path of salvation. …He who proclaims it as a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right of learning to read the name of the God who made me. ...The warm defender of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families—sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers—leaving the hut vacant and the heart desolate. …We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen! All for the glory of God and the good of souls.” [Fredrick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass (1845), n. p., http//gbgm-umc.org/UMW/ bible/douglass.stm --cited in Global Voices on Biblical Equality, eds A.B. Spencer, W.D. Spencer and Mimi Haddad (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2008), pp. 6-7.]

As I read that text I find it so hard to believe that people could treat other human beings as mere objects or possessions, as merchandise to be sold as one would sell stocks and bonds – or worse! It reminds me again of how much harm has been done in the name of Christ and by people whose conscience showed no awareness of just how unjust and inhuman their behavior is.

Of course such reflection can make me feel quite superior in the knowledge that I would never dream of treating anyone that way. That is, until the next time I treat the person behind the counter, or the person who pumps my gas, or the person who serves me food in a restaurant, as just an instrument or means to accomplishing my goals. I may not beat them or sell them or rob them and I may not do anything to them that would be considered immoral or unethical by other people. But I am still quite capable of looking past them as though they are invisible or engaging with them as I would engage a candy machine or a Coke machine or some other inanimate machinery or flesh-covered household appliance that will accomplish some task for me as long as I just crank the right handles or push the right buttons.

And I am more than capable of considering my own needs (or the needs of my friends or the needs of my church’s latest project or campaign of great importance while turning a blind eye to human suffering going on around me, suffering that continues and is perpetuated because I and others with me decide that although it concerns us and should be addressed it just cannot be my/our priority today. Our agenda has us busy attending to other urgent matters….

But I hear the voice of my Lord reminding me of the place of lost and suffering people in his agenda and remember the lengths to which he went to see to it that we might know God’s love and be redeemed from the plight in which we find ourselves. And I am reminded of the words of the apostle Paul:

³ Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. ⁴ Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. ⁵ Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 2:3-5 NIV).

May God give us the grace today to recognize our own propensity to subtly treat human beings made in his image as though they are actually something less than we are – as though they are merely means to achieving the goals and objectives we have for our day or for our lives. And may he give me (and you too, if you need it as much as I do) the grace to recognize and act on the opportunities he gives me to follow Christ’s model of treating others not only as fully human beings, but also as the special objects of God’s love and of Christ’s self-sacrifice. May the Christianity I affirm and proclaim with my lips not be betrayed by my own blindness to the injustices around me. May no Fredrick Douglass of the present or future find cause in my behavior to consider my faith a fraud.

How to Get More Out of Committee Meetings in Your Church

By John Jefferson Davis
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics

Can you relate to the following scenario? Two friends meet one evening in the church parking lot and one says, “I have just come out of a mind-numbing budget committee meeting at the church. I can only stare at lines of numbers on spreadsheets for so long before my eyes glaze over.”

Most of us can remember committee meetings in our churches that, if not exactly “mind numbing,” have left us tired and frustrated, with the feeling that all the talk and discussion and debate had not accomplished as much as we would have hoped. Perhaps we find it difficult to rest well that night, our minds still running with the unresolved issues and tensions of the meeting. Many of us spend a lot of time in our church or other Christian organization going to meetings. Does Scripture give us any hints as to how committee meetings in the church can be more satisfying and productive? The good news is that the answer is a definite “Yes!” Let’s consider briefly a number of key passages that can take our meetings to a whole new level of satisfaction and fruitfulness.

Before looking at the first passage – Exodus 4:2 – we can stop to observe that typically, church committee meetings follow a pattern like this: 1) open with a sincere (but somewhat token) prayer for God’s guidance; 2) individuals on the committee share their ideas and have discussion and debate; 3) a plan of action is adopted; 4) the meeting is closed in prayer, asking God to bless the plans that we have made. As we shall see, a more biblical pattern would look something like this: 1) united prayer, seeking a common mind; 2) corporately listening for the voice and plan of God in the midst of the discussion; 3) being energized by the Spirit of God to execute God’s ideas (cf. Acts 13:1,2, the church at Antioch, energized and united for mission).

Principle One: Relinquishing Our Agendas to God: “What Is That In Your Hand?”

