Mus Dogm- PROFES THE MMM- EG snoMAL iFlRST. A CD E'QLQ MI " Mo i"?- MON . M MMU . fA q 4 . .L 1.}! ER BMW M5 N «M ' CHEER 4 Mr Ms M Thés m .- 4 MA. Mafii. a; LIBRA 1w Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE AS A FIRST THEOLOGICAL DEGREE: A COMMUNICATION MODEL presented by Ervin Eugene Williams has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Speech v Major professor . W F {’7 O ‘I”/:/7 ’ r) é/é'MJT/gfl "’4' C 1/ (0* 324%"; Date Maj 14, 1971 0-7839 o. On.“ 3 ~ ‘ N“ i I una‘uial ‘A-~Uet H O m! .ne cur} 353109 ital sc‘. I“ , I :‘f‘a‘ ‘ o *3. s ’5?” ‘0- ; ‘ .uul.‘ 0‘ tr. riftican Assoc ::.~; ..::‘.3nal doc: '11 LVEnCS 4:20: 0f Mir; S r] -‘ G 4 ABSTRACT THE PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE AS A FIRST THEOLOGICAL DEGREE: A COMMUNICATION MODEL BY Ervin Eugene Williams The current effort to reform the curricula of theological schools in the United States and Canada is a most significant develOpment within the seminary world. Unusual impetus has been given this reform movement as a result of the authorized recognition recently by the American Association of Theological Schools of the pro- fessional doctorate (D.Min.). Events leading to this official recognition of the Doctor of Ministry degree as an advanced theological degree have been identified with strenuous controversy, eSpecially among the faculty and administrative members of AATS affiliates. The basic purpose of this study is to in- vestigate the controversial emergence of the professional doctorate in order to innovate a communication model of the D.Min. degree for discussion, debate, and possible adoption. It is :95 fixation for trir. :Lsze pattern tit:- 25 1:. Numerous :eize set forth 222m of o.her 2i :crrect one o L. ' ‘ ‘. .I.:.'.T.9C S _ 3 g- ZECLCgical 6231;: b' A . . 05:2 seminarles :I; ‘ I 1 ‘ I .... xtl‘VerSLtie: 3‘.‘ .I Edge t0 'fl'E‘MCI “‘9.- '~._:d fOr “I“. ‘ u “.L‘ 13?v f “ “9 Corr Ween resear: F»: A 4.6»; ""ed 551041: “52148 OffiCi it“s id: not be 213+. Lion bar \- MM: — c '\ . -— — — —_ Qtlrfiated in Insioh him . uCathe PPOrtU“ .1¢ Ervin Eugene Williams . It is readily acknowledged that no one model of education for ministry is capable of constructing a com- plete pattern that will fulfill all the demands expected of it. Numerous models should be designed and the pro- cedure set forth in this study encourages the conceptuali- zations of other models in order that they might complement and correct one another. Hopefully, other models will be oriented strongly along communication lines also. The proposal for additional communication models is urged because one of the most apparent weaknesses in theological education is the communication breakdown be- tween seminaries and local churches, between seminaries and universities, and between seminaries and the society— at-large to whom in Spiritual dedication they are com- mitted for ministry. Moreover, the need to bridge effec- tively the communication gaps between students and faculty, between research-oriented faculty members and nonresearch- oriented faculty members, between faculty and adminis- trative officials--all within the seminary situation-- should not be neglected. Provocative assessment of com- munication barriers and communication gaps, plus ways and means by which these problems can partially be solved, are delineated in this study. Insights into a better understanding of both the communicative problems associated with the seminaries and the opportunities provided to improve the situation through :::;::‘.a reform 22211:. oegrea 2:5 3: the sen: i::::al degree s;;.i:'icant cone. I C! (I) u: I e , s Q: ’1 4 SCSI ‘99:.Io1' ,.......al that a I: help allevia: 55m" ' ‘ ~ In been" 4 ml we con: :_L Ervin Eugene Williams curricula reform related to the new doctoral program are offered through a historical review of certain earned doctorates, a presentation of the controversy surrounding the D.Min. degree, a selected survey of the activities of some of the seminaries already offering a professional doctoral degree for ministry, a recognition of several significant concerns related to the present situation on the seminary scene of action, and a realization of the potential that a new degree curriculum program has in order to help alleviate some of the communication problems extant in today's seminaries. The communication model advocates needed changes in two particular areas: communication for ministry (the dynamic involvement of the process of interaction on every achievable level of seminary commitment) and communications in_ministry (carefully constructed communications courses within the seminary curriculum designed to enhance the communicative process of sharing effectively with others one's knowledge, attitudes, Opinions, interests, and ideals). Certain recommendations are proposed for future investigation and action based upon conclusions reached as a result of this study. v. fl THE PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE AS A FIRST THEOLOGICAL DEGREE: A COMMUNICATION MODEL BY Ervin Eugene Williams A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech 1971 ‘ on 4“ “Lee... -'- b D \‘;A an ‘ ':""“l V‘LECZ ~‘Iy ‘ n .....'€"C1 5", r 6 .~.b to l ”W o‘n ...e Dccto: agiuee c533; Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Speech, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. MGM 'foector of Thesis Guidance Committee:j/%;2;JFR$Z (EBLZZZ§M¢€; , Chairman / I ' /_ V/j ’ M/ ‘ . I ‘ ‘ ‘."'v‘ N!“ h vu-V..‘.‘ HY .. a 1.7.". L‘V-Ft‘.“ '.- do" .I‘ U V J...“ . . "U 045‘ Copyright by ERVIN EUGENE WILLIAMS 1971 do... Dean of '7‘ This thesis is written in honor of DR. KENNETH S. KANTZE'R, Dean of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, for his inspirational leadership through brilliant scholarship and consistently faithful Christian living. ii ‘g‘ e nea“‘ ML 5 aaie g i 3:: O“ av!" U‘. 2:35 p an. .- '3.4' m an exc7 a In: in!- I.