Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond : 2004 Seminar

Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond

A Bit of Background

In the fall of 2002, the faculty of BTSR began the process of curriculum revision. A similar process in 1999-00 had been a difficult one, ending with a new curriculum but also with sharp divisions within the faculty and between the losing side and the administration. Those who had participated in the earlier review entered the new process with caution, but the dean was optimistic. He and 4 of the 13 faculty members had come to BTSR since the last curriculum review, and he believed that by going slowly, discussion about shared goals could lead to consensus on the changes that needed to be made. Although the faculty was grateful for the attention to process, many were frustrated at the slow pace of progress. It seemed that the group could get only so far in discussing the goals of the M.Div. or the nature of a curriculum to meet those goals, and then they would hit barriers that were difficult to name and work through.

The Precipitating Incident

In the late spring of 2003, BTSR received an invitation to participate in the Lexington seminar. The invitation seemed like a “no-brainer” to the dean and the president: a 5-day, all-expense paid trip to a lovely resort in Maine, a chance to get a small grant for some project that we designate, and all we have to do is to write a 2-3 page narrative. This project seemed like a great way to get help with the curriculum review process. The subject was presented briefly at the May 2003 faculty meeting.

At the first fall faculty meeting, the director of the Lexington Seminar presented the full program to the faculty. He explained that our participation would mean a fall introductory meeting in Indianapolis for the dean and president, the writing of the narrative, a spring meeting of the deans in Tampa, and then the summer trip to Maine. After that, there would be the grant application and a follow-up meeting of participating schools. After the director left, a lively, and at some points heated, discussion ensued. Some expressed concern that the project would require extra work of faculty members already carrying heavy loads. Others felt that the project was being imposed on them without the opportunity to give input and affirm the project. Some identified the latter issue as a systemic pattern of unilateral decision-making by the administration. The group voted to affirm the project, but when the meeting ended, tensions were unresolved.

Initial Reactions

At the end of the faculty meeting, the dean sat at the conference table after everyone else was gone, thinking, “What happened? I thought the invitation to the Lexington Seminar was a no-brainer: We introduced the project in the spring, and everyone seemed enthusiastic about the trip to Maine, but today when they got more information some of the faculty reacted as if this was the first time they had heard about the project. I feel like this is Watergate and my last name is Nixon. Every time I think we’ve made some progress and built some trust, somebody brings up the distance education grant or the previous curriculum review. How can I get a clearer picture of the deeper issues and help us move forward?”

The next day several of the faculty members gathered for coffee in the lounge. One of the newer faculty members asked a couple of the veterans for their insights into the meeting the previous day. “It all sounded way too familiar to me,” said one, “too much like our arguments about the distance education grant and the earlier curriculum revision. But I was able to stay fairly calm and objective in this discussion until the president, obviously highly frustrated, said, ‘Well, you can certainly decide not to do this. It would be a very foolish decision, but you can walk away from this.’ At that point, I found it very hard to stay calm. My reaction was to think, ‘That’s the way a parent talks to an unreasonable child. We are not children and this discussion is not unreasonable.’ It felt like Tom’s position was ‘We know what’s best; don’t argue with our decision for you.” It is just this sense of making decisions (even very good ones) for the faculty, instead of with the faculty, that fuels the conflict. Though my head knows that Tom wants the best for the school and for all of us, in the gut it feels like disregard or disrespect.”

The two vets quickly agreed that the Lexington Seminar was not the primary issue and that the ongoing problem was one of process. “Look at the way we started our distance education program,” observed one veteran faculty member. “BTSR received money to start online educational programs over the summer and the administration told us about it in the fall. Sure, they told us that we didn’t have to participate in teaching online classes if we didn’t want to, but we did not have input into or a vote on a curricular issue that affected all of us.”

“It’s the Baptist thing, too,” said another. “So many of us who have been here a while came to BTSR from SBC institutions that had fallen in the fundamentalist take-over. Some of us lost our jobs because of high-handed trustee boards and administrations. Anything that this administration does that even has the whiff of what we went through before makes our hackles go up.”

