Insights
The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary
SPRING 2025
Lincoln • Smallwood • Yamada • Zulu • Bailey-Hainer
Allison • Briner • Riemersma • Jensen
Insights
The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary
Spring 2025
Volume 140 Number 2
Editor: William Greenway
Editorial Board: Ángel J. Gallardo, Crystal Silva-McCormick, Jeff Sanchez
The Faculty of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Sarah Allen
Margaret Aymer
Patricia Bonilla
Rodney A. Caruthers II
Gregory L. Cuéllar
Ted V. Foote Jr.
Ángel J. Gallardo
William Greenway
Carolyn Browning Helsel
Philip Browning Helsel
José R. Irizarry
David H. Jensen
Donghyun Jeong
Jennifer L. Lord
Song-Mi Suzie Park
Cynthia L. Rigby
Crystal Silva-McCormick
Eric Wall
Andrew Zirschky
Insights: The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary is published two times each year by Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, 100 East 27th Street, Austin, TX 78705-5797.
e-mail: wgreenway@austinseminary.edu
Web site: www.austinseminary.edu
Entered as non-profit class bulk mail at Austin, Texas, under Permit No. 2473. POSTMASTER: Address service requested. Send to Insights, 100 East 27th Street, Austin, TX 78705-5797.
SUBSCRIPTIONS: If you wish to subscribe or to no longer receive this publication, please send an email to advancement@austinseminary.edu.
© Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary Printing runs are limited. When available, additional copies may be obtained for $3 per copy. Permission to copy articles from Insights: The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary for educational purposes may be given by the editor upon receipt of a written request.
Some previous issues of Insights: The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary, are available on microfilm through University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (16 mm microfilm, 105 mm microfiche, and article copies are available). Insights is indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, Index to Book Reviews in Religion, Religion Indexes: RIO/RIT/IBRR 1975- on CD-ROM, Religious & Theological Abstracts, url:www.rtabstracts.org & email:admin@rtabstracts.org, and the ATA Religion Database on CD-ROM, published by the American Theological Library Association, 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606-6701; telephone: 312-454-5100; e-mail: atla@atla.com; web site: www.atla.com; ISSN 1056-0548.
The views and opinions expressed in our published works are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary or its Editors.
COVER:“The Three Holy Women at the Tomb” This image is in the public domain courtesy of the National Gallery of Art, Washington.
Honoring Professor Timothy Lincoln
Timothy Lincoln
Introduction
The Reverend Timothy Lincoln, Ph.D., served Austin Seminary from 1994–2024 as Director of the Stitt Library. For many of those years, he also served as research professor in theological education and as accreditation liaison with the Association of Theological Schools and the Southern Association of Colleges and Universities. Tim also served on the board of directors and as president of Atla, the premier global curator of research resources in theology, and also on the Synod Council of the Southwestern Texas Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). In addition, Tim was intimately involved in conceiving, fund-raising for, and designing our beautiful new Wright Learning and Information Center, which incorporates the Stitt Library.
Tim chose to focus our lead essays on the future of theological education. In his essay and interview on “The End and Afterlife of Theological Education,” Tim engages Ted Smith’s The End of Theological Education (Eerdmans, 2023). Our three other distinguished essayists are the Reverend Teresa Smallwood, JD, PhD, dean, vicepresident for Academic Affairs and James Franklin Kelly and Hope Eyster Kelly associate professor of public theology at United Lutheran Seminary (Gettysburg, PA); the Reverend Frank Yamada, Ph.D., executive director of the Association of Theological Schools; and the Reverend Moses Zulu, PhD, who teaches in the Department of Systematic Theology at Justo Mwale University (Lusaka, Zambia). These diverse, insider reflections on the future of theological education are informed and provocative—a fitting tribute to Tim.
Sharing personal remembrances of Tim’s professional contributions are Brenda Bailey-Hainer, retired executive director of Atla; Jim Allison, former Austin Seminary Board of Trustees member; Sue Briner, bishop of the ELCA Southwestern Texas Synod; Alison Riemersma, executive assistant to the academic dean at Austin Seminary; and Dave Jensen, professor of constructive theology and former academic dean at Austin Seminary.
As is evident in these essays from a remarkably diverse and high-powered “who’s who” of professional colleagues, Tim is beloved and highly respected. It has been a joy for all of us to work on this issue in honor of his career and retirement. Congratulations, Reverend Doctor Timothy Lincoln, and on behalf of all who have benefited from your considerable efforts in libraries, accrediting agencies, seminaries, and the church, thank you.
William Greenway Editor
Insights: The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary
The End and Afterlife of Theological Education
Timothy Lincoln
Ted Smith’s long-awaited discussion of the current state of mainline seminary education has the edgy title The End of Theological Education (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2023). Those who attended Austin Seminary’s 2017 Currie Lectures were privileged to hear Smith’s earlier ideas about large changes in Protestant church life and their impacts on seminaries. His book represents the maturation of his thinking and is worthy of reading by all who care about mainline Christianity and the seminaries that share mainline beliefs and values. This essay continues the conversation about what might be next for seminaries. The opinions expressed are my own. They are informed and limited by my experiences as a theological educator at two theological schools (one Catholic and one Presbyterian) and as a member of accreditation evaluation committees. They are also shaped by life as a white man, a member of the middle class (if there is still such a thing), and a convert to Lutheranism from the free church tradition. In this essay, I summarize some of the key arguments Smith makes in his book. I then focus on the implications for mainline seminaries. Reading my summary is no substitute for carefully
Dr. Timothy Lincoln joined the Austin Seminary faculty as director of the library in 1994. Previously, he served as a periodicals librarian at the Maryknoll School of Theology (Maryknoll, NY) and as a pastor in Detroit Lakes, MN. In 2002, he co-authored a successful $1.5 million grant from the Lilly Endowment, which established the College of Pastoral Leaders. He was appointed associate dean for seminary effectiveness in 2005, with responsibilities for institutional planning and evaluation. He received the Ph.D. in higher education administration from The University of Texas at Austin in 2009. He has served on many accreditation committees for the Association of Theological Schools and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. He is a member of Atla (formerly the American Theological Library Association), having served on its board of directors and as president in 2017. He wrote Qualitative Research: A Field Manual for Ministry Students (Atla Open Press, 2021) and is currently writing a book on planning and evaluation for seminary librarians. He was also published in journals including Feminist Theology, Judaism, International Journal of Christianity and Education, and Theological Librarianship. He was granted emeritus status by the Board of Trustees upon his retirement in June 2024. A rostered minister in the Northwest Synod of Wisconsin (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), he and his wife, Laura Lincoln, live in Eau Claire, WI.
reading The End in its entirety. I hope this essay provokes reading of the book and thinking about the possibilities open to mainline theological education—the afterlife of what Smith calls the professional education model.
The Argument In Brief
Smith details two large transitions in mainline Protestant church life in the United States. The first was the transition from Protestantism as the established church (in some states) to a web of disestablished voluntary associations. This transition occurred in the early 19th century. Although we may not think about our local congregation or our church body as a voluntary association like the VFW or the Rotary Club, sociologists of religion frequently classify Christian groups with this label. Once mainline Protestants were no longer in a privileged relationship with the state, Smith argues, they needed to rethink the kind of leaders that they wanted in a world where individual Christians felt free to leave the denomination of their childhood to become Baptists, Presbyterians, or Disciples of Christ.
The second transition, which unfolded in the twentieth century, was the rise of expressive individualism. As a mindset, expressive individualism requires us to follow the creed of existential philosophers: following one’s heart is always the right course of action. As a result of the rise of expressive individualism, the ties that bind church members together in a congregation or denomination have frayed. For instance, Christians now unabashedly ‘shop’ for congregations that meet their needs. Following Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim, Smith thinks expressive individualism is not a stance taken only by selfish people. Rather, all of us are products of a social process called individualization.1 This process requires us to make choices (majors in college, spending money on Beyoncé concert tickets, our personal brand) which, taken together, produce our identities. Because of the power of expressive individualism, denominations and local congregations no longer have the level of loyalty they had in the mid-twentieth century. This unraveling is the time between the times in which we live now.2
According to Smith, these two transitions profoundly affected understandings of who ministers are and of how they should be trained. The good minister for an established church was essentially an office holder granted respect because of their office. By contrast, the good minister for leading a voluntary association was a professional, a specific kind of expert with abilities to lead voluntary associations—including recruiting new members and raising money. Protestant theological seminaries were established in the United States to train such professional ministers, envisioned as “full-time, MDiv-certified, [and] pension-earning” (107).3 Since the 1960s, expressive individualism pushes these ministers to demonstrate that they are also authentic. For example, “the authority of authenticity comes through clothing or accessories that display individuality, whether that is a Hawaiian shirt, statement eyewear, or skinny jeans with expensive sneakers” (109).
As Smith repeatedly asserts, the decline of mainline Christianity, as measured by
The End and Afterlife of Theological Education
activity in voluntary associations, did not happen because Christians stopped loving Jesus or began espousing silly notions about justice and inclusion. Participation in all sorts of voluntary associations has declined because being part of a voluntary association is no longer perceived by many people as a requirement for being a fulfilled, productive, authentic person. Ministry as a profession and theological education as professional education worked well for a hundred and fifty years. They just don’t anymore.
My little summary does not capture the nuance of Smith’s argument.4 His analysis, however, rings true, even though it pains me as someone (like Ted Smith himself) who became a member of a mainline church, went to a theological school that trained professionals, and valued my service to others as a minister of a mainline denomination.
What Comes After the End?
So, what are ways forward for churches and theological education? In the final two chapters of The End, Smith suggests how mainline seminaries might change to be vibrant signs of God’s activity in the emerging world. Attaining such vibrancy requires what Smith calls the all-in renunciation of the model of theological education as professional education. Once that model has been abandoned, schools can offer theological education that does not strive to produce expert professionals. Rather, theological education could more directly focus on the mystery of God rather than the ever-present demand of professional education to be useful. Some seminaries might still rigorously educate persons for leadership in congregations, but the contents and pedagogies of that education will differ from the longstanding norm. In making this renunciation, Smith further argues, seminaries face an array of choices. Smith says that these choices should build on what he calls “affordances,” which are “a set of concrete, historically contingent, morally ambivalent forms that make possible a range of actions” (169). Affordance invites but does not predetermine a course of action. For instance, having strong relationships between school leaders and civil rights organizations is an affordance; such an affordance might be acted on in several different ways. Another term for affordances might be assets of various kinds. Smith discusses several affordances.5 (I was surprised to discover that ecumenical relationships is not on his list.)6 To keep this essay within bounds, I comment on two of them.