- ‘\ ‘1‘ U ‘ - The EEC! .rby Dr. Ba 4 . .,3_ ‘Q U-» ‘VU-‘Q ‘ N... F'I',‘ eea "tab 3 Dr o uv. ‘c. S a'v’aila :9. ‘V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The meaning of the phrase "no man is an island" takes on added significance when the responsibility of preparing a dissertation is experienced. Any contribution made comes not from a single source but from the shared concerns, common interests, and dedicated commitments of a small but loyal group. From its inception this study has been an exciting and enjoyable experience. The writer is grateful to all who helped make it so. The encouragement, guidance, and supportive help given by Dr. David C. Ralph, as Chairman of the Guidance Committee, is sincerely appreciated. Dr. Ralph also served as chairman of this writer's master's program. He has been both scholarly adviser and kind friend. The early counsel, patience, and contagious optimism of Dr. Kenneth G. Hance, who served as Chairman of the Guidance Committee prior to his retirement, was of immeasurable help during the doctoral program and formative stages of dissertation development. Dr. Gordon L. Thomas has been especially helpful, always available, and an outstanding counselor and teacher. iii . . V _, .. n Orrm':n ...._-I a..v J O 1. p'*.:"‘ A ~: ~.:=vuv Vn \ '\ PA.” \ Hr. \V‘U - 1 v I 'q . '“cn n! n n i a. ‘nu—o 0“: KAIO‘-€\A 2: re sen: r' ' Q .V“‘ fi.‘,‘ .5 '.:b. babe . u ...‘. 4“. u ‘ ‘ "'"L‘CU v.1”: , :‘ .. I. s‘v. H.‘a en‘ A ~ ‘1 v , .~§ . *5 e. I ‘\ i.‘ p .\ Dr. Madison Kuhn taught me to appreciate history greatly through his scholarly ability and personal warmth. His presence on the committee has been appreciated. Dr. Robert T. Anderson added dimensions needed with his knowledge and background concerning the church and the seminary and their ministries. For this, there is gratitude. Dr. Jack M. Bain, Dean of the College of Com- munication Arts, has been a genuine inspiration with his enthusiasm and encouragement on many occasions. Dr. Kenneth S. Kantzer, Dean of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, not only initially suggested the dissertation topic but continuously made the resources of his office and of the School available at all times. Dr. H. Anita Lincoln gave invaluable assistance at strategic moments when help was needed and appreciated. Mrs. Robert J. (Carolyn) Piersma rendered unself- ish service beyond the call of duty in the preparation of this thesis. The staff, Official Board members, and the congregation of East Lansing Trinity Church offered rich encouragement and deep understanding. iv r! 9 MW ..: or 'p- at: Coogburc“ .4 Anny; “-H ‘P. ~:$\voogobe' e‘ 2151! LC'IE EX? It": .L. . 'A ' ..:.'. €35 298353 Greatest supportive help came from my wife, Ruth, and our children, Roger and Virginia. Their willingness to sacrifice, their understanding during moments of stress, their love expressed in so many ways provided strength that was needed to complete the task. -,...;- -‘Y'f‘n . A" w‘ . "§"“'V5&Js The P The H~ The E The L The v The S “' THE Ox: A Lyn; The Scnc PIESE‘ Prese; The s' a.‘ an TFE CC“ ‘YM A P9. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 0 O O O I O O I I O O O O 1 Chapter I. HISTORY OF THE THEOLOGICAL DOCTORATE. . . 17 The Purpose . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Humble Beginning . . . . . . . 19 The Early Middle Ages . . . . . . . 20 The Later Middle Ages . . . . . . . 21 The Modern Era . . . . . . . . . 27 The smary O O I O O O O O O I 5 1 I I 0 THE CONTROVERSY O O O O O O O O I O 5 2 A Live Option. . . . . . . . . . 53 The American Association of Theological Schools . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Presentation of the Problem . . . . . 59 Presentation of the Issues . . . . . 62 The Summary . . . . . . . . . . 90 III. THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE . . . . . . . 92 Concern for the Professional Doctorate . 93 The Professional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree . . . . . . . 93 The Professional Doctorate as an Advanced Theological Degree . . . . 108 The Summary . . . . . . . . . . 119 IV. A PROPOSED COMMUNICATION MODEL FOR THE PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE AS A FIRST THEOLOGICAL DEGREE. . . . . . . . . 122 Citing the Potential . . . . . . . 123 Exposing the Problem . . . . . . . 125 Sharing Some Concerns . . . . . . . 125 Presenting the Model . . . . . . . 152 Concluding the Chapter. . . . . . . 180 vi ',-p-D' *:.ovb A M SEGERR, Surarj Conclu Reccrr 2':”~1::r.o::y . 'Oi-Oi HO“ O. Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 182 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 187 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 193 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 vii The curr :ezlcgical scho arr” sector teasers for t“- c c“-. ..-.'.;e. These I.nt:n°fi“ ' :"NnvolyLy In it : .0. ~ -. resht of 33:35:18 as a 2:36? n; ‘ orgachZE '~.; I ..:.Cal SChOOl : INTRODUCTION Settinngf the Problem The current effort to reform the curricula of theological schools in the United States is the most exciting sector of activity in the seminary world. The reasons for this are twofold: it involves risk and Reforming curricula does not eliminate risk; Change . And reform, by its very nature, creates 1t increases it. Change. These two components, risk and change, figure prominently in the curricula adjustments now taking place as a result of the threatened invasion of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree. The scene of action was Claremont, California, where in June of 1970 memlfier organizations of the American Association of Theo- 1091 cal Schools in the United States and Canada officially 1re<=<>gnized the right of qualified seminaries to offer the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) as anradvanced theological de- 9 ea - Events leading to thlS deCision, including unilateral a . ctlon by several theological schools, sparked one of the g1reaslzest controversies in AATS history, and the embers s I till are alive. Details of the controversy appear 1 11 chapter II. er ' ' .I‘. :as; :::::'.'ersial 5e 22.32? te a ct iégree for disc: I;'.".:;:y School It is r. :FA~:;”" led....