In the call of Moses God meets Moses at the burning bush, and later in the conversation asks Moses the question, “What is that in your hand?” (Ex.4:2). Moses answers, “a staff.” God tells Moses to throw the staff on the ground, and it becomes a serpent. God commands Moses to pick it up again, and it becomes a staff – which later God uses, in the hands of Moses, to part the Red Sea waters. The “staff” can be a symbol for those things that we bring to the meeting: our ideas, our agendas, our knowledge, expertise, training, and hopes for the church. God asks us to throw our staffs on the ground – to relinquish and surrender our ideas and agendas to him, so that he can return them in a form that has been transformed and energized by God’s own power. This conscious and intentional act of each committee member being willing to relinquish control and surrender his or her “staff” to God is the first step for having God’s empowerment for the committee’s work.

Principle Two: Seeking a Common Mind: the Principle of Spiritual Alignment

Another beautiful picture of extraordinarily fruitful “committee work” in the church is found in Acts 1:14: “They all joined together constantly in prayer” (Acts 1:14). Jesus had commanded the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until the Father sent the gift of the Holy Spirit to energize them for mission (Acts 1:4,8). In 1:14 Luke uses the relatively infrequent word in New Testament Greek, homothumadon, which means “of one mind” or “of one purpose.” Luke also uses the same word to describe the unity of the early Jerusalem church in worship and fellowship (Acts 2:46) and in the praise of God (Acts 4:24). This significant word homothumadon signifies that the disciples in Acts 1 were “on the same page” – not only being in the same place physically and geographically (in the upper room), but in the “same place” mentally and consciously, with shared understanding and purpose. This could be called the principle of spiritual alignment: when the disciples were united, with their minds aligned with the purpose and plan of God, the Spirit powerfully energized their mission (Acts 2), and the church expanded in effective mission (Acts 3 - 28). The key here is to see the critical order of the process: 1) achieving unity of mind; 2) being empowered by the Spirit; 3) engaging in fruitful mission. All too often, “conventional” work in the church tries to accomplish step #3 without first achieving steps #1 and #2. The powerful transition from Acts 1 (“common mind”; “alignment”) to Acts 2 (empowerment by the Spirit) is reflective of the fact that the “Acts 1” unity is an answer to Jesus’ Jn.17 prayer for Christian unity – and of the fact that Jesus blesses richly those who obediently align themselves as answers to his prayer!

This crucial principle of alignment can be illustrated as follows: an ordinary bar of iron has countless iron molecules each of which is a tiny magnet (“dipole”), but the bar of iron as a whole has no magnetic force, because the individual iron molecules are oriented in random directions, and the little individual molecular magnets cancel one another out. If you take a powerful magnet and stroke the iron bar repeatedly, the molecules in the bar become aligned, the little magnets are working in the same direction, and an ordinary bar itself has become a powerful magnet that can do some “heavy lifting.”

Or consider the advice that the coach of the legendary hockey team – TeamUSA – that upset the Russians in the 1980 Winter Olympics – gave to his players: “Forget the name on the back of your jersey – your name – the only name that matters is the name on the front of the jersey: TeamUSA.” The being-of-one-mind alignment of TeamUSA lifted a talented collection of individual hockey players to an extraordinary level of team effectiveness.

Principle Three: Lectio Divina Committee Listening: Listening as Body of Christ

A third principle of effective committee meetings in the church could be called “lectio divina committee listening.” Most of us are familiar with the lectio divina method of scriptural prayer and meditation: a quiet, unhurried, contemplative and meditative listening to a passage of Scripture read perhaps several times, with a view to hearing the voice of God speaking to us through the biblical word. The same posture and attitude can inform how we listen to one another during the meeting. All too often, in the typical meeting, after the opening prayer we revert to our individualistic mode of relating, not really acting as though we really believed that we were connected as Body of Christ; not listening to one another intently and empathically, but being preoccupied with preparing our own statements so that we can voice our own ideas when we “get the microphone.” In the lectio divina model of committee listening, the committee members bring an awareness that as they meet, they are an expression of the Body of Christ, not autonomous individuals. They patiently try to hear what God might be wanting to say through the other members of the body.

This lectio divina style of committee listening can in itself be a small answer to Jesus’ High Priestly prayer for Christian unity (Jn.17:21) that the disciples would be one as he was one with the Father. Christian unity is not just about the “macro” issues of interdenominational relations – but can start at the “micro” level of a church committee meeting.