First, Smith argues that expressive individualism’s valuing of authenticity is an affordance because Christians believe that true authenticity has God as one’s focus. “Telling the story of one’s own emergence will always involve talk of God” (177). Theological schools could become midwives for the exploration of one’s life and values “for everyone seeking to fashion an authentic identity in relation to God” (179). Such formational work could happen in formal degree programs, but also through shorter courses, retreats, mentoring, or immersive festivals that “would feel less like homecoming and more like Burning Man” (197). A second affordance is minis-
try preparation that does not presuppose that graduates will become professional leaders of voluntary associations. He means that there are opportunities to train ministers for work as bi-vocational or tent-making ministers (i.e., ministry happens without the expectation to receive a salary), and as chaplains. “Seeing the full significance ... of such ministries should lead seminaries … to devote much greater shares” of resources “to form people to do them well” (187).
Utilizing these two affordances, Smith argues, would not make theological education less vigorous. Nor would seminaries necessarily stop offering the M.Div. degree for those who desire it. But seminaries focusing on these opportunities might become less ‘schoolish’ than before. They would feel different from graduate or professional schools at universities. In fact, “some [revised institutional forms] might involve giving up accreditation or even the whole idea of degrees” (198).
What Next? Campuses, Faculty, and Libraries, Oh My
In my first reading of The End, I was engaged primarily by Smith’s critique and his lamentations for the demise of the kind of church and theological school that shaped generations of believers, including Smith, and me. Further careful re-reading (which involved taking emotional time outs) helped me more fully grasp Smith’s important theological point: the church and theological education aren’t dying simply because they are being profoundly transformed. This transformation is happening, in large measure, because of the rise of individual expressivism in the United States and the decline of voluntary associations as a useful organizational form for nourishing the religious yearnings of people. Theological schools will adapt in different ways. A clear implication of Smith’s argument is that denominations and congregations will and should change. The End does not discuss in any detail what those new social arrangements might be like. The changes that theological schools make will happen with confusion, lament, experimentation, and tears. What might such changes mean for campuses, faculty, and the libraries of mainline seminaries?
Most mainline seminary campuses were built to support what the Association of Theological Schools calls the residential model. Such seminaries looked like private high schools. They had classrooms, chapels, dining halls, apartments (a few lingering dormitories), gyms, and parking lots. They featured attractive public spaces. The print library collection contains tens of thousands of volumes. Supporting campuses like these makes sense to support a residential model. By contrast, if a school chooses forms of theological education that do not assume ongoing face-toface formation (classes, worship, informal community) for full-time students, then perhaps not. If a seminary chooses to train bi-vocational pastors, for instance, it might make sense not to assume that students would live in seminary-provided housing at all. Perhaps seminary campuses should be thought of more like retreat centers or camps. Such places—which historically have been important to the formation of Christians—have a different scale than a residential campus. They also cost less to maintain. My point is simply that the campus footprint might be dif-
The End and Afterlife of Theological Education
ferently configured than the campus that serves the residential professional model. Experience teaches that schools that move to hybrid or exclusively online delivery of courses typically shrink the amount of real estate that they own or rent.
Schools utilizing the affordances that Smith identifies would also need to rethink what faculty work means at multiple levels. Smith wants pedagogy to become less instrumental and more open to sit with the big questions of faith. “An education of authenticity would be animated by a different set of questions. Not: Will it preach? But: What does it mean to me? To us?” (180). I know that seminary teachers honor such questions. My point is that understanding faculty work to be profoundly formative and less academic and instrumental would blur the line between what some schools think the campus pastor does with students and what all professors appropriately do. To put it another way, in the revised model, a good professor would be a faithful, learned, compassionate, and wise mentor.7 A professor who thinks that teaching students gets in the way of their real work of research and publication would be unhappy at such a seminary. As would a professor who thinks that students who do not read biblical languages (or German or French) are not adequately equipped to wrestle with Christian texts, practices, and traditions. Decisions to renounce the professional model, when coupled with decisions to de-emphasize formal degrees, would no doubt lead a theological school to fundamentally rethink the kind of persons invited to serve as faculty members. To my knowledge, no doctoral program accredited by ATS currently forms doctoral students to be the kind of faculty envisioned by Smith’s radical renunciation of the professional model. Doctoral education in the disciplines valued by seminaries would also need to be fundamentally redesigned to train faculty who fit the new model.
Finally, making the renunciations and utilizing the affordances that Smith names would reshape theological libraries, perhaps as profoundly as changes in information technology reshaped seminary libraries since the Internet became a tool for more than a few research universities.8 Seminary libraries in the United States have generally understood themselves as either serving a ‘teaching-centered’ institution or a ‘research-centered’ one. The former kind of library emphasized providing access to the relevant literature in the disciplines taught by the faculty. The latter category was home to fewer schools, often university divinity schools, which sought to support both student learning and faculty research in depth. In both cases, it was important to have professional library staff and sufficient (or abundant) information resources.
Given limits of funding, theological schools making the renunciations that Smith calls for also must think anew about the role of library resources for teaching, learning, and research. To be sure, seminary librarians frequently help students navigate theological education in ways that are not, strictly speaking, part of their job description. Such support might well be aligned with formative aspirations of a reformed seminary.9 At the same time, it is not clear to me why a seminary devoted to theological education for the whole people of God (rather than exclusively leaders-in-training via something like current MDiv curricula) would spend the amount
of money on the theological libraries (print collections, online collections, and professional librarians) expected by the professional education or research institution model. Articulating this argument will not cause any of my fellow theological librarians to buy me a beer at a conference. Shrinking the scope of library services in theological education feels to me like a loss and not an evolution into another good thing. My feelings notwithstanding, for theological schools that renounce the professional model as the core of their organizational purpose, there is little reason to continue library services fitted to the former model.
In summary, I have suggested some of the specific ways that theological schools ought to change if they renounce the model of theological education as education for professional ministry (full-time, a middle-class salary and benefits). These changes would reshape campuses, faculty work, and libraries—at a minimum. They would also reshape the relations between such schools and their constituencies. Implementing deep change would earn governing board members and seminary presidents few kudos from employees and constituents who affirm the enduring value of the professional model. So why willingly enter the whitewater of change? The risk of not making bold changes is that seminaries will no longer have students willing to be educated for the ministry model that works for fewer and fewer congregations. The risk is that donors and funding agencies (Lilly Endowment Inc., I salute you) will choose to support organizations that they discern are more in tune with the signs of the times. The risk is loss of engagement with the joys, sorrows, and muddled lives of the people that God loves. The hope offered by Smith is that “the end of what we mistake for the whole world is not the end of God’s world” (24). Nor is it the end of the Christian church. Nor of theological education. With fear and trembling—and with creativity and God’s grace—the end of theological education will be followed by an afterlife.
NOTES
1. Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim, Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences (London: Sage Publications Ltd., 2002).
2. I recently saw a commercial on television for Thrivent, a financial services company with strong ties to Lutherans. The commercial says that Thrivent services can help clients follow their hearts. You can watch it on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDRe9t0oyBo
3. In my view, Smith understates the tension that American mainline schools and university divinity schools have lived with between, on the one hand, the need to professionally train clergy and, on the other hand, the pursuit of knowledge (in this case, knowledge of God) for its own sake. This tension spawned an entire literature in the previous generation. Two key works were Edward Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) and David H. Kelsey, Between Athens and Berlin: The Theological Education Debate (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1993). A graduate of Austin Seminary once summed up this tension by telling me “Austin Seminary wants to produce pastors, but the smart kind.”
4. He also notes, for instance, that mainline voluntary associations combatted racism and social injustice. They were the vehicles that taught generations about Jesus Christ and supported believers responding to God’s love.
5. The affordances are: authenticity (what individuals must build for themselves to be a happy person); changing demographics (the eventual move of white persons to minority status as the proportion of
The End and Afterlife of Theological Education
persons of color rises in the United States); the rise of non-professional religious leaders (e.g., bi-vocational pastors); political solidarity with non-professionals; the rise of leaderful movements (such as Black Lives Matter); and the elasticity of seminaries as complex institutions.
6. In my view, ecumenical relationships (such as the full communion agreement between the PC(USA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the denomination to which I belong) provide opportunities to share resources and think creatively about church life beyond the heyday of voluntary associations. I am saddened that these relationships have led to so little cooperation in theological education.
7. Smith notes that a move away from an instrumental view of knowledge resonates with the training and passions of many faculty members, who have been steeped in the idea that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is valuable.
8. It bears remembering that in 1992, the information resources readily available to students and faculty in most seminary libraries were exclusively the printed books and periodicals housed in the library building.
9. See, for instance, Jane Lenz Elder, Duane Harbin, David Schmersal, and Rebecca Howdeshell, The Antediluvian Librarians’ Secrets for Success in Seminary and Theology School (Dallas, TX: Bridwell Press, 2022).
Insights Editor William Greenway Interviews Timothy Lincoln
Why focus on the future of theological education?
First, progressive Protestant congregations, denominations, and seminaries are in a state of flux, so the topic is timely. Second, theological education has always been one of my main research interests since I began working in seminaries as a librarian.
In The End of Theological Education, Ted Smith argues that seminaries should no longer aim to provide professional education for ministers because of the rise of expressive individualism…
Right. His argument has three steps. First, expressive individualism, which emphasizes individual construction of one’s own identity, breaks down denominational loyalty because, as expressive individuals, we can build meaningful lives without identifying with voluntary associations like the Lutheran church or the Presbyterian church. Second, by “professional education” Smith means training ministers that will have respect and full-time careers serving congregations. But third, fewer and fewer congregations can pay the costs of calling full-time ministers. Why? Because people don’t come to church as much, since they don’t feel they need church to shape their identity and lead good lives. Because of these changes, MDiv enrollments have been declining. A final point that is neither in my essay nor in Smith’s book: Smith’s analysis would have been stronger if he had reflected upon the economic hollowing out of the middle class. If mainline denominations had more financial resources, we’d think very differently about the state of theological education. In summary, Smith thinks seminaries should reject professional education as a business plan because there are so few professional jobs for pastors.