“‘.e out-l ‘ .. a“ u 'ert-El Cregc; , ‘g‘ . m”. I ‘. h'lh‘ .n. Cy...:./l‘e:e: Statement of the Purpose The basic purpose of this study is to trace the controversial development of the professional doctorate as a first and as an advanced theological degree in order to innovate a communication model of the Doctor of Ministry degree for discussion and debate at the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. It is readily acknowledged that no one model of education for ministry is capable of constructing a com- Plete pattern that will fulfill all the demands placed upon it. A number of models should be considered. The Procedure outlined in this study encourages the con- ceptual creations of other models in order that they might complement and correct one another. Definition of Terms The Professional Doctorate.--Generally, the pro- fesSional Doctor's degree is the highest university award giVen in a certain field in recognition of the fulfill- “lent of academic preparation for professional practice. Spe<=ifically, in this study the professional Doctor's degree--the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) degree--is the hig’liest theological institutional award given in the fiald of ministry in recognition of completion of academic preparation for professional practice. This degree differs “Om the traditional Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree, w O hi eh is the highest university award given in a particular O I ‘T § £12.: 13 recogms 32:; for creatl 1.31:3. progra: silly in assoc unity or co ;:e_:a:e a gradu France, usual} A First h 4:359 presuppo o" u "3' ~~:--—- Of a se "5 lelree reou '."'u:~' --~....g Expos #152333, and .' 22,735" . .u‘..1 . Hav'y-‘r "“91 researc': “meal sc; “‘va 1a.:“- m N “US fhy Us field in recognition of the fulfillment of academic prepa- ration for creative scholarship and research. Whereas the Ph.D. program is designed to prepare a graduate stu- dent for a career of creative activity and research, usually in association with a commitment to teach at a university or college, the D.Min; program is designed to prepare a graduate student for a lifetime of professional practice, usually as a minister in a church. A First Theological Degree.--A first theological degree presupposes that the student entering the graduate Program of a seminary has completed all of the baccalaure— ate degree requirements in an appropriate subject area, inGluding exposure to general studies in the arts, scienoes, and humanities, at an approved college or uni- versity. Having embarked on a graduate study program. eitl'1er research—oriented or nonresearch-oriented, at a thecDiogical school, the student fulfilling all the re- qulrements for an academic program receives the degree award. This award, until recently usually the Bachelor of Divinity (B.D.) degree for persons preparing for the professional ministry, is the first theological degree. P resently, the standard first theological degree for ml‘n‘istry is the Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree. \ (W 1'The Doctor's Degree inirofessional Fields aShington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools, n.d.) . 11:28 Of 1973! 31:25.5 (AI—IS) 3? ‘..!‘.r..) as a pr ester of Divin: 22:3: for minis u .I. V" .. -.e as was .ea first thec. :‘eteral basis Burst theoloq raierrc requi: iii-Mia‘s deg: :335'35510nal 6: "La 1 ’ .“\'OLC x ;.1.;~-1 . ' -:e~a& Sgt-‘00:: :‘a c “U r ‘ otEu‘lenbl‘. I. n, . Q 109191 was :."Al F ad lOCat: In June of 1970, the American Association of Theological Schools (AATS) approved officially the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) as a professional theological degree built on the Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree or equivalent prepa- ration for ministry. The original recommendation brought to the AATS was one that proposed that the D.Min. should be a first theological degree. Several seminaries, on a unilateral basis, now offer the professional doctorate as a first theological degree. This means that the first degree awarded in a qualified seminary, once all the academic requirements are met, including a previous baChelor's degree from a college or university, is the Professional doctoral degree (D.Min.) . Theological School.--According to the AATS, theo- logical schools are institutions of higher learning "de- Voted to education for the Christian ministry."1 Such schools are known by different names. In the United States Such terms as "theological seminary" and "divinity school" are frequently used. In Canada the term best known is theological college." Such schools are degree-granting institutions. The particular theological school for which the model was designed is the Trinity Evangelical Divinity S cl1°01, located north of Chicago at 2045 Half Day Road, B anhockburn, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. \ th 1American Association of Theological Schools in (3% United States and Canada, The Handbook, Bulletin 27 ‘1r1e, 1966), p. 22. finial-"F. '1 LL, . u-n-‘ on- He ma ..... ‘IOL up. I}. v: uV“H:F‘:C“S‘M" .c cove-dbol “U 0" '2':':7 : 22+ or :Iub.‘.. u vOVal 1:3:act1vrty. '~ '9: ' L”: ‘:.;ni+ blons atte‘t‘ ‘ F N U‘Aa-l :rv-ra . nupy‘v ‘~:* i2?017es .0 tne re: therefore :3-3‘EVEI e Ending t te receiv E36 qual; ~3~ion is :ZOtzer p r L. ‘ _ (D m ‘ ’J 0 ’ Communication.