This type of listening was modeled by Jesus himself: “I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me … what I have heard from him I tell to the world” (Jn.8:28;26). These principles of having a “common mind” and “listening” are so powerful because they reflect the very inner life of the Triune God, manifested in the life and ministry of Jesus, and in Jesus’ relation to the Father: Jesus first listens to the Father; then aligns his mind with the Father’s mind; relinquishes his will to the Father’s will; and is then empowered by the Spirit for effective and fruitful ministry (cf. Lk.3:21, at the baptism: “as he was praying”; 4:1-13: listening to God/testing in the desert; 4:14: “Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit”).

In the plan of salvation, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit always work as a team – not as independent individuals. A church committee that patterns its methods of work on the model of the Trinity and on Jesus’ relationship to the Father will discover that God will bless the work in extraordinary ways.

A Concluding Summary: Some Suggestion on “How To”:

To conclude, how could these principles be applied in practice? Here are some suggestions: First, the leader of the meeting could recount the story of Moses (“What is that in your hand?”), and invite the members to “throw their staffs on the ground” at the outset of the meeting. Second, the committee spends some time in quiet prayer, asking for Christ to bring about a common mind, and asking the Holy Spirit to be present, and to help in attentive listening for hearing and discerning the Father’s ideas as the members speak with one another. Third, the committee then engages in its discussions and agenda items, but with a consciousness that “We are ‘Body of Christ’ as we meet as a committee – not separate and autonomous individuals.”

Fourth, and finally, before the close of the meeting, the committee again spends some time in quiet, silent reflection, asking God to “push forward” the ideas and action items that he wants to go forward. At the close of the time of silent reflection, the leader attempts to articulate any consensus that seems to have emerged, or items about which consensus has not been achieved.

It’s not rocket science; it is really quite simple. Try it in your next church committee meeting, and see if God turns what could be just another meeting into a surprisingly fruitful event in the life of the parish. Believe me – it really worked for Jesus – and it can work for us as well!

For Further Reading:

Roy Oswald & Robert E. Friedrich, Jr. Discerning Your Congregtion’s Future

(Alban Institute, 1996), pp.5; 145-146; “Centering Prayer”.

Charles M. Olsen, Transforming Church Boards into Communities of Spiritual Leaders

(Alban Institute, 1995).

By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute

I just hosted Will Willimon at a pastor’s event. His bio includes the fact that he has written sixty books. Do the math. Will Willimon is sixty plus years old. He has written sixty books. Aside for this fact about him, I really liked him.

It has taken me over a year and a half to write my little book and I am still not finished. But, it is this monthly obligation—opportunity—to blog to you that has sent me scurrying to my anthology of modern poetry.

E.E. Cummings has a wonderful little poem called [a man who had fallen among thieves]. In it he speaks of “a man who had fallen among thieves lay by the roadside on his back dressed in fifteenthrate ideas.” “Fifteenthrate ideas.” That’s me on most days. Asked to periodically pull my way away from the minutia of my administrative position here at the seminary, asked to pull my way away from the settled, undisturbed pond of my own middle age lifestyle, you would think I could come up with a first rate idea at least once a month that could provoke or cajole, or at least mildly stimulate another person.

I find that most of the time I wake up in the morning with a head full of fifteenthrate ideas. They actually seem like first-rate ideas when I am between that lukewarm time period between twilight and dawn when it is difficult distinguishing between dream and awakenness. But, when the sun comes up and the light shines on these great ideas, they fade like a bad pair of jeans.

And then I think of a pastor who every Monday morning must look deep into the lens of Scripture—every week—and the expectation is to craft a new sermon full of first rate ideas for the next Sunday. He or she has to start all over again, every week., month after month, year after year. From the perspective of the pew, is there anything worse than sitting down to a sermon full of fifteenthrate ideas?

Don’t get me wrong; Scripture is filled to the brim with first-rate ideas. Christ’s atoning work on the cross, as it finds its way through the annuls of the Old Testament and as it bears fruit in the final pages of Revelation, is the ultimate great idea. But, why is it that most of us have to be convinced of this every Sunday? Most pastors find their sanctuaries filled with expectations of something more than the simple call of the Gospel. They want something with a little more pizzazz, a bit more luster.

Why is this? More to the point, why am I stuck with this fifteenthrate idea in writing this blog?