You join Smith in calling for an “all-in renunciation” of the professional model and suggest theological education more directly focus on the mystery of God rather than on “being useful.”
Smith and I are not renouncing academic or formational rigor, only the professional model as a business plan. And as I said in the article, virtually every professor I’ve ever met in mainline seminaries cares deeply about the mystery of God. They are not only concerned with technical matters or what preaches. On that point, I think Smith makes an inaccurate contrast between how things work now and what he proposes. What replaces the professional model? We don’t know. That’s why so
Interview
many people are anxious. A given seminary might become a contemplative retreat center. Or become a think tank like Auburn Seminary. Or they might focus exclusively on training bi-vocational pastors or lay pastors. Smith argues that such shifts fit the needs of our cultural moment.
If we go “all-in” and renounce credentialing people as experts in theology, Bible, pastoral care, preaching, and the like, is this not a real loss in terms of church leadership, or do you see this as a positive?
I do not think Smith is entirely consistent on this point. In several places in the book, he says, “Of course, there will be people with traditional MDiv skills.” Well, where will they be trained? At a seminary. All mainline congregations have sessions and councils. These leaders are responsible for local church ministries. To use Lutheran language: all the baptized bear witness to the gospel and strive for justice and peace in their communities. So, a pastor isn’t the only leader.
In terms of leadership, here’s how I think we will bump along for the next decade. First, congregations with enough money will call full-time pastors who have MDivs or MAs and the expertise that Austin Seminary provides to students now. Second, there will be congregations who will have leaders with MDiv or MA degrees, but they will work less than full-time because congregations can’t afford to pay them. Those leaders will be semi-retired people or bi-vocational. Third, there will be congregations whose leaders don’t have a seminary degree, such as lay ministers or certified ruling elders. Hundreds of small Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal congregations across the country are already served by lay ministers. Often, they focus mostly on leading worship and pastoral care. Their training is quite diverse. I do not see these changes as positive; I see them as occurring because of the decline in participation in church life and the economic hollowing out of the middle class.
I too see these trends, not only in churches but in other professions such as journalism— not because people don’t want local newspapers with credentialed journalists, but because of the hollowing out of the middle class. Perhaps there is something good about alternative news or pastors with alternative training, and it is surely true that the entire congregation exercises leadership, and perhaps the loss of traditional MDiv training among pastors is economically inevitable. But are you seeing it as an inevitability to which we must adapt or as a real gain?
At some points in the book, Smith laments these changes. I personally think it’s a loss, even though I know that some professionally trained people have abused their power. Even those with professional training can be bad practitioners. But people without training are more likely to be poor practitioners at times, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. Leaders with seminary training have learned from the experience of generations and experts about how to lead communities with compassion. Professional ministers are trained to know, for instance, about stages
Interview
of the grieving process, and they have a specialized understanding of how to offer counsel. To be sure, people no longer automatically respect pastors with MDivs because of their credentialing. But if you have expertise, you’ll be able to understand why that is, and you’ll be better able to work with and lead your people. So, it’s a loss.
You follow Smith in suggesting seminaries of the future may not be concerned about degrees and accreditation. So, what about the future of the Association of Theological Schools (ATS)?
As far as my foggy crystal ball can see, ATS will continue accrediting seminaries because all kinds of people still want expertise and credentialled theological degrees, and ATS exists to articulate common standards for those degrees. Will all the mainline seminaries decide Smith is the guru and stop offering degrees? Nope. Many mainline seminaries, along with evangelical and Catholic schools, will continue to work with ATS because they want to be part of an association that cares about theological education as a formal, thoughtful structure for training future ministers.
Is what you’re describing here something you see happening across the board, or is this only about mainline seminaries?
Smith’s analysis is only about mainline seminaries. He says nothing about the Catholic Church and says almost nothing about the revivifying effect that immigration—in particular from South and Central America, Korea, and Nigeria—has had on American Christianity. These immigrants have enhanced the vibrancy of mainline congregations. The book’s title is hyperbole because he addresses only one of three wedges of theological education: mainline schools. There are also Catholic and free church/non-denominational wedges. ATS standards have gotten more flexible over the years primarily because as evangelical schools joined and got an increasing number of votes, standards moved further away from the mainline professional norm. Those standards will continue to change.
You appear to recommend a move from residential to hybrid or online education…
Schools should use whatever pedagogy and modalities are best suited for their vision for a given program, whether hybrid, online, residential, or intensive. Of course, schools must be able to afford to offer degrees in the modalities they choose. Austin has a hybrid Master of Arts in Youth Ministry Program that has real strengths, though it isn’t the same education you would get if you moved to Austin, lived in on-campus housing, and discussed Barth over breakfast with your friends. But back to the money. Mainline seminaries have fewer resources than in the past, so they’re making decisions so they can stay in business. Recently, McCormick and the Lutheran School of Theology sold their buildings and moved to a cheaper part of Chicago at the Catholic Theological Union. Why? Resource constraints and declining enrollments, perhaps because there are fewer full-time jobs for their gradu-
Interview
ates. Some PC(USA) and UMC theological schools have more options about educational modality because of the strength of their endowments.
You were Director of the Austin Seminary library and played a major role in the construction of our recently completed and beautiful library, the Wright Center. But you question the annual costs of a research library, let alone investment in brick and mortar…
A seminary should have a library that fits its mission. For us, that meant a good academic library with a lot of built-in flexibility. That’s why the building has wideopen spaces, the top floor is a multi-purpose room, and other spaces are dedicated to using technology or for individual study. There is space for print books, but now, a lot of the collection lives in the cloud. Why? Because that combination serves students well. I think the library’s going to serve the faculty and students well for years to come. Because we offer residential theological education, we need to have all the affordances that the Wright Center provides. Now, if your seminary doesn’t offer graduate degrees at all, you no doubt would think differently about the kind of library that meets the needs of those whom you serve.
You say Smith’s ideas would also require a fundamental change in the kind of persons invited to serve as faculty members...
He’s saying faculty members should be every bit as concerned about the state of a student’s soul as they are about wrestling with Schleiermacher or pursuing sourcecritical study of the Pentateuch. Smith means professors should have holistic relationships with students, a combination of scholar, listener, role model, and guru. So, an important question for seminaries is, “Where do I find faculty who can do all that?” I doubt that a doctoral program would give a newly minted PhD all of those tools in their toolkit. But I can imagine a doctoral program saying, “In our program, you have a major in theology or New Testament, and your minor is in spiritual direction or counseling.” Traditionally, doctoral education tends to make you the deepest expert on the smallest topic, right? Smith goes towards a more comprehensive approach.
Is there a caricature of faculty in play here, especially faculty from theological seminaries in contrast to university divinity schools? Many of us have an MDiv, extensive training in pastoral care, and years of pastoral experience. That may not be as common in university departments of religion or divinity schools, but Smith’s portrait sounds like a caricature of seminary faculty…
Yes. I think if Smith looked deeply into mainline seminaries, he would discover around three-quarters of professors have an MDiv, which gives them holistic habits and pastoral skills. So, I agree with you that his characterization may be more applicable to some universities than to mainline seminaries.
Near the end of your article, you explicitly applaud the Lilly Endowment... Yes, I do. Lilly is able and willing to fund experiments. Lilly cares about congregational life and theological education. Austin Seminary got a 2020 grant for the Houses of Hope initiative that was almost a million dollars. Dr. Carolyn Helsel recently received a million dollar plus grant for the Faithful Preaching Project. Some Lilly initiatives seek to help seminaries figure out how to change themselves to be both viable and to make a difference to the church and world.
I am more critical of Lilly, but I agree about the trends, so for many years— I find this heart-breaking—when talented American students at Austin have told me they want to pursue doctoral studies in theology, I say if you want a career engaged in top-level academic research, you should look to adjacent fields, such as law, economics, or international relations. On the other hand, from Paul, Augustine, and Calvin to the Niebuhrs, Gutiérrez, Cone, and Ruether, high-level theological training and research has endured for millennia…
Not everyone is called to it, but pondering holy things is worthwhile. If there are fewer people doing that in their academic careers, certainly that is a loss. But I don’t think all of the candles are going to be blown out. I’m for high-level theological reflection, but PhD level theological education costs money. Dan Aleshire, past executive director of the Association of Theological Schools, argued that there is an analogy between the work of seminaries today and the work of monasteries in the late first millennium. Both are key preservers of knowledge that cannot be preserved elsewhere. Monks believed it was their job to keep copying manuscripts for future generations because the texts were of enduring value and witnessed to what God has done. The future of theology as a discipline in North America will still reside in some seminaries, monasteries, and religious studies departments—frankly, in places that have funding.
You refer in your title and in your conclusion to an afterlife for theological education…
As I see it, there are afterlives for theological education. Fifteen years from now, some mainline seminaries will still offer rigorous residential MDiv education for students who will be professional ministers. But many schools will offer hybrid, online, and non-degree programs to serve leaders who will not hold full-time ministerial jobs. These schools will be convinced that offering these educational programs is how these seminaries serve the church and the world. Perhaps Austin Seminary will have a professor or staff member whose focus is community activism, not teaching MDiv students. That’s the kind of thing Smith envisions.
Any vital points you have not been able to make?
I would have been truer to Smith’s ideas if I could have talked more about the seven affordances that he discusses. Affordances are assets denominations or seminar-
ies have that can be leveraged to reform and revitalize church life. And I would have said more about denominations who have signed full communion (ecumenical) agreements but have done a poor job of partnering with people outside of their own brand. I include my own denomination in that critique. In some cities I would rather there were one ecumenical mainline seminary instead of several struggling schools. This is an issue of Christian stewardship and common witness. I might also have said more clearly that I’m in favor of church leaders with expertise.
Closing words?
First, I repent of any ways I have misrepresented Ted Smith’s work. The End of Theological Education is worth engaging. Please read the whole book. Second, as I was reflecting upon all this, the first stanza from Fred Pratt Green’s 1968 hymn, “The Church of Christ in Every Age,” came to mind. It’s about hope. It talks about the people of God (church) that are “beset by change” but, guided by God’s Spirit, become transformed as if rising fom the dead. That’s true for the church and true for theological education as well. So, let’s not lose hope.