--There are numerous definitions of (xmmunication. As Berlo indicates, "Communication behavior is tremendously broad in sc0pe."l Few would question the generalization that communication phenomena permeate much of human activity. For the purposes of this study the follow- ing definitions of communication prOposed by Hance, Ralph, and Wiksell will serve as guidelines: Communication may be defined as the process of attempting to arouse meaning in the receiver whiEh approximates the meaning in the source. This process involves the transmitting of a message from the source to the receiver. Effective communication results, therefore, when the meanings of facts, judgments, or whatever else is in the mind of the person who is sending the message are conceived or perceived by the receiver just as the source intended. Another and equally helpful definition suggests that communi- cation is the process Of attempting to share with another person, or with other persons, one's knowl- edge, interests, attitudes, Opinions, or ideals. Effective communication, therefore, is present when this information, these interests, and these atti- tudes, Opinions, or ideals are actually shared. Since the emphasis in the communication model will be Weighted heavily upon speech communication, the state- n“3rrts by Hance, Ralph, and Wiksell are most appropriate. com-Inunication is dynamic and must be regarded as a process. Meaquings are in peOple. They are personal; they are learned. The statement "that communication is the process Mattempting to share with another person, or with other 1David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication (NQV York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 2. 2Kenneth G. Hance, David C. Ralph, and Milton J. Elisell, Principles of Speaking,Second Edition (Belmont, a‘lif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1969), p. 5. I 23:25, one ' s k l - :Lieals,' ha.— freticn of the 1‘ those? 21:2; :rocess z '-".'.'. aid meanir. :rrication. 'on... ' u :.:.:S that S; :5 :ne of the ; tsczntrol, as; r.:pu‘.ation, ; “r.- are salie; :3“: into E. - 5.4 dc- Model \ sen-'9 'three : 5-1, ‘- Néhaulve' f; 51:“; ‘ «5.311; anc a. 9: P53§Ently . jfi‘ n “A " ' mes, Ore persons, one's knowledge, interests, attitudes, Opinions, or ideals,"l has special significance with regard to the flumation of the proposed communication model. Although the multiple components of the communi- cation process will not be overlooked if their inclusion will add meaningful dimensions to the model, nevertheless, proper stress must be given to the relevancy of speech communication. In support of this contention, Miller states that "speech communication is important because it is one of the primary tools that man employs to manipulate, t'-o control, and to understand his environment."2 The manipulation, control, and understanding Of man's environ- ment are salient features associated with the Objectives built into the model design. Model.--A model is a conceptual creation. It may Serve "three major functions: an organizational, or com-- municative, function; a heuristic, or research-generating, 3 function; and an anticipatory, or predictive, function." These functions are not isolated, nor can they occur in- dependently. They are closely correlated. As Miller 1mE31Lies, "Organization and communication are essential to \ lIbid. B 2Gerald R. Miller, Speech Communication: A ehavioral A roach (Indianapolis: BOEbs-Merrill Company, Inc-, 19 6 , p. 2. 31bid., p. 53. "e effective c: :5 :reiictlons . 1: szze respect I I! .l . A model in; data in drawn, perm zapped. A only cert i exploring a fuctionall ing with c»: ( 1 (I 'Y ( '1 *1 e: (I) H ' .”~- I \ a .. Mus-v, d‘agrd .;‘ a ' . :...:a:lons-- l :ESS i. 1” . the effective conduct of research and to the development Of predictions concerning probable communication outcomes."1 In some respects, a model, as Phenix points out, is like a map : A model is like a map. It is a means of display- ing data in such a way that further inferences may be drawn, permitting reliable exploration of the domain mapped. A model, like a map, is designed to serve only certain purposes, that is, to provide help in exploring a limited class of data. Thus, models are functional. They are created to be effective in deal- ing with certain specified experimental situations. To facilitate communication, the meaning of the term "model" as used in this study follows guidelines of Contemporary scientific theory. Model does not mean "an ideal value," as, for instance, "He is a model husband." It does not mean a miniature replica, such as a model air- Plane. It does not mean an identical replica which differs in size, but not in detail, from the original. It does denote discovery or invention. It is symbolic--employing words, diagrams, or numbers rather than physical repre- SeIl":ations--in conveying a message. It is a selective pro- cess, including certain variables and eliminating or ig- no”ring others. It is "a kind of classificatory system that enalznles one to abstract and to categorize potentially \ lIbid., p. 58. U 2Philip R. Phenix, "A Functional Approach to the Naderstanding of Ministry," Theological Education, IV, - 1 (Autumn, 1967), 540. _1E’z"' In ,.';-M;u\5 “2'? s . out rib " ‘ . ol~n:09nfi nose word-bill! .‘ “ ' "."LP 3” “C nou'. .. . o -:w-‘c:d" u...‘ fibdh‘ooc - is ever" iiifi' zerious c :1. It hoses t I. .:."p "v- Mn u 0 MM...- ‘AA‘ (0 A ‘ :3.';n L "m.“ .0 be t. 0.; f'sel or main . fl-.~ » . . $23.11». five a: ;.':V ‘ I . “V. b u ' W fl 2C 0 O ”Va -...es and i;- M. t. “are V». Gain at. .5” M” ine:: relevant parts of the process." In this study, the com- munication model proposed for the professional doctoral program will not be a completely developed, formalized theory leading to numerous deductions. Instead, this model is arranged in such a manner as to invite and to allow various other models to complement it or to alter it. It hopes to avoid oversimplication and premature closure . Limitations Imposed This study was limited to certain factors which Seemed to be especially significant relative to the pur- POSe , or main Objective. The study is historical and descriptive and not empirical. An attempt was made, how- eVer, to find causal relationships and to discover the forces and influences which accounted for what has happened 1:: <2ertain areas Of theological education, particularly as they related to the professional doctorate for ministry. There is only incidental mention of degree pro- grwalns Offered at theological schools other than the Master (bf. IDivinity and the Doctor of Divinity degrees. Likewise, cut‘tl':icula references are limited primarily to those having a direct bearing upon the professional doctoral degree. 1Miller, op. cit., p. 53. P o'v-Af'c .‘ “0V 9“ I . n O '.--~rvflfl V‘H \ g n- I. . .vvvo'v“ 5". ‘ N u ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ "'.:-—‘A“a HI ....