Primitive Doesn’t Come Cheap: A Few Thoughts on Avatar

By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

In a fractious world, it is always nice to see a consensus emerge…even if it only concerns a blockbuster film. James Cameron’s much discussed Avatar has received pretty uniform reviews: great special effects (floating mountains!) and solid action sequences (a giant burning tree falls!) are balanced by a hopelessly derivative plot (Pocahontas in outer space) and a risible utopian ideology (primitive society=good/technological society=bad). The fact that most film critics (hardly a theologically orthodox bunch) seem to have been unimpressed with the movie’s shallow philosophizing was especially heartening: it was a small victory for common sense in the public square.

I would add only two points to the emerging consensus. Both of them are rich ironies lodged in the very heart of Cameron’s utopian vision. First, Cameron makes his case for the superiority of a natural, non-technological culture by using the highest of high-tech paraphernalia. The planet Pandora (Cameron is no Tolkien when it comes to name creation) is stunning to look at, but it is just an illusion; a digitized paradise that is lost the moment the projector turns off. A longing for Eden is natural enough, but we can’t simply wish ourselves back there, no matter what our CGI budget might be. There is a reason the Bible never provides a map back to the Garden. The way to God’s presence lies forward, not back.

The second point concerns Cameron’s relentless assault on capitalism, and especially on what used to be known in radical circles as “the military-industrial complex”. There is nothing particularly complex about Avatar’s portrayal of business – or at least the dirty business of obtaining Pandora’ s prize, the floating substance unobtanium (sic). Gargantuan tractors chew up most of Pandora’s flora, while military machines napalm the rest. As the remorseless capitalists firebomb the virgin forest, our hearts are meant to burn with vaguely Marxist rage.

The problem with this, though, is that Avatar cost anywhere from 250-500 million dollars to make, and I presume Cameron did not borrow the money from friends or hold an Avatar bakesale to fund the project. No, he is enmeshed in one of the most ruthlessly capitalist industries this side of Pandora, the Hollywood film machine. Consider among many angles on this Fox’ sly strategy to maximize Avatar’s profitability:

“Fox is also reportedly catching a break on the marketing side through deals with companies such as IMAX and Panasonic. And then there's also the chipmunk factor -- specifically Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel,, which opens a week after Avatar for the studio and is considered a ‘relatively safe sequel to a chipper family comedy that cost about $60 million and took in $217 million at the domestic box office when it was released two years ago.’ Thanks for the solid, Alvin!” (Scott Cellura, “How Much did Avatar Cost?” http://movies.ign.com/articles/104/1043543p1.html)

So if you want an interesting night out at the cinema, you can go ahead and see Avatar (Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel will by most accounts prove a bit disappointing). But if you want any substance, don’t turn to Cameron; you will only find yourself enmeshed in a thicket of self-contradiction.

What ticks God off . . .

By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus

February is “Black History Month” and GCTS-Charlotte has decided to celebrate this with a series of special chapels during our Saturday classes. This past Saturday, our own Dr. Rod Cooper, the Kenneth and Jean Hansen Professor of Discipleship and Leadership Development, was the speaker. I would like to share with you some of his thoughts from Saturday. He started with the story of a confrontation on the steps of a church in Jackson, Mississippi in 1965. “. . . at the top of the front steps stood a row of White ushers, arms linked barring the entrance to the church. There were 4 or 5 Black men dressed in suits standing at the bottom of those same steps, facing the doors. As one of the Black men approached the top step, an usher disengaged his arms from the others and smashed the would-be visitor in the face sending him sprawling down the steps to the ground. Inside, you could hear the congregation and the choir singing the hymn, >Love divine, all loves excellingY= Do you know what really ticks God off C its when people who say they belong to him don=t act like HimCespecially those who say they believe in HIS word.”

Dr. Cooper reminded us of the history of Israel. They were God=s chosen people, chosen to represent God to the rest of the world, different from all the cultures around them. Or they at least they were supposed to be. Instead, however, they tended to conform to the surrounding cultures - wanting a king, worshiping other gods, making unholy sacrifices. But AGod will not stand for his name to be trashed and his word to be broken. It is at those times that God sends a prophet. Prophets speak thus saith the LordCProphets get in the face of people who claim to know Him and admonish them to get their behavior in line with their belief system. . . . In the fullness of timeCGod sends prophets.@

AThere was another nation that rose up and proclaimed that it also believed in God and his word. The critical documents written for that nation were based upon the principles and beliefs of ONE bookCthe Bible. In factC180 of the first 200 colleges of this nation were Christian. God takes his word seriouslyCand those who say they believe it and when their behavior doesn=t match the wordChe sends a prophet. For you see if there is one thing that God cannot stand B it=s when people who say they know him don=t act like him and trash his reputation.@