Hear the entire interview on the Insights podcast.
The Podcast Listen to Editor Bill Greenway’s interview with Timothy Lincoln at the link below or scan the QR code to the left.
The Public Turn in Theological Education
Teresa Smallwood
On April 27, 1958, Mike Wallace, a leading news personality and world-renowned journalist, interviewed Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr, then vice-president of Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Wallace began the interview with an introduction characterizing Niebuhr as “a Protestant minister, one of the most important and challenging religious thinkers in the world.”1 The interview dealt briefly with several hot-button items: separation of church and state, morality, plurality of religions, race prejudice, and antisemitism. Niebuhr’s answers to Wallace’s probing questions present a fine, scholarly example for public theologians engaging the public sphere.
This 66-year-old conversation captures the essence of why theological education must face public engagement head-on into the future. When deep theological thinkers add their brand to the dialectic in the public sphere, it grounds the formation of spiritual, historical, ideological, sociological, and ecumenical intersubjectivity. In a society where divisiveness on racial, economic, and ideological issues controls the personal and the political, theological education is poised to make a decidedly public turn. “Public?” you might ask. The public/private debate about faith and religion has a history that comes to a head in the debate over societal understandings of sacred and secular. Whether one’s faith is to be a purely private affair or whether one’s faith should inform one’s engagement in the public sphere are all questions of public theology. Moreover, if engagement with the public sphere is motivated by one’s faith claims, how does one navigate the terrain of faith in a pluralistic society where many different faith traditions are subject to show up and demand atten-
Reverend Teresa L. Smallwood, JD, PhD, is a past Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate Director of the Public Theology and Racial Justice Collaborative at Vanderbilt Divinity School. She now serves as vice president and dean for academic affairs and is the James Franklin Kelly and Hope Eyster Kelly Associate Professor of Public Theology at United Lutheran Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. She serves on the ministerial staff of St. John African Methodist Episcopal Church in Nashville, Tennessee. She has just published Public Theology and Violent Rhetoric Examined in a Queer Womanist Critical Ethnography (T&T Clark, 2025).
The Public Turn in Theological Education
tion? We continue to confront the reality of these probing questions, but our time is vastly different from that of Reinhold Niebuhr, for we confront the challenges to our culture in the light of the constant struggle for equity, inclusion, diversity, and belonging.
Tobias Cremer, author of The Godless Crusade, completed interviews with 116 “populist leaders, key policymakers, and faith leaders in the United States, Germany, and France.” He concluded that most are disengaged from religious identity while simultaneously using “Christianity as a cultural identity marker of the ‘pure people’ and against external ‘others.’”2 This troubling finding suggests religion is being deployed as a weapon to capture the attention of society for the populist agenda. The social divide that is palpable in America masks cultural ideologies as religious dogma for the purpose of luring groups into political maneuvers—not infrequently against their own best interests.
The rhetorical polarization and toxic division are entrenched. Cremer exposes the global reach of such rhetoric. If the prophetic voice fails to meet this unfortunate global narrative with a counter-narrative amplifying the justice of God, then the true value and worth of theological education will have been missed. Theological educators can ill-afford to ignore the handwriting on the wall—prepare the way. Twenty-first century theological education must meet the vital call to educate deeply critical theological thinkers capable of engaging the public debate with sound theology, human compassion, and spiritual power.
Reinhold Niebuhr’s entire corpus was dedicated to the interstices of the social gospel. He was especially concerned with the cracks and tensions of morality in society. Niebuhr’s The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation established the cartography of intersectional consideration between individual freedom and societal responsibility and thereby set the contours of Christian social ethics. In Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr parsed the inhumanity of humankind in light of the ravaging immorality of society’s collective will. Niebuhr was very concerned about the way religion, politics, and social policy interacted, and he spoke freely, prophetically, and boldly about the implications of religion for politics and social policy.
Niebuhr demonstrates the impact of a public theologian driven by the inspiration of truth and faith claims. Niebuhr’s influence is vast. He understood the human condition, and he used his platform to urge change. For instance, on the issue of racial issues in America, Niebuhr stated, “However large the number of individual white men who do and who will identify themselves completely with the Negro cause, the white race in America will not admit the Negro to equal rights if he is not forced to do so.”3 With this, Niebuhr was convinced that such force had many dimensions, including violence.4 Yet, his influence generated a great deal of attention from those who were committed to nonviolence.
The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that Niebuhr’s “theology is a persistent reminder of the reality of sin on every level of man’s existence.5 Moreover,
King saw Niebuhr’s reasoning as “the necessary corrective of a kind of liberalism that too easily capitulated to modern culture.”6 In fact, King’s assessment of Niebuhr’s theology is that “pride is the basic sin and all other sins such as injustice and sensuality result from this pride. It is one of Niebuhr’s great merits to show how the sin of pride develops into the pride of power, pride of intellect, moral pride, and spiritual pride.”7 As King discerned Niebuhr’s dialectic, he was struck by the sharp distinction between symbol and myth. King concludes that for Niebuhr, “symbols are rallying points for the religious myth. The myth is a story, the origin of which is generally forgotten, which serve to explain the basis of a religious practice or belief. The myth is an artistic attempt to give depth to history.”8 Armed with this insight, King found the courage to speak out against the Vietnam War, a prophetic position that was met with little support among his compatriots.
King keenly understood the ravishes of war, and he vehemently opposed the Vietnam War because he believed his government was reckless in spending for war when it failed to take care of its poor. Contrastingly, King intended “to take the gospel seriously.”9 For King, the gospel’s mandate to take care of the poor, provide for the sick and homeless, show compassion to one’s neighbor, and usher in the justice of God were non-negotiable.
The symbolism of war as a mechanism for empire intersected with King’s understanding of the story of the poor in this country. He saw the hypocrisy in American culture and called it out. It is this kind of engagement with the public sphere that theological thinkers need in order to be prepared to uphold the gospel in this present moment. Dr. King’s legacy, fueled by the great social gospel progenitor Reinhold Niebuhr, points the way for theological education in this fraught moment in American history.
The examples of Reinhold Niebuhr and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as public theologians help to situate the public turn in theological education that I am vigorously calling for in these troubling times. In terms of strategic plans which might be implemented in theological education, the example of women in higher education are suggestive. Rabbi Dr. Rachel S. Mikva, Herman Schaalman Professor in Jewish Studies at Chicago Theological Seminary, is leading the American Academy of Religion’s (AAR) Valuing and Evaluating Public Scholarship in Religion Task Force. The task force is charged to create guidelines “that reflect and encourage best practices among institutions of higher education, and in the guild itself. Such a document will provide support for colleagues seeking to ‘count’ their public scholarship in placement, promotion, and tenure. It should also guide the activities of AAR to ensure adequate visibility and status for colleagues in this work.”10
The AAR’s effort to promote public scholarship in a way that gives those engaged in it the professional support to use that work for professional advancement is a huge step towards enshrining public theology into the pantheon of academic fervor that sustains and produces meaningful contributions to social praxis. Moreover, the idea that public-facing scholarship should be treated with the same weight and
The Public Turn in Theological Education
value as any other scholarship sets a very important precedent in how valued scholarship is received.
More specifically, the AAR task force is charged to consider how:
1. Technological advances and changing avenues of communication require creative engagement of scholars to maximize learning with a growing variety of publics.
2. Members of the American Academy of Religion contribute meaningfully to scholarship in many ways beyond traditional monographs and publication in peer-reviewed journals. This work is not sufficiently valued in placement, tenure, and promotion for traditional jobs.
3. Traditional tenure-track employment in institutions of higher education is shrinking across the humanities, deeply impacting professional prospects for scholars of religion.
4. Colleagues working outside of traditional tenure-track positions, or outside the academy, are disadvantaged by a hierarchy in publication opportunities as well as status within the guild.
This charge to the task force signals the need for theological educators to regard with greater embrace the contributions of scholars who contribute to an understanding of religion in the public sphere. The dignity and worth of public engagement cannot be overstated. That is why the task force was given a targeted conceptualization:
A significant dimension of this work involves “public scholarship,” including writing for non-academic journals, publishing op-eds, producing podcasts, contributing to a blog, collaborating with community activists and governmental bodies, developing an exhibit, teaching in the community, and scores of other substantive projects. AAR members provide vital contributions to the public understanding of religion.
Mikva’s task force is a great complement to the work of another powerful woman in higher education, Dr. Leela Prasad, president-elect of the American Academy of Religion. Together these women represent the face of AAR as it makes the public turn.
In collaboration with the current work outlined above to embolden the need for public facing witness, Womanist scholars for decades have championed the need to amplify the narratives of the Black women who have always carried the water on societal norms and values, such as past president (2008) of the American Academy of Religion, Rev. Dr. Emilie M. Townes, Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Religion and Black Studies at Boston University, and President of Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, the Reverend Dr. Angela D. Sims,14 recently elected VicePresident of the American Academy of Religion. Both of these Black women stand on the shoulders of the late Reverend Dr. Katie Geneva Cannon15 in the tradition of
Womanist16 ways of being. Cannon’s sharp insight, deep intellectual analysis, and abiding commitment to the “whole community” make public scholarship the methodology for telling our stories. For these reasons and so many more, the public turn holds promise for the dawning of a new day in theological education.
NOTES
1. Harry Ransom Center, The University of Texas at Austin, Digital Collections. “Interview with Reinhold Niebuhr,” Digital Collections, retrieved November 8, 2024, https://hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/ collection/p15878coll90/id/57/.
2. Tobias Cremer, The Godless Crusade: Religion, Populism, and Right-Wing Identity in Politics in the West (New York: Cambridge, 2023)
3. Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Scribner, 1932), p. 253. But see, James H. Cone. The Cross and the Lynching Tree. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2011). In chapter 2 of the text entitled “The Terrible Beauty of the Cross and the Tragedy of the Lynching Tree,” Cone analyzes Reinhold Niebuhr’s approach to race and racism with a critical eye toward the sentiments that argued for a slow and deliberate negation of equality for blacks because of Niebuhr’s obvious alignment with moderate whites.