~~:.vu ‘ u z -. . anhn-IA' “f‘“ u um:.dv.a\-.U-a 0 2' Fro: Opir his“ 14' . “A. Although 147 theological school catalogs were received and examined, only those catalogs projecting professional doctoral degree programs were given special consideration. Justification of the Study Intrinsic Merit 1. At a time when theological schools are seriously evaluating their involvement with the professional doctorate, asking whether it should be a first or an advanced theological degree, this study should offer historical perspective, insight, and analyses of what is being accomplished in some of the seminaries that are serving as forerunners with the professional doctoral program. From the open and more obvious differences of opinion to the subtle and more sophisticated philosophies of change, member organizations associated with the American Association of Theological Schools have, through intelligent discussion, brought the controversial issues surrounding the consideration of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree into clearer focus. The resumé of the controversy which this study affords will be valuable in keepi This CESS IESe Orie adni; .-S': a ta and 10 keeping some of the issues in proper perspective. This should be an aid to the decision-making pro- cess for certain seminaries. Theological schools are redefining some of their goals, reexamining their curricula in the light of their statements of mission, seeking new and effective means of challenging their students for professional ministry, and becoming more amenable to change. This study has intrinsic merit in encouraging faculty, administration, and students to accomplish these objectives. Since one of the apparent weaknesses in theological education has been the communication breakdown between seminaries and local churches, the strong emphasis on a closer relationship in areas of mutual concern advocated in this study may serve to motivate some seminaries and churches to close the gap and interact more freely and meaningfully. The need to bridge more effectively the communi- cation gaps between students and faculty, between research-oriented faculty members and nonresearch- oriented faculty members, between faculty and administration--all within the seminary situation --should not be neglected. The fact that there is a tangible awareness on the part of the seminary and the local churches for the need of a greater uv :1: a) *4 f"! () ll sharing of their knowledge, interests, attitudes, Opinions, and ideals with the world of people outside their institutions adds to the understand- ing of the problem. Among the many voices being raised and listened to more recently are some from concerned people who want to communicate their messages to the churches and to the seminaries. Provocative assessment of communication barriers and communication gaps tend to reinforce the need for more effective communication. The scene of action involving the theological schools cannot be overlooked with impunity. The introduction of better means by which these communication problems can be recognized and their solutions sought after--the most prominent objective of the proposed model--further justifies this study. 5. Halford E. Luccock contends that "the very genius of Christianity is sharing, the conveying of a 1 message." To this he adds, "Our time has put on the communication of the gospel a sense of urgency 2 which is hard to exaggerate." Both of these statements were part of Luccock's "Lyman Beecher 1Halford E. Luccock, Communicating the Gospel (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1934), p. 14. 21bid., p. 15. McLau catic One o in churc this day glistic a remains 5 lines. '3 QEEStiors given by Eunicatir Vances i1. mic-Lies! E 05 ad'ganc Of all SC 33:10:33 5 50: tlmes 12 Lectures on Preaching" which he delivered at Yale University in 1953. It was Luccock's main thesis, especially to the Yale Divinity School students, that they realize the urgency of communicating well the gospel to their generation. He warned his listeners that "it is a striking irony that our time, which has been called truly an age of communication, should have as a fitting symbol the Tower of Babel."1 To Luccock's postulations there can be appended this observation by McLaughlin concerning the church and its communi- cation dilemma: One of the most serious of problems confronting the church is its own communication breakdown. In this day when the most advanced technical and lin- guistic aids are immediately available, the church remains seriously entangled in its own communication lines. The church needs to ask itself a few probing questions. Why, despite the great amount of time given by the church to communication, is it not com- municating better? Why, in spite of the great ad- vances in electronic devices and linguistic tech- niques, are Christians still divided? Why, regardless of advanced education and improved communication media of all sorts, are Christians and religious denomi- nations still plagued with suspicion, distrust, and sometimes open conflict? If the seminaries accomplish two important proposed objectives: i.e., to establish better two-way communication with the churches, lIbid., p. 13. 2Raymond W. McLaughlin, Communication for the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968), p. 21. "a ".15, l3 and to prepare better equipped communicators of the gospel as ministers of the churches, it will give some answers to the problems outlined by such seminary specialists as Luccock and McLaughlin. It will also offer additional credence to the proposed direction of the communication model, an additional justification of this study. The projection of a communication model designed for a four-year preparational education for Christian mission leading to the professional doctorate as a first theological degree should serve as a challenge to Christian educators to construct other new models. Hopefully, these models will be strongly oriented along communi- cation lines also. From such proposals, because of the discussions they provoke, decision-making should produce some new and excellent theologi- cal curricula, enhancing the content and functional effectiveness of the total theo- logical process. The net result should be better equipped ministers, stronger churches, and greater service to society. The fact that the request for a study of this nature along communication lines was specifically made by Dr. Kenneth S. Kantzer, Dean of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, in order that i \ "Y? Cfigt o n.