We now have a national holiday celebrating the contribution of Dr. Martin Luther King. Dr King is a national hero, and his reputation has been sanitized - he was a great civil rights leader, a man pursuing social justice, etc. Dr. Cooper told us about how Dr. Martin Luther King saw is calling. After his first arrest and night in jail in 1963, at the age of 26, he questioned whether he was doing the right thing, especially putting his wife and child at risk for this cause. Dr. King prayed, and God spoke to him in Micah 6:8 A And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?@ Dr. Martin Luther King was not a social activist. He was a Prophet of God called to a people who claimed his name but did not live as God had called them to live.

Micah 6:8 describes the work of Dr. King, and tells us what are the distinguishing characteristics of a people who belong to God. This is not a suggestionCthis is a direct command. In fact it is a requirement to be called Amy people.@

To do justice: ADoing justice means to be ethically responsible and to take action. God is not a God who passively sits by and does nothing but he invades history to change the system to right wrongs. He did this when he said to PharaohClet my people goChe came to set the captive free. When we are prophetic about injustice and invade the system to change the systemCwe are acting on God=s behalfCwe are doing what a Good God would doCwe are doing justice.@

To love kindness: ATo love kindness literally means to respond to others with a spirit of generosityCgraceCand loyalty. It is the belief that love overpowers evil and truth overcomes wrong. It is the belief that essentially in the other person=s heart. there is a desire to do the right thing.@

To walk humbly with your God: ADr. King knew that in order to change the system with an attitude of love it would take a strong abiding relationship with God. Dr. King knew that when you attempt change in God=s power and in God=s way you will get God=s results. The word Awalk@ means to accompany. To stay close enough to God to get your orders from Him. Humility says I know where I have come fromCand it is only by God=s grace. Humility says that the battle is the Lord=s Humility is standing stillCand watching the salvation of God.@

Dr. Cooper told the story of a inventor who developed a new car. He brought the blue-prints to potential investors. The investors questioned whether it would work. The inventor invited them outside, where a model of the car waited. They went for a ride and discovered it was exactly what the blueprints said it would be. Then Dr. Cooper challenged all of us: the Bible is God=s blueprint for how we should live. Can others look at our lives and see the same thing in there as they read in God=s Word?

Thinking About Curricular Change: the Categories

By John Jefferson Davis
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics

During the months ahead the faculty will be engaged in discussions of curricular change, both in relation to the process of curriculum review mandated by the trustees, and in relation to the Kern Grant and the development of hybrid and web-based degree programs based at the Charlotte campus. This brief paper examines four basic categories that figure in such discussions, and argues that some philosophical assumptions commonly made about these categories are simplistic, and need to be rethought.

The opinions expressed in this paper are only my own: they do not express the views of the faculty or administration, and are offered only for the purpose of discussion only.

The four categories in question are “diversification”, “division of labor”, “quality”, and “residency”. Some specific proposals and recommendations will be stated for faculty discussion and debate.

1. The first category is that of diversification. Consider analogies from the worlds of ecology, farming, and investment: in agriculture and ecosystems, a “monoculture” or a national economy based on a single crop (e.g., rice or wheat) can be wiped out by the unexpected rapid spread of a disease or infestation; similarly, and ecosystem with less biodiversity is much more vulnerable to sudden environmental changes than an ecosystem with greater diversity. In the world of personal and institutional investing, it is prudent to have a diversified portfolio, given uncertain knowledge of the future and the rapid changes in a technology-driven, globalized economy. The implication that could be drawn here in relation to theological education is that a school with greater diversity of courses, faculty, degree offerings, and delivery systems would be less vulnerable to unexpected economic, demographic, technological, and geopolitical shocks than an institution with less breadth of diversity.

Other factors being equal – and in practice, of course, this may be a complex judgment to make – it would be advantageous for Gordon-Conwell to increase the diversity of its degree programs and delivery systems. This could be related to a principle of “inventory”: other factors being equal, the provider with a broader and richer inventory of its goods and services will be at a competitive advantage relative to a provider with a more limited inventory.