4. “An American Conscience: The Reinhold Niebuhr Story,” Journey Films, March 15, 2021, retrieved November 13, 2024, https://vimeo.com/ondemand/niebuhr?autoplay=1.
5. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute, Stanford University, “The Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr,” by Martin Luther King, Jr. (Boston University), April 1, 1952 to June 30, 1954, 99. Retrieved November 14, 2024, https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/theologyreinhold-niebuhr.
6. Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers (2:278) retrieved November 12, 2024, https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/ niebuhr-reinhold, King, “The Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr,” April 1953–June 1954, in Papers 2:269–279.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. “Martin Luther King, Jr., “Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam.” Retrieved November 14, 2024, https://youtu.be/b80Bsw0UG-U.
10. AAR Charge to “Valuing and Evaluating Public Scholar in Religion” Task Force, 2024.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Emilie M. Townes, Womanist Ethics and the Cultural Production of Evil (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).
14. Angela D. Sims, Lynched: The Power of Memory in a Culture of Terror (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017).
15. Katie Geneva Cannon, Katie’s Canon: Womanism and the Soul of the Black Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2021).
16. For a definition, see Alice Walker, In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983).
About New Things and Old Things
About New Things and Old Things
Frank Yamada
I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth; do you not perceive it?
I will make a way in the wilderness And rivers in the desert (Isa 43:19)
It is a privilege to contribute this essay in honor of the Rev. Dr. Timothy Lincoln to give thanks for his service to Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, to theological education more generally, and to the church. As a Hebrew Bible scholar, I have taught students to remember that when Second Isaiah speaks of the LORD doing new things, they often hearken back to very old things. Isaiah 43:19 is the theme text for the current strategic plan for The Association of Theological Schools because it captures the present moment in graduate theological education, in which seminaries must be about two things simultaneously: innovation and legacy.
Frank M. Yamada is the executive director of The Association of Theological Schools. He oversees the work of both the Association and the Commission on Accrediting. Prior to ATS, he joined the McCormick faculty in 2008 as associate professor of Hebrew Bible and director of the Center for Asian American Ministries. In 2011, he was elected as McCormick’s tenth president—the first Asian American to lead a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) seminary. His tenure there was marked by increasing diversity in McCormick’s student body and creative engagement with the shifting realities of theological education. Yamada previously taught Hebrew Bible/Old Testament for nine years at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois. He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, where he has served as a chair and as a steering committee member of the Asian American Biblical Hermeneutics Group, the Feminist Hermeneutics of the Bible Section, and the Committee for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Minorities in the Profession. In addition, he was a member of the Ethnic Chinese Biblical Colloquium and the American Academy of Religion and co-chair for the Managing Board of the Asian Pacific Americans and Religion Research Initiative annual conference. A graduate of Southern California College, Yamada earned his Master of Divinity and Doctor of Philosophy from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and has written and spoken on the future of the church and theological education.
Schools must be about innovation because they are operating in a time of profound and rapid change in both the church and in higher education. Theological education exists at the intersection of these two areas in North American society. I understand innovation to be attentiveness to the Spirit that creates faithful and significant change that is responsive to context. Schools of theology and seminaries must also be about legacy or their historical missions, even as those missions must bend toward the realities of 21st century religion.
Having served as president of McCormick Theological Seminary, I am aware of how these realities have impacted the seminaries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). While all eight accredited theological seminaries within our denomination have historically served the needs of Presbyterian congregations, more recent decades suggest that a declining number of PC(USA) candidates has resulted in our seminaries serving regional and ecumenical student populations. Since coming to ATS, I am more attuned to the broader realities of theological schools as they seek to serve communities of faith and publics in this post-Christendom age. This perspective does not allow me to see into the future, though it does point to trajectories for theological education for the next couple of decades. What I propose in this essay are the implications of these futures and probable directions of theological schools in the ATS.
I have identified this moment in theological education as the Great Transition. There are at least four elements of the Great Transition in graduate theological education: 1) leadership transitions in theological schools, 2) shifting business or organizational models, 3) developing educational models, and 4) changing student demographics.
Leadership Transitions
Over the past seven years, there have been an unprecedented number of transitions in the top two administrative leadership positions—chief executive and chief academic officers—in ATS member schools.1 From 2017–2024, there have been over 600 transitions in these roles, affecting 75% of the over 280 theological schools. One-third of schools have seen both roles turn over during this period. Since the global pandemic, the annual pace of change has doubled to over one hundred transitions per year. These data represent theological schools’ version of the Great Resignation. There is good reason to believe that a better name for this period is the Great Retirement.2 The Baby Boomers have been at or near retirement age for several years prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, and the pandemic served as an accelerant for this generation’s move to retirement.
What does this mean for the future of theological education? We are witnessing a generational shift in leadership of theological schools. The boards of these schools are not seeking leaders who will simply grow enrollments, raise money, and be thought leaders for their denominations. These leaders are being charged with transforming their institutions to be more relevant within this dynamic context of
About New Things and Old Things
a church that is in decline in a highly stressed environment of higher education.3 The shape of that transformation will likely take place within a school’s organizational/financial model and/or in the delivery of the school’s educational model.
Financial and Organizational Models
Since 2010, there have been between 60–65 mergers, closures, or withdrawals from ATS membership. With mergers, there has been, on average, a merger every three to four months. This is the clearest evidence that ATS member schools are undergoing a significant organization-wide consolidation. Another way to put this is that a smaller number of schools hold the majority of ATS students. For the past twenty years, ATS enrollments have been flat, serving around 80,000 students. Even with the significant number of mergers and closures, ATS’ membership has grown from 250 to over 280 schools. An increasing number of schools, the majority of which are small with a flat number of enrollments, means that there will be consolidation and concentration. This is a similar phenomenon that we are seeing in churches. Very large churches are getting bigger, while there is also an increasing number of small congregations. The middle is diminishing.
Schools are also seeking more sustainable financial models through the selling of under-utilized property, shared services agreements, and several other forms of cross-organizational partnership. Partnerships have been a theme in the Lilly Endowment initiative, Pathways for Tomorrow. The most promising large-scale projects are collaborative in nature, even as schools are still learning how to navigate the complexities and challenges that come with partnering.
What do these changing organizational and financial models mean for the future of theological education? Ted Smith is right. We are seeing a major transition in the ways that institutions work.4 The voluntary society is giving way to what I would argue is a multi-nodal network model of an institution. Rather than an institution being a central place from which resources and services flow, we are moving to a map of connectivity between vital nodes of missional activity. What holds this new form of institution together is its core purpose, around which these multiple nodes share the work that implements the mission.
Educational Models
Over the last two decades, ATS member schools have witnessed an explosion of diverse educational models.5 Three prominent examples include:
1. Growth of the professional and academic MA, which is now the most populated degree in ATS, surpassing the M.Div. within the past few years. The M.Div. continues to decline in its share of ATS students. Theological schools are increasingly educating students who are already serving as ministers. Many of these congregational leaders’ ecclesial traditions do not require the M.Div. as a credentialing degree.
2. The rapid movement of schools to online learning. Several years ago, twothirds of member schools were approved for some form of distance education by the Commission on Accrediting of ATS. In 2023, almost 93% of schools were approved for distance learning with 86% approved for comprehensive distance education (i.e., the ability to deliver a degree program fully online).
3. An increasing number of schools who are doing competency-based theological education. Rather than building curricula around the four-fold disciplinary model of theological education, these schools have been building relationships with local judicatories and congregations, exploring the leadership’s needs in terms of skills, competencies, and dispositions. These competencies become the basis for the theological curriculum of these programs.
What all these modalities and shifts share are institutions adapting their educational modals to be responsive to the contexts that they serve. This has implications for the future of theological education. In the coming decades, schools that are more deeply connected to the contexts they serve will seek to develop programs, including non-degree and certifications, which respond to the needs of local congregations and the broader public. This latter category includes forms of ministry outside of the congregational context. The driver of what is taught in seminaries will not come primarily from the academy but will be determined by the needs for ministry inside and outside of the congregational context.
Student Demographics
The 21st century has seen an increase in the number and percentages of racial-ethnic students in ATS schools. Since the early 1990s, racial-ethnic and visa students have grown from 25% of all ATS students to over 45% in the 2020s. In that time, white, Euro-American students are down 19%, Asian students are up 122%, Hispanic Latiné students are up 243%, Native/Indigenous students are up 69%, and Visa students are up 38%. The fastest-growing population over the past decade has been among Hispanic students, the majority of whom are Roman Catholic or Pentecostal. These shifts track with the population demographics in the U.S. Faculty numbers have been slower to change. White, Euro-American faculty still make up about three-quarters of all faculty positions in ATS schools. While these demographic shifts suggest an opportunity for theological schools to reach underserved communities, the growth in racial-ethnic students will not exceed the decreasing demand from historically white denominations and churches. This suggests that the future of theological education in North America will need to consider what global partnerships could help revitalize mission vitality for seminaries in the U.S. and Canada. For many decades, contemporary missiologists have been saying that the vitality of the church is in the majority world or the Global South.
About New Things and Old Things
While the above discussion does not give a clear vision of the future of theological education, it does suggest some strong possibilities for the shape of our enterprise in the decades to come. Theological schools will: 1) be more adaptable and responsive to local contexts; 2) be more distributed and collaborative (rather than centralized); 3) focus on mission vitality within a more sustainable economic model; 4) seek to serve populations that the schools’ founders would not have imagined; and 5) follow the guiding of the Spirit to where the mission of God is vital and thriving.
NOTES
1. See Frank M. Yamada, “Unprecedented Number of Changes Occurring Among ATS School Leaders,” Colloquy Online (February 2023), https://www.ats.edu/files/galleries/unprecedented-number-of-changes. pdf.
2. Joseph Fuller and William Kerr, “The Great Resignation Didn’t Start with the Pandemic,” Harvard Business Review online (March 23, 2022), https://hbr.org/2022/03/the-great-resignation-didnt-start-with-thepandemic.
3. The decline of the church is starker in Canada. See Brian Clarke and Stuart McDonald, Leaving Christianity: Changing Allegiances in Canada since 1945 (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2017).
4. Ted A. Smith, The End of Theological Education (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2023).
5. See Stephen A. Graham, “Educating Religious Leaders in the 21st Century: Educational Models and Practices of Theological Education,” https://www.ats.edu/files/galleries/emp-summary-report.pdf.