‘~.;'fl“” '\ QHC ..~...:».‘ ' v‘.‘ ‘ hCCCI A». ' .1" at. k . L2: :tJCJ MC 95...“! Ar r" em. uranpy‘ a‘ J r .. ‘ .ulfi. H r” "mum’s a“M . I ‘ ‘A‘Afivn; ‘ ”8...,c‘ Hang \- £315 a C03” 3-. .. My filmarkz 14 that it might provoke integrated data helpful in curriculum evaluation, faculty deliberation and decision-making, adds another dimension to the merit of this study. When Dr. Jack M. Bain, Dean of the College of Communication Arts of Michigan State University; Dr. David K. Berlo, Chairman of the Department of Communication; and Professors Kenneth G. Hance, David C. Ralph, and Gordon L. Thomas offered their encouragement it was accepted as further justification to consider this type of research investigation. Distinctiveness According to the listing of Knower and Auer no such study has been attempted or is contemplated. The contemporary aspect of this study allows its research findings and projections to serve as guidelines for the considerable action contemplated presently in seminaries concerning the professional doctorate (D.Min.). Sources of Data Documentary research is the method upon which chief reliance has been placed in this study. It repre— sents a combination of dependence upon primary sources and summarizations of reported studies, specifically within areas dealing with communication and with pro- fessional theological education. Texts in both fields, «‘ssional jO‘ . 1 ' restated .ay 3 ~ AM. u. . 5' :::E.vuah efii‘v t u u...,‘:._- A.‘ ‘ “OC :vlovb: V- ‘AI- . I O M 0!: OA'F‘! g. w an. .Ubu-H‘u' o .2 . no on. 5Hfl‘, v. 5.0.5 Shiv; . ~".;"': 0‘ N.\ "Iona-luv H g . O , .Vfli. . ...-...zatior.a'. a ':"v~ a 0"...3 . LA) V f 15 professional journals in communication and theology, and respected lay journals covering data relevant to pro- fessional education constitute primary sources. Other sources of information were utilized which were pertinent to the formulation and development of the stated purposes of this study. Some of these included statements and opinions of qualified individuals, published reports of organizational meetings and conferences, and institutional records. Method of Procedure The method of procedure in this study is: (l) to show how present concepts of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree have evolved and what influences and forces were re3ponsible for the deve10pment which took place: (2) to set forth the controversy which has greeted this development; (3) to examine the programs in selected schools where the professional doctorate is presently being offered as a first theological degree, and in other schools where it is being offered as an advanced degree; in to at: 35d 1' “LAY lU“ ch‘ . CnaPiEI Chapter l6 (4) to attempt to discover what results have emerged from these programs which contribute to greater competence in Christian ministry: (5) to establish a communication model for a par- ticular seminary contemplating a move toward a professional doctoral program at some future date; and, (6) to make some recommendations for future investi- gation and action based upon conclusions reached as a result of this study. Method of Report Chapter I--History of the Theological Doctorate. Chapter II--The Controversy. Chapter III--The Contemporary Scene. Chapter IV--A Proposed Communication Model for the Professional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree. Chapter V--Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations. 1 ‘3 *‘ ‘1 Ha .- .i V’? ..;. T?! v. T. v I o < r "1‘, AAA '9, ',. ...e H. .38 ”a or.» ".‘L ‘..e m. ‘g‘ (I) 'v II. III. IV. VI. The The The The The The OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER I HISTORY OF THE THEOLOGICAL DOCTORATE Purpose Humble Beginning Early Middle Ages Later Middle Ages Modern Era Summary _17 Id -f-.A' F‘ E ""Vfi VL ‘t mun-.‘Ffi‘ " , '..:' “‘osu ”2‘04. ”I v..:.‘ :8 D u. . “ in A“ 5“- ..I"-. 'v. .- I. ‘ q. "a. '! .m‘ic..1 "V:.. mauve a 93 k ‘ -"H“ W 8‘:Har I ”I \ “ ‘ 5"“; “y ‘1 r. - ‘l I p CHAPTER I HISTORY OF THE THEOLOGICAL DOCTORATE The Purpose The Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) degree and the Doctor of Sacred Theology (S.T.D.) degree are awarded for outstanding achievement in preparation for research and creative scholarship in theological education. A notable Badition lies behind these degrees which are designed baSically to prepare a graduate student for a lifetime of creative activity and research, usually in association With a career in teaching at a seminary or university. The Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) degree is the highest theological institutional award given in the field of ministry in recognition of completion of academic preparation for professional practice. A notable contro- Ve\rsX lies behind this degree which is designed basically to Prepare a graduate student for a lifetime of profes- sional practice, usually as a minister in a church. It is the purpose of this chapter to concentrate p::.:'.-1'1'l€.=strily upon the traditional aspects of the theological re . . . Search doctorate, reserVing a more detailed analySis 18 [7 V. ’" If" ' .: o'l: Rflfi'e '. .045 yy‘hbb :-~--v:’ l" ugvvvoulv .5 .‘.... n-‘AAO v- f nu: :uvvon\ ’A I. . .q. “"fi . V In :vuig$eg ..U 5. . .Ann V: “ err. van. 4- , F‘ Aqu ‘5 ~u.u . -"'A a A _ L Orr-y‘b“ e: "a ‘5‘ -" V I.. ‘v‘ 4-38. t..