But another fairly new faculty member disagreed. “As a faculty member who (by nature) sits on the outside of these conversations, I must say that when they happen I can’t quite understand what all the fuss is about. It’s like I can never predict what’s going to send people off in a meeting, which reminds me of the unpredictability of my dad when I was growing up at home. I was always worried that some new crisis would break out and I could never figure out why, but assumed it must be my fault. I get that same feeling in faculty meetings, only here it’s just that I feel too slow of wit to join in the fray, like I’d look or sound like an idiot if I even tried to say anything. I came to BTSR after the distance education piece had been added, but was hired before it became a requirement for me to participate. I was intimidated by the idea of trying an on-line course, but knew this was our (and my) future. It simply has to be done to survive these days. So it never struck me as an unreasonable request. The same with the Lexington Seminar--hey, it’s money being offered to do what we are already trying to do, at least that’s how I heard it, so I was surprised by all the resistance (it felt like resistance to me). Frankly, I was also intimidated by the intensity of feelings that came out. I wilt in that kind of a conflicted atmosphere, become paralyzed, and feel I don’t belong in this conversation. I don’t know where these personal feelings of a quiet faculty member fit in the narrative, but for me I’ve never felt the administration has been trying to push things on us, just introducing offers that have come BTSR’s way that we need to take on if we are to remain a viable institution. I have, of course, none of the history with SBC, so that part I don’t connect with viscerally as some seem to do.”

Later that week, the president told the dean, “When some of them said that they had never heard of the Lexington Seminar before, that was wrong, but it also didn’t help things that you didn’t give them a better introduction to the Seminar prior to the meeting. Even so, their response was out of proportion to the actual project being proposed. A 2-3 page narrative is not an onerous task! The demands on faculty time were minimal and the payoff was great. Clearly the faculty was in the process of making a dysfunctional decision, that is, they were making a decision that was against their own best interest. In the meeting I came to the point where I was willing to vote that we not participate. If the faculty did not wish to participate, there was no reason for BTSR to be involved. In fact, I did not vote at all, choosing not to endorse our involvement. There’s obviously something else at work here.” The president and dean agreed that, because the Seminar wants willing participants, the dean should reintroduce the idea at the next meeting and give the faculty a chance to change their minds.

Follow-Up

Between the first and second meetings, the dean went to the informational meeting in Indianapolis, and gave the faculty a written summary. At the next faculty meeting, the dean asked the faculty if they wished to reconsider their participation in the Seminar. One of the newer faculty spoke up: “This whole business of unilateral decisions doesn’t seem that hard to understand. Just don’t do it! Maybe we should take a vote on a motion like, ‘Don’t ever surprise us again, or we’re going to vote no, whatever it is.’”

Another said, “But what if they think they informed us? It isn’t that simple. I heard the information about the Seminar that others seem to have missed. The issue is communication.”

“No,” said a veteran, “there’s a long-standing pattern of unilateral decision-making by the administration, and it’s because we are not paying enough attention to the policies and procedures of our institution. Because of the way the SBC seminaries treated some of us, the founders of BTSR wisely put in a system of checks and balances to guide our decision-making. If there are problems, I’ll bet it’s because we have not looked hard enough at our founding documents.”

“We always get stuck on these same points,” observed another. “Could we focus the Lexington narrative around the issues of communication between faculty and administration, around decision-making and faculty governance? I don’t think we’ll make much progress on curriculum until we do.”

“You mean spend a week talking about policies and procedures?” asked a newbie. “That doesn’t sound too interesting to me.”

“And I don’t want to put our curricular review on hold,” said another veteran. “There are too many things we need to decide.”

“But maybe this is an underlying issue that keeps us from being able to make progress on other fronts, and maybe the offer from the Lexington Seminar gives us a way to have a meaningful conversation without derailing the curriculum review. And if we have faculty members, the dean and the president there, we’ll have all the necessary players to make some progress.”

“Great,” said the dean, “so we’re all agreed? I’ll recruit a team of faculty who will help me write a narrative that will focus on this issue of faculty governance and communication between faculty and administration. It seems that, as a faculty, we have identified some core issues. However, we could benefit from the insights of others on how to resolve them and move forward. Our curriculum review and much of our other work will depend on it!”