The Future of Theological Education in Africa
Moses Zulu
Introduction
The history of theological education in Africa goes back to the inception of the Christian Church. Theological colleges have become the foundation of Christian evangelism in Africa and this is seen by the fact that there are numerous Bible schools, theological colleges and institutions of theological education. Some universities, too, have established departments of theology and religious studies, which cater specifically to theological and religious education. Some students who have graduated from such institutions serve as full-time or part-time ministers in their churches. This is the case in Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Basically, theological education in Africa has been defined as a training of individuals who are able to teach, research, or to learn practical skills necessary for effective ministry. The purpose of theological education is to equip with specialized tools and resources for holistic management of the church. The training is mostly directed at church leadership for full-time ministry in a congregation or local Christian community. The emphasis of theological education at these institutions is not just academic but also equips students for spiritual formation.1
The current state of theological education in Africa
Theological education in the African context is currently facing a number of chal-
Dr. Moses Zulu is from Chapata District in eastern Zambia. He is the husband of Remedy Banda and the proud father of Joyce, Chisomo, Tehillah, and Victor Zulu. From 2001 to 2014, Dr. Zulu served as a pastor in the Reformed Church in Zambia; since 2014, he has served with the Dutch Reformed Church in Zambia, a multi-cultural congregation comprised mainly of Afrikaans-speaking people, local Zambians, and other nationalities. He has been a pastor at this church for the past 11 years. Dr. Zulu received his PhD in Systematic Theology from Free State University, Bloemfontein, South Africa. He serves part-time as a professor at Justo Mwale University-Lusaka in the Department of Systematic Theology.
The Future of Theological Education in Africa
lenges. A number of scholars who have done studies in this field have concluded that theological education in Africa is at a crossroads. Some have argued theological education in Africa is not relevant to the needs of communities, since pastors and Church leaders are not properly equipped to engage their congregations in transforming their communities holistically. They have suggested theological education should be more contextual and the curriculum of some theological institutions should be more relevant to the needs in Africa. Wahl states that this need for competent Church leaders, especially in Africa, is emphasised by Chitando, Gatawa, Mwesigwa, and others.2 These scholars have argued that a new framework for theological education in Africa is needed, something that will inspire and produce church leaders who are competent to meet the contextual challenges of this continent. In the same vein, Gerloff also suggests fresh educational tools are needed to equip Church leadership in Africa.3
Generally, it has been noted that the goal of theological education is not certificates, masters/doctorate degrees, nor enabling the graduates to climb the ladder of church promotion, but to disciple those who come to a theological school so that they are equipped as disciple-makers. In the secular day and age we live in, the debate of whether theological education must be done in a classroom or online has raised several issues among theologians. However, it has been observed that when classroom information is not backed by personal formation, even the best theological curricula will be wasted. Much critique is received from members of the church about universities and colleges that produce well-skilled theologians who are clueless when it comes to congregational ministry. Without intentional spiritual formation, graduates may be equipped with academic knowledge but may lack personal qualities like humility, love, integrity, and compassion, which are key components of ministerial training.
Facing the challenge of online theological education in Africa
Like the rest of the world, African societies continue to witness significant social transformations arising from modernization and globalisation. The advancement in information and communication technologies in the last few decades has led to various innovations in the world of education. The application of technology makes information more accessible and knowledge more widely distributed, giving rise to various opportunities for instruction and learning. One such example of technological innovations in the education sector is the emergence of online academic institutions across the globe. In light of these realities, the challenge of online theological education will be briefly discussed in the next paragraph. In traditional theological studies, students attend lectures, participate in seminars, and engage in face-to-face discussions with professors and fellow students. This method allows for in-depth exploration of religious texts and doctrines, as well as the opportunity for mentorship from experienced theologians. The immersive nature of this method provides a strong foundation and spiritual growth. But with the
advancement of technology, there has been a gradual transition from traditional classroom-based learning to online education. This shift has allowed for greater accessibility and flexibility in theological studies, as students can now access learning materials and participate in discussions from anywhere with an internet connection. The digital realm has opened up new opportunities for theological education, breaking down barriers of geography and time constraints. Additionally, advancements in virtual classroom technology and interactive online platforms have made it possible for students to engage in meaningful discussions and collaborative projects, fostering a sense of community and active learning in the digital space.4
While the convenience and flexibility of online learning are undeniable, there are several obstacles that have been noted. Admin challenges all theological institutions to be aware of these challenges and to develop strategies for overcoming them in order to successfully balance spiritual formation with digital learning. He argues that one of the primary concerns in online theology education is maintaining the theological integrity of the course.5
Despite the incredible potential for online theological education in Africa, a number of theological educators have rejected it on theological grounds. For example, they have argued that theological education is not just about helping students acquire cognitive content. It is also about the discipleship and spiritual formation of the students. For this reason, they stress the importance of recruiting online faculty who are theologically competent and also have the spiritual maturity to be a model for and to mentor their students.
Considering all points, it is evident that the challenge of online theological education in Africa is the absence of community life experience between the student and the lecturers. Boaheng argues that the African mind is community-oriented, and residential theological colleges provide greater opportunity, not only with a sense of belongingness but also by being sensitive to the ethos of various cultures and church traditions. In the context of online theological education, he argues that the role of educators and theological institutions is to provide a supportive and nurturing environment for spiritual and educational growth. He warns all theological institutions to be mindful of the potential pitfalls and challenges of digital learning, and urges them to actively work to create a learning environment that maintains the integrity of their faith while leveraging the benefits of technology. In light of the above, what does this mean for theological education in Africa?
The future of theological education in Africa
Thinking about the future of theological education in Africa is extremely important. As noted earlier, theological education has changed and continues to change. Kagema asserts that as long as theological colleges and universities are not able to prepare students for spiritual formation, the future of theological education in Africa will suffer.6
The Future of Theological Education in Africa
In view of this, Boaheng’s contribution on this issue is helpful. He focuses on personal spiritual formation of theological education. In the broad sense, he describes personal spiritual formation as a lifelong journey (comprising intellectual engagement, reflection, application to personal life, and character) and ministerial formation.7 Furthermore, he clearly states that theological education (whether online or the traditional face-to-face approach) without a personal touch is just a dry intellectual exercise with no spiritual value. He further argues that the online learning environment lacks this personal spiritual formation. For him, the essence of theological education lies in its sincerity in ministerial formation, namely theological, ministerial, academic, personality, and spiritual formation.
On the same issue, Kagema adds that “Christian spiritual formation is the intentional, ongoing process of inner transformation to become like Jesus Christ himself, to become with others a communal people of God, and to become an agent for God’s redemptive purposes.’’ Because humans are inherently social in nature, it is argued that spiritual formation requires a physical spiritual community and personal interactions between the student and the lecturer, something online distance education cannot provide.
So, when we try to consider the prospects of theological education in Africa, this is the key value that can brighten its future. In Africa, where community is a priority, personal interaction between the students and lecturers is of great significance. Africans do not live in isolation; they are highly social and enjoy relationships, interconnectedness, and interdependence, as expressed in the ubuntu philosophy of “I am because you are, you are because I am,” which explains the African communal sense of life. Through interactions with students, faculty members are able to mentor and facilitate the spiritual formation of their students. For this reason, proper theological education (whether online or not) must be inseparable from this personal touch.
In conclusion, the future of theological education in Africa should not be dependent upon the accumulation of knowledge or transfer of information to students but requires personal transformation. This is the environment that will enable students and lecturers in Africa to share their lives with one another. As theological teachers, they should not fall into the trap of solely teaching. As Duncan puts it, “We need more than mere information. We need people loving other people, teaching those people, exampling for them what the Christian life looks like and how to go about the Christian ministry in order for people to be adequately prepared for gospel ministry.”8 A theological education aiming to create a significant impact in Africa should prioritize personal theology as a central component, as it is crucial for equipping future Church leaders with the necessary depth of personal faith and character to effectively address the complex spiritual needs of African communities.
NOTES
1. J.J. Hanciles, African Theological Education: Retrospect and Prospect–An Anglophone Perspective (Atlanta: Emory University, 2024).
2. WP Wahl, Towards relevant theological education in Africa: comparing the international discourse with contextual challenges (Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 2013).
3. R. Gerloff, “The African diaspora and the shaping of Christianity in Africa: Perspectives on religion, migration, identity, theological education and collaboration,” (paper presented at the Joint Conference of Academic Societies in the Fields of Religion and Theology, Session A9, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, June 2009), 22-23.
4. Isaac Boaheng, “Is Online Theological Education Suitable for Spiritual/Ministerial Formation? A Response from an African Perspective,” E-Journal of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences 3, no. 3 (March 2022): 27-42.
5. Kochi Admin, “The Challenges of Online Theology Education-Balancing Faith and Digital Learning,” Trinity School (blog), January 8, 2024, https://www.trinitytheology.org/balancing-faith-and-digitaltheology-education/.
6. DN Kagema, Theological Education in Africa in Focus: Challenges and Opportunities for the African Church as it moves to the Future (Stellenbosch, South Africa: Stellenbosch University, 2018).
7. Isaac Boaheng, “Is Online Theological Education Suitable for Spiritual/Ministerial Formation? A Response from an African Perspective,” E-Journal of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences 3, no. 3 (March 2022): 27-42.
8. J. Ligon Duncan, “What is the future of theological education?” Reformed Theological Seminary (blog), May 17, 2023, https://rts.edu/resources/what-is-the-future-of-theological-education/. Duncan is the Chancellor & CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary, the John E. Richards Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology.
Timothy Lincoln: A Librarian’s View
Brenda Bailey-Hainer
Long before I arrived on the scene, Tim Lincoln was active in the American Theological Library Association (now called simply “Atla”). After joining Atla in 1990, he became an enthusiastic member who served on numerous task forces and committees, devising professional development activities and planning the annual conference. A natural educator, he has always been generous with his time and knowledge, presenting at annual conferences on topics ranging from evaluating library services to sharing his experiences managing a major construction project.