~‘ it: y. l c \- v“ i". a I a 19 of the contemporary controversy surrounding the nonresearch doctorate for the chapter which follows. Rationale for this succinct historical review is summarized in the words of Schuller: I In a period of rapid change, loss of perspective loecomes a danger. Momentary fads may appear as criti- <:al frontiers; isolated problems may be exaggerated to fbrecast doom in the future; valuable heritage may be (iiscarded before its future value can be assessed. On ‘the other hand, our planning for the future may turn (out to be too tame and unimaginative; our questions, ‘too superficial; our models, too restricted by the roast and unresponsive to the emerging situation.1 What may be regarded as both a warning and a plea for a balanced vieWpoint by Schuller serves well the approach envisioned in this chapter. Proper dimension is deSired; mere review is deplored. The Humble Beginning There is an aphorism, "The Greeks had a word for :111- " And so did the Romans. The word "doctor" has its Origin in the Latin word "docere," which means simply "to teach." Schweitzer informs his readers: "The term doctor was applied by the early Romans to those who gave public lectures on philOSOphical subjects."2 He adds, "It was 0 he of the titles used in the early church for teachers \ l pe , David S. Schuller, "The Essential and the rlpheral in Theological Education," Theological Edu- c . w, v, No. 1 (Autumn, 1968), 1. 2George K. Schweitzer, The Doctorate: A Handbook (8 . p.p§1ngfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas. Publisher, 1963). .j-An0\". S I v A. .g‘gvl- c; an I ;.na-y q; ‘5', ...... w. v“: .5122: were 5‘. are, as G 29' m..." ,. -..:.., “.135. “an NAlgn a yr " VJ ~=..ec I.I.‘. A‘ £...:. P} w '9.“ , ‘ ' A. ""3“! .83 "V :JPC‘SE of ' 20 in the catechetical schools, who were called doctores Some of the most learned teachers were termed audientium. doctors of the church, doctores ecclesiae." Among the latter were such famous teachers as Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory of the Western Church, and Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, and Gregory Nazianzen of the Eastern Church.2 The distinguished title "Doctor of the Church" was conferred posthumously, and involved three require— ments : an outstanding degree of sanctity, eminent learn- ing, and official proclamation by the Pope through the Congregation of Sacred Rites.3 Most generally, however, the title of doctor was given to peripatetic teachers who attracted groups of students around themselves for the purpose of learning. It had a rather humble beginning. The Early Middle Ages During the early Middle Ages, marked by feudalism and the exercise of great power by the Roman Catholic Church in Europe, the so—called seven liberal arts formed the basis of education. Grammar, rhetoric, and logic c . . . Omposed the trivium. The quadr1v1um conSisted of \ 1 Ibid., pp. 3-4. (Wa _ 2Walter Crosby Eells, Degrees in Higher Education Edushlngton, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in ca~tion, Inc., 1963), p. 15. 31bid., p. 16. 1:}! in" ‘ aoafl .p-ODI. b, ' gnu-nil v5 an 1 uq~obs ' 1 I..-uuu U‘ :~:o'n A r‘o-u‘ .o.‘4 UVOOUU 0‘ D‘ .AI :- ’ : u “a: U. .."’fiw, .O.‘:'V‘: . . .. ”a ‘Ic .. u ‘5 ‘O“.‘ . ‘ n 9"“:5. W HI‘U‘.‘ ." on: .fl': ‘6 I4- ":Vo.‘ ~ . \q,‘ u I 5" AA NH 5.. “v ‘ n . . ks-afl ‘,~ b -.I ‘avh‘ 4 4""‘1: p. uhog.;. ‘ ' Q a" FA ‘1» 5.. .21 arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. This number was fixed and the content standardized, chiefly in a book written by Martianus Capella during the early part of the fifth century. Few and simple were the textbooks used in the monastic and cathedral schools of the early Middle Ages. Such teachers as Donatus, Priscian, Boethius, and the Venerable Bede contributed to the slender curriculum Of arts. Obviously, the intellectual life of this period 0f history was not characterized by creative or widely diffused power of literary expression. Were it not for the influence of Charlemagne and Alcuin, his "minister of education," who created a school system associated with the monasteries and the cathedrals, the Dark Ages would have been darker and the great literature of the classi- Cal period would have been lost. The doctores audientium and the doctores ecclesiae, along with the monks and inter- es ted laymen, were largely responsible for its preser- Va:tion. The title "doctor" was used, as in the earlier period, to designate the learned teachers. The Later Middle Ages The twelfth century marked the dawn of a new era in Europe. Such qualified teachers as Anselm, Abelard, Irnezlrius, and Bernard of Clairvaux helped to spearhead a rene\«red interest in learning. The discovery of Aristotle's writings made a serious and controversial impact. Accord- 1 119 to Rait, "The impulse thus given to study resulted in :, .ufl’ ase l 9‘ .uv. Q Q . .00“... ‘1' a + ' ”‘0' “pool. ‘ :Ay .In:.rnf~b no any v8 «No v. -.'. ”‘91" H ‘- n 1‘» idly u: . . V ’ A 3” "“ 5? Hw- nun“: may... IA-AV' .:;...e:s org :35, -~ the 1:6 I“ ’f‘ “ “No.95, d T'— A. ...C: . ‘Q ‘aflno A ML, .9“ O . flfi‘flfifl’ misty. S V ‘ . C ""m o a“; u u “‘3“ fl“: . “'6vu- lie re: Stperyl L". “to (1) Lu 'L—l 22 an increase in the numbers of students, and students were naturally attracted to schools where masters and teachers possessed, or had left behind them, great names."1 Learning was highly regarded. An increased demand fomr.instruction heightened the demand for teachers to pro- vide tutelage. Teachers who gathered a number of students around them were called doctors or masters.2 Many of the teachers organized themselves into trade unions, patterned after the medieval guilds. In describing these unions or "colleges," Schweitzer says: These academic, scholastic, or pedagogical guilds eadOpted regulations governing the admission of new dioctors or masters into their ranks. The rules in- czluded stipulations concerning training and exami- riations. The teaching license was awarded only after tzhe requirements had been met. It was through such ssupervision that the original teaching license became tzhe prototype of the university degree. It was, in a ifashion, the first doctor's degree, since it estab— ILished a man as a "doctor" on the basis of a set IDattern of training and accomplishments. In Northern IBurope and England these licenses were granted by the (Zathedral school Chancellors. In Italy and elsewhere iJi Southern Europe, the doctor's guilds granted their Own licenses . 