2. The second category is that of the division of labor. A standard economics textbook illustration of this principle is that of the lawyer and the administrative assistant: even though the lawyer may be a faster typist than the administrative assistant, overall productivity will be greater if the lawyer concentrates on that area where she has the greatest comparative advantage, i.e., doing law, and delegates the word processing to the administrative assistant. In the seminary’s current situation, this suggests a new way of framing the “adjunct” discussion: greater use of properly vetted adjuncts will allow full-time, tenure track faculty to spend more time where they should have a comparative advantage: research and publication. These latter activities help to build and maintain the school’s international reputation and “brand”, while adjuncts contribute to quality classroom teaching and support the school’s economic base. Full-time faculty continue, of course, to contribute by way of excellent classroom teaching. (This scenario suggests that Gordon-Conwell should see itself more like “Harvard” than “Phoenix University” – though it is, of course, different from both in its fundamental mission.)

3. The third category is that of quality in theological education. All faculty are agreed that Gordon-Conwell education should be “excellent” and of high “quality”. A distinction between what philosophers of language call “binary” and “graded” categories should be noted at this point. A category such as “pregnant” is binary in that is “all-or-nothing” in character; a woman is either pregnant or not. A term such as “tall” or the category of “tall persons” is graded, in that there is no one-size-fits-all class of “tall” persons.

Our discussions of “quality” in education commonly fail to make this distinction and treat quality as a binary concept. Consider the following question: “Does the Michelin brand represent an excellent quality of tire?” The answer, most people would say, is “Yes, Michelin does represent excellent quality” – but more precisely, we need to ask, “What grade of quality are you talking about – and what are you willing to pay for it? We have tires that are ‘good’, some that are ‘better’, and some that are the ‘best’. How much do you want to pay?” If (many/most) faculty assume that full-time, residential education is the “best” [an assumption that needs substantiation by empirical research] then let those who can afford it pay for the “best”, while also having in inventory an educational product that is “good” (enough) or “better” for those who seek it at their given price point and personal cost-benefit calculus. The assumption in this latter scenario and Michelin tire analogy would be that theological orthodoxy and competent graduate-level instruction is a “binary” characteristic (the GCTS course either has it, or it is not offered at all), whereas quality – if viewed primarily in terms of residential “face time”, is a graded category.

4. The fourth category is that of residency or (personal) “presence”. The argument here is that “residency”, like that of “quality”, is in fact a graded and not a binary category, under the existing conditions of modern and postmodern digital cultures. “Residency” or “modes of one person being ‘present’ to another” is no longer a binary category – either you are (fully) physically/molecularly present, or you are (fully) “absent”. This simple binary distinction of present/absent has been obsolete at least since the invention of writing: there are many modes of mediated personal presence – writing, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, video and now, in something of a “quantum leap” in technology – the internet: email, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, videoconferencing, and so forth. The point to made here is that mediated presence is a form of “real” presence – real, but different in various ways from immediate physical or molecular presence. Digital realities are a new form of reality, and digitally mediated form of presence have both detriments and advantages compared to physical modes of presence. Virtual presence should be seen as a (graded) form of “real” presence, with the understanding that the category “real” is not exhausted by the “physical”. From the point of a biblical ontology, we can recognize at least three modes of real presence: molecular/physical; virtual; and spiritual (e.g. “I am with you always, to the very end of the age …”). Today’s learners expect to be “present” to one another in both physical and virtual modes, and our challenge as faculty is to settle on an appropriate mix of these modes, not insisting on one to the exclusion of the other.

Implications and Recommendations:

1. All campuses should seek to increase the diversity and “inventory” of delivery

systems, especially online/hybrid models;

2. Make increased use of properly vetted adjuncts to support the full-time, tenure-

track faculty for research and publication (“division of labor” principle);

3. Increase number of allowable Semlink/online courses for all degree programs to

67% [cf. Asbury programs; ATS current standards];

4. To increase scheduling and curricular flexibility, introduce (course) credits of 1, 2

and (4) credit hours in addition to existing 3 credit-hour courses;

5. Consider “Open-Sourcing” the curriculum, i.e., “giving away” online [iTunes Univ.;

YouTube] Semlink and campus-recorded lectures and courses (non-credit) following the MIT, and the “Google strategy” to draw potential students to the seminary’s website; give Semlink course materials online to alumna/ae to build stronger alumna/ea loyalty. (cf. Lk.6:38, “Give and it will be given to you”; Ecc.11:1, “Cast

Your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.”)

A final observation: the changes proposed above would seem to be consistent with the founding visions of A.J. Gordon and Russell Conwell to provide affordable, biblically orthodox theological education to working adults and part-time students who might not otherwise have such access.

January 29, 2010