An avid researcher himself, Tim made good use of his experience conducting research studies and teaching research methods classes. In 2021, he published Qualitative Research: A Field Manual for Ministry Students (Chicago: Atla Open Press, 2021), https://books.atla.com/atlapress/catalog/book/24. In it, he incorporated ideas and techniques from other fields, most notably the social sciences. Tim has a knack for being able to explain concepts in understandable language, a technique he might refer to as using a “conversational voice.” As one theological librarian said of the book, “What Lincoln has accomplished specifically is to take the art and science of research out of the realm of the theoretical and address the mundane, but oh-so-critical question asked by students everywhere: ‘How in the world do I do this?’”
Tim’s six-year stint on the Atla Board of Directors was valued, especially his year as President in 2016-2017. Under his leadership, the board approved new organizational ends (policy governance speak for “goals”). These ends recognized the broad range of persons invested in the work of theological librarians and recognized that the audience Atla needs to reach is global. Implementation involved reaching out more actively on an international level. Although this could have been seen as a daunting task, Tim has always been a strong proponent of doing what is possible
Brenda Bailey-Hainer recently retired after serving for more than a decade as Executive Director of Atla, concluding a career in college and university libraries, international library services, and as executive director of a multi-state nonprofit membership organization for all types of libraries. She currently serves on the boards of SAQA (Studio Art Quilt Associates) and as Vice-President and Treasurer of the Seicento Baroque Ensemble, Boulder, CO.
rather than lamenting inability to do the impossible. He voiced his support in all the ways that he could, on a very practical level.
I especially appreciated Tim’s practicality and determination. At an Atla board meeting in Chicago one February, during which the highs were in the single digits and the wind chills negative, Tim was one of several board members arriving from the south and southwest. Rather than lamenting the bracing weather, he embraced it. He dressed for the occasion with his furry earflap hat, unflappable and eager to move forward with business with a mischievous grin.
Tim maintained a strong commitment to the field of theological librarianship. Often, when members serve on the Atla board, they consider that to be the apex of their career with Atla and subsequently step back from active involvement. Not so for Tim. He remained an active contributor on committees right up until his retirement. And to this day, he remains an individual member.
His wry sense of humor was often exposed in the language of his monthly presidential columns in the Atla newsletter. To paraphrase the closing of one of his columns: A librarian is not good simply because of authority of office or credentials; librarians are recognized as good based on whether they deliver the goods. In terms of Atla participation and leadership, Tim definitely delivered the goods.
Tim’s furry earflap hat.
In Honor of Timothy Lincoln
Jim Allison
It was my privilege to serve on the Board of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary from 2014 to 2023. Among my duties was chairing the Long Range Planning Committee. Our task was to prepare for Board approval a plan to succeed the then-current plan, Institutional Plan 2020. The seminary administrator charged with supporting the committee was Timothy Lincoln, Associate Dean for Seminary Effectiveness. At the beginning of our work, I knew of Tim, but I didn’t actually know Tim. We started our work, and that changed quickly.
The work took place amidst the Seminary’s periodic accreditation reviews with the Association of Theological Schools and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. That review, completed in 2019, had consumed many hours of work from the faculty and administration over several years. The long-range plan work intersected with the accreditation review because (i) part of the review involved examining how well the Seminary had implemented the Institutional Plan 2020, and (ii) the recommendations from the accreditation reviews would include recommendations for matters to be addressed in the new plan. I thought that I knew something about planning, but I had absolutely no understanding of the accreditation requirements, and the jargon in which they were expressed was completely foreign to me.
Fortunately, Tim brought a deep understanding of both the institutional planning process and the requirements of the accreditation bodies, and he was able to translate that jargon into something I (and the rest of the committee) could understand and work on. His translation skills worked both ways. The committee would hold meetings and engage in wide-ranging discussions of the planning topics. We would eventually reach some manner of consensus on what we thought was significant, but not in any form the accreditation groups would recognize. As chair, I asked Tim to convert our rambling discussions and consensus into a form suitable for inclusion in an Institutional Plan. And he did! Our ideas were amazingly coherent after
Jim Allison served on the Board of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary from 2014 to 2023 and is ordained as a Ruling Elder in the PC(USA). He is retired after a career in the oil business and now lives in Charlottesville, Virginia with his four cats. His free time is largely devoted to playing the trombone with the Charlottesville Band, the Albemarle Symphony, and other groups in the area.
Tim worked his magic.
As the process continued (after interruption by Covid), Tim emerged as much more than a translator of accreditation jargon. As our planning work moved into discussions around diversity in all its aspects, and the need for and meaning of cultural competence, Tim brought substantial insight into how these discussions were being addressed elsewhere, thus helping us recognize some of our blind spots and avoid some of our group think.
I am deeply grateful to Tim for his contributions to the planning process and for the help he provided to me.
Wisdom, Humor, and Commitment: Honoring Rev. Dr. Timothy Lincoln
Sue Briner
Imet the Rev. Dr. Timothy Lincoln after I moved to Texas in 2012 to work in the office of the Bishop of the Southwestern Texas Synod, ELCA. I was blessed to have him join our Synod Council after I was elected Bishop in 2018, where he served faithfully for several years, including as a member of the executive committee of Synod Council. He is a person of deep faith, and he lives that faith out in his work and his relationships.
We had a number of thorny issues to deal with during Dr. Lincoln’s time on Synod Council, and he has always impressed me with his calm demeanor, wise questions, and counsel. Dr. Lincoln also has a sly sense of humor which I have always appreciated—even in the midst of difficult situations, which served to lighten the mood and remind us that God is the one in charge (and thankfully, we are not!)
He also showed up faithfully to our online conversations during COVID concerning anti-racism. He has been very committed to the work of full inclusion for all people in the life of the church.
One of my favorite memories of Dr. Lincoln was when I showed up on the Austin Seminary campus unexpectedly (I was visiting Texas Impact nearby) and tracked him down in the new library. He was delighted to give me a tour and was clearly passionate about his work and this amazing and expanded resource for the Seminary community.
I am grateful to have gotten to know and work with Tim. He has been a blessing to me, to our synod, and to his community. I feel confident that even in retirement, he and his wife Laura will be a blessing in their new synod and community.
Bishop Sue Briner is the first woman to serve as bishop in any of the three Texas synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Before her election as Bishop in 2018, she served as associate and senior Pastor of St. Luke Lutheran Church, Summerville, South Carolina, and as bishop’s associate in the Southwestern Texas Synod. She serves on the board of Global Refuge, co-chairs the Bishop’s Immigrant Ready Bench, and helps coordinate Sembrando en Los Margenes, which helps to sustain vibrant ministry along the U.S./Mexico border.
Timothy Lincoln Taught Me To Fish
Alison Riemersma
When I began working for the Seminary long ago, in 1996, Timothy was one of the first people to make me feel like I would have a home there. The administrative staff was not nearly as welcoming as we try to be today, but Timothy was, and he treated me with the same respect and good nature on day one as he would after we had worked together on any number of projects over the next 28 years. He was even more generously collegial, whether he knew it or not, at some particularly stressful times in my professional life here. He always took the time to linger at my desk when others did not seem to see me. This alone says a great deal about what kind of a person he is, but there is so much more.
Timothy taught me why assessment matters and that if it is hard, you are probably doing it wrong. Our Seminary owes much to his thoughtful, steady leadership in developing our assessment programs. We weren’t where we needed to be for our 1999 reaffirmation, so he created and, over the years, refined our program, and we must never take it for granted. We know we are winsome, but you better have the data to back that up, and we do, thanks to Timothy. I kind of grew into my role supporting our assessment programs, maybe mostly just because I enjoyed working with him. We would get excited talking about it together because he was just so clear, and he made me feel like I had something to contribute. So, I like to say this about that: he taught me to fish. I always thought this was from the Bible, but the internet just told me it is a Chinese proverb (Information Quality! —the name of our 2009 QEP).
We also owe a debt to his magical hiring practices, which brought us a stellar library staff who are a gift to our community. I know they would all say the same thing about his empowering, encouraging leadership style.
Alison Riemersma has served Austin Seminary for over 28 years, most of which have been in the Academic Dean’s office. She is an active member of St. David’s Episcopal Church in Austin. She enjoys being at home with her cats and luxury camping with her husband, Matt.
Reminiscences
But what I miss most about Timothy is his sense of humor, expressed in conversation, power points, giant Amish pandemic beards, and so many other ways. I wish my memory of his sayings was as good as his was of our beloved Ellis Nelson’s sayings, but it isn’t. All I know is that when I saw him coming toward my desk for business or just to chat, it was going to make the day better. I hope all the nice things people say in this issue make his Midwestern self terribly uncomfortable because he deserves every single bit of it.
Coming in the Fall 2025
William Greenway, “Ethics and Healthcare Access”
It’s All in the Details
David H. Jensen
Many consider Paul’s Letter to the Romans to be his theological masterpiece. It blossoms with lofty, sophisticated themes: grace, sin, forgiveness, faith, and the relationship of the church to the people of Israel. Written most likely at the peak of his missionary endeavors, the letter offers a compendium of Christian beliefs. Then, about three-quarters of the way through the letter, Paul delves into the details with a laundry list of practical advice. Romans 12 gathers together the marks of the Christian life, encouraging readers to show affection, bless one another, rejoice, weep, live in harmony, avoid revenge, and feed their enemies (vv. 9–21). At first brush, this enumeration of behaviors seems like a departure—or maybe a cul de sac—from the soaring theology of the letter. But upon closer examination, his advice is bound up with his theology. How can one believe in forgiveness unless one practices it in their own life? How do I know that Christ died for all unless I seek reconciliation with my enemies? Paul’s exhortations in chapter 12 puts flesh on the bones of his soaring theology. He knows the details of our daily lives matter. Without bearing fruit in Christian life, theology sounds little more than a clanging cymbal (to borrow Paul’s metaphor from I Corinthians 13). Christian faith may be anchored in cosmic themes of divine grace, but it is lived out in the ordinary routines of human life.
There is much to celebrate in the life and ministry of Timothy Lincoln, particularly as it has taken shape over three decades at Austin Seminary. He is a dyed-in-thewool Lutheran who embodies an ecumenical sensibility—with extensive knowledge and appreciation of Roman Catholic theology—in ways that might have perplexed
David Jensen has been on the faculty of Austin Seminary since 2001. His teaching and research focus on Reformed theology, interfaith dialogue, and the interconnections between Christian theology and daily life. His most recent book is the edited volume Christian Theology in a Pluralistic Age (Pickwick, 2024).
his theological ancestor, Martin Luther. He experienced a brush with theological fame in a phone conversation long ago with the recently departed giant of Latin American liberation theology, Gustavo Gutiérrez. He transitioned the Seminary library from the card catalogue into the digital age, where our virtual collection now outnumbers our print collection more than fivefold. He possesses an understated, somewhat disarming sense of humor that one often discovers in hindsight: filled with Bob Newhart-like moments of hilarity beneath a placid, Midwestern demeanor. But for me, what has made the greatest difference in the ministry of Timothy Lincoln is his uncanny eye for detail: seeing things that others overlook and paying attention to seemingly small matters that wind up making a big difference. Tim knows that details matter. His attention to detail has made Austin Seminary better. For more than two decades, Tim was the Seminary’s point person for gathering details. His official titles have morphed over time (Associate Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, Assistant Dean of Planning, etc.), but consistent throughout these changes on his nametag and business cards has been a focus on improving the Seminary’s teaching and learning. During the eight years I served as the Seminary’s academic dean, I learned much from this work, especially as Tim helped guide our assessment of student learning, shepherded our accreditation reviews, and served as the Seminary’s liaison to the Association of Theological Schools and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. I relied on his keen eye for detail, his advice, and his observations more times than I can count.
Most seminaries struggle to find someone to serve in this capacity. The typical pattern is to find a faculty member mindful of deadlines, with a knack for record-keeping, and then to punish that member’s competency by appointing them to a role that they neither desired nor imagined. The result tends to be a person who completes the necessary work but does so begrudgingly. In Timothy Lincoln, however, Austin Seminary found not only the person with the needed competencies but also a person called to the work. I do not know how much joy this position brought into Tim’s life. I’m sure there were plenty of days when “joyful” did not enter his mind as a description of his work. But Tim’s faithful attention to the details that this position required lifted some burdens from faculty shoulders so we could focus more intently on the teaching and research that gave us joy. Timothy saw his role not to laden the faculty with mounds of paperwork, bean counting, or other tedious tasks; instead, he offered manageable guidelines to help us better assess our teaching and how students learned in our classes. Tim collected data and kept his eyes on the details so that we could keep our eyes on teaching and research.
Theological education is about big things: our ultimate concerns as human persons, our orientation to and reception of the grace of Jesus Christ, our openness to the mystery of God and the wonder of creation, our capacity for receiving hospitality and offering it to others, our calling to take part in the mending of the world. These are things that cannot be measured by rubrics, surveys, or grades. Instead, they are lived over the course of a graced life, received with thanksgiving, nurtured in study, shared in community. The cynical view of assessment culture is that it forces im-
measurable things into Likert scales with their facile categories of excellent, good, fair, and poor. But Tim’s approach to assessment turned our attention to things that can be measured, even if they are measured imperfectly. There are skills and capacities for pastoral leadership, for example, that can be assessed. Faculty can examine student papers for their ability to entertain alternative theological perspectives as well as the student’s favored perspective, an ability that is essential for leading congregations and communities during these polarized times.
Pastoral leaders today need to do more than preach to the choir; they need to gather fractured communities in reconciling and generative conversation. Faculty can also assess how the Seminary’s curriculum prepares graduates for engaging cultural diversity, a process that was continually on our minds as we revised our MDiv program under the guiding principles of borders and bridges. Theological education can thus facilitate encounters across cultural divides and build connections between communities and peoples estranged from each other. Student sermons can be evaluated for their capacity to invite others into the story of God’s grace by crafting stories and encouraging hearers to share their own stories. Christian faith, after all, is grounded in storytelling: in narratives of Torah, the Gospels, and saints of the church that have sustained each generation. Austin Seminary has highlighted this dimension of faith in the narrative spiritual formation groups required of first-year students and in semi-annual storytelling events at the Seminary that celebrate the stories of many in our community. Timothy, of course, is not solely responsible for these practices or events, but it is hard to imagine their emergence and current shape without his guidance. He knows the difference between measuring things for measuring’s sake and measuring things for the sake of something larger. These are the details that matter.
All of this requires a certain skill set and a unique person: someone with a mind for data collection and aggregation; someone who knows when to nudge faculty and when to refrain from nudging; someone who is patient; someone with a sense of humor; someone who keeps the big picture of theological education in sight. Timothy possesses all these traits and more. He has gone about his work in mostly unobtrusive ways. Most Seminary students, for example, are probably unaware of his efforts and most likely have no idea what the jargon of “assessment” in theological education even means. But this under-the-radar work has made the Seminary’s educational programs more attentive to context over time. The core of what we do has remained strong: a solid foundation in biblical studies, an exposure to the varied theological, historical, and ethical trajectories of the church, reflection on the practices or worship, preaching, pastoral care, education, and mission that sustain pastoral leadership. But what has come into sharper focus over Tim’s tenure at the Seminary is attention to the varied contexts of ministry: cultural, racial, interreligious, economic, and linguistic. Attention to detail, after all, means attention to people. Timothy’s work in assessment and educational effectiveness has made our graduates better observers of people, better able to appreciate each other’s unique gifts. One result of this attention to detail and measurement is that
we can emerge from it more open to the surprise of one another, better able to welcome the stranger, better equipped to receive from others. This result is vitally important, for without each other, we are very much alone.
In the spring of 2019, the Seminary had overlapping accreditation visits from the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), which occurs on a ten-year cycle if institutions are in good standing, and which requires heroic effort and mounds of paperwork. For two years prior to these visits, Timothy and I worked rather closely. We attended workshops and conferences in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Dallas, and New Orleans. We sat through presentations offering guidelines for effective Quality Enhancement Plans (QEP)—one of the requirements of SACSCOC accrediting—that resulted in the Seminary’s current Storytelling project. We ate Cajun gumbo and Indian naan. We took flights that (mostly) arrived on time. We lumbered north on I-35 in my tiny hatchback. We read through examples of other seminaries’ accreditation materials and learned from their diligence.
One component of our preparation for ATS accreditation involved an in-person meeting with our ATS representative in Pittsburgh. I recall sitting in his office with Timothy. The conversation was cordial but also professional. We were gearing up for evaluation, after all. A lot was on our minds, most of it boiling down to “let’s finish this.” Toward the end of that conversation, our representative told us, “Austin Seminary is what’s known as a good citizen in the world of accreditation.” That was a signal: a signal that we were on the right track, that the outlook for the future was promising, that we had work left to do, but that we needed to continue paying attention to the details that had brought us thus far. The Seminary’s “good citizenship” was due in large part to Tim’s dependable presence and efforts over time. His work was known and trusted by the people who coordinated our evaluation. As we prepared for the assessment visit, it reassured me that Austin Seminary was a known and respected institution in the wider world of theological education. A year and a half later, our accreditation was reaffirmed without reservations. It’s no secret that many—and perhaps most—theological schools are struggling these days: with finances, with enrollment, with infrastructure, with mission. Austin Seminary faces challenges, of course, but its educational mission is unwavering: a mission that is strengthened by our attention to detail. That attention will continue to guide us in what lies ahead.
If ATS accreditation is somewhat familiar to people within theological education, the world of SACSCOC is more of a mystery. This larger accrediting body gathers a staggering variety of institutions: community colleges, optometry schools, elite universities, trade schools, and liberal arts colleges, as well as seminaries. I attended three SACSCOC conferences with Timothy over those preparatory years. Most of the time, I felt like I was stepping into a foreign country: the lingo in many of the sessions I attended was strange, the sheer volume of people was overwhelming, and the customs and interactions were downright weird. I don’t think I knew anybody at these gatherings other than Timothy. But during a few of the sessions that I at-
tended with Tim, others in the session knew him. I remember a presenter singling him out for an aspect of his work. Other attendees knew him from an accreditation visit he paid to their institution. Colleagues from some of our sibling seminaries sought him out. In this huge, arcane world of higher education accreditation, Tim Lincoln was a known and respected person. I remember laughing to myself on the flight home, “I had no idea I worked with a rock star.”
At Tim’s retirement celebration last spring, I joked, “As Taylor Swift is to pop culture, Tim Lincoln is to assessment culture.” It was a lighthearted attempt to share with the Seminary community the recognition that Tim’s work has received in a larger world that remains a mystery to most of us. Tim would have told the joke better. Maybe I exaggerated a bit. But I also stand by what I said. Tim’s diligent, faithful, and attentive work over these decades has allowed the Seminary’s faculty to focus more keenly on their passions: passions for teaching, for research, for serving the church, and for offering small gestures that help mend the world. And it has allowed our students to learn more effectively, to engage more contextually, and to develop better capacities for leadership in our conflicted age. Someone has to keep their eyes on the details, the details that serve something far larger, something that cannot be reduced to numbers or charts. Because without the details the larger picture becomes fuzzy. Thank you, Tim, for minding the details. They put flesh on the bones of theological education. They have helped make Austin Seminary the winsome place it is today and into tomorrow. Happy retirement.
Lee Ardell
AU S T I N P RE SB Y T E R I A N THEOLOGIC AL SEMINA RY
José R. Irizarry, President
Board of Trustees
Denice Nance Pierce (MATS’11), Chair
Thomas Christian Currie
James A. DeMent (MDiv’17)
Jill Duffield (DMin’13)
Britta Martin Dukes (MDiv’05)
Peg Falls-Corbitt (CIM’20)
Jackson Farrow Jr.
G. Archer Frierson II
Jasiel Hernandez (MDiv’18)
Cyril Hollingsworth (CIM’16)
Ora Houston
David H. Jensen
Shawn Kang
John A. Kenney (CIM’20)
Keatan A. King
Steve LeBlanc
Steve Miller (MDiv’15)
Lisa Juica Perkins (MDiv’11)
Mark B. Ramsey
Stephen J. Rhoades
Sharon Risher (MDiv’07)
Pamela Rivera
Kenneth Snodgrass (MATS’16)
Michael Waschevski (DMin’03)
Sallie Sampsell Watson (MDiv’87)
Elizabeth C. Williams
John Williams (MDiv’87)
Rachel Wright
Shirley Zsohar
Trustees Emeriti
Cassandra C. Carr, Lyndon L. Olson, B.W. Payne, Max Sherman