3 The teaching guilds had counterparts in student unions or universities. The word "university" in the twelfth c . . . entury carried with it the meaning of guild, corporation, ..‘~“‘_‘ (C: 1Robert S. Rait, Life in the Medieval University Elmbridge: University Press, 1931), p. 6. 2Schweitzer, op. cit., p. 4. 31bid., p. 5. _-'1,“_~_¢ 1.. I R U ”23:31.3 a5 , . ”go-pg rav-n n‘vuovaobbtg 2.: as a st ;.“--'e: 1c fi :2: regres A C: .3? - :rs pro: A, ' ‘ . «£51283 S “I- -‘ "Nae W?- c “I. ' A ‘ .. ‘ W S" H y... ‘? ‘k‘d ‘An Mn? 6. -..~,-. I I. .b‘lhu:r _ I .A F ~’::s C s f \ .g A "I. III, h. f O G‘ 23. or association. Students in Bologna, Italy organized a university as a means of protection against excessive profiteering by the townspeople. Threatening to leave town as a student body, they were able to secure "the power to fix the price of lodgings and books through their representatives . "1 A collective boycott threat against their teaching masters produced some interesting developments for the organized students at Bologna. Professors could not be absent without permission. If they desired to leave town, the teachers had to post bond to guarantee their return. If fewer than five students attended a lecture, the teacher was fined; he had to start at the bell and quit Within one minute after the next bell; he was not allowed to Skip material in his lectures and he was required to c"‘CWIer a designated amount of instructional material during eaCh specific term of the year. Other demands made by the s"Ln-fidelits were met by the professors at Bologna. Since the teachers at that time were wholly dependent upon student f I O O I ees for their income, student coerCion was effective. Bologna was not the only city where a large teacher c enter had formed. Others, for instance, had emerged at p . aria , Salerno, Rheims, Tours, Orleans, Chartres, and DXfo . . . . . . . I‘d. In addition to training in the baSic liberal \ (It 1Charles Homer Haskins, The Rise of Universities hetca, N.Y.: Great Seal Books, 1923). p. 9. mam- ..-«An \V‘. P‘ . . ~-.uu go; u- U, 1 5“ on 0"; vb;- ufi an: e}. .c m' ’v‘ .3; :“(V‘f‘q . ‘V'htvfi De 5:: “I a“ . “Han l 6‘ "5‘1 V5.5 \ H..F‘f“ ufi‘v‘ V J‘:‘,L "“Vu C- M 1 Ni ~ V I! .C‘ G u a“ l ‘u u ‘s 7‘; v“n.cc- b .i~ ‘;-‘~“~ ‘15 at V O. .. . ':-“‘n "'Jtrs‘ * l 24 arts, several of these instructional centers were specializ- ing in certain disciplines. Bologna was noted for law. Paris excelled in theology. Salerno gained its repu- tation in medicine. By 1160 two of these learning centers had developed to the extent in numbers of teachers and students, organi- P zation, and prestige that they could be classified as uni- versities. Schweitzer describes the situation in this 4; manner: These schools, in Paris and in Bologna, were acknowledged by reputation and general consent to be studia generalia, that is, schools of far more than local significance. Because of this recognized excellence, a doctor of Paris or Bologna was authorized to instruct in any center. He was granted the jus ubicunque docenti, the right to teach anywhere.l The universities at Bologna, Paris, and Oxford became the models for other universities that developed. In addition to these three, the earliest and best recog- niZed, important universities were established during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries at such cities as Vienna, Toulouse, Padua, Naples, Rome, Salamanca, Grerloble, Heidelberg, Erfurt, Cologne, Prague, Cam- bridge, Montpellier, Buda, Cracow, Pecs, Coimbra, and Florence. Papal or imperial bulls became the formal means of certification of these teaching centers as LlulVQrsities. \ 1Schweitzer, Op. cit., p. 5. .wfiua‘v ‘..... y“ "‘ ’29! r- ! I ‘ 'o-hl ‘ we. I " or; 6": NOV bfibd Prater C a'vv v.15 ' ‘ F." P .‘V U' bop“ . C ‘0: CC‘\V 05.: I. ‘ . ‘7‘.” 'a.-‘.tu d l'q. .- 2": 2*“: uh-fi «A w— . . “Y Fffl~97 "0 ‘Vbi-.‘ . 'VA'A .' .3 H nut: 11... a ”A." \— ‘U53 “4 04 i 1 £535 tow; . ' 1 ”AA a ‘ U “VV.~.¢ ' U F'1H11A :“V~4c‘ 5' a 1: A 0 "" U. 0:. ,. . "I‘ "sutu .. 'l' 'h ‘I ‘ 'cqefln ' w‘\‘ I v t. . a . ‘VH‘ng O ‘v‘l C, \‘.r C( ‘1‘; «‘5‘; 25 With reference to university degree granting, Schweitzer provides this insight: Although the guilds had made "doctors" of students, the first university doctorates were probably the Doctor of Civil Law and the Doctor of Canon Law awarded by Bologna in the twelfth century for the completion of its courses of study in law. . . . In Paris, the pre- vailing title in the faculties of theology, medicine, and arts was originally master, while the title doctor predominated in law. These distinctions, however, were not rigid. The titles master and doctor were used interchangeably for graduates in the various fields. The situation was similar at Oxford and other schools patterned after Paris, but the title of doctor gradually replaced that of master in the higher facul- ties of theology, law, and medicine, master being re- tained in the lower faculty of arts. Gradually, the doctor's degree was recognized as Superior to the master's degree. In many instances the MaSter of Arts became prerequisite to a doctorate in the other fields of instruction. In the German universities especially, a Doctor of Philosophy degree became well knOWIi. As the Middle Ages drew to a close in the four- teenth century, the doctorate, now a respectable acknowl- ec19ment of intellectual achievement, was earned by many students who did not remain in academic work. This was 11 - . . . . otl<-‘-eably true in the fields of mediCine, law, and theology. Consequently, the title of doctor acquired a b roader connotation than that of teacher. It was used to i. dentify a learned man who had successfully met the \ Ibid., p. 6. . . A. _-.-- A :‘- — I": ‘,.u-.-¢V . ‘ ' ”UN!- "6 ..:.....an O s . 1”,. 0.0: . . -'v‘.~ Dip o...nd any a ';o-Avvaa: av nav'bu n a o on;n no, ‘ Mi: 3:.2'E‘ . . a. . ._v. any ‘ I.- y...‘-. V'..v- i" :. C 'fls C- ' 1 .._ l“: m." “(v ." “-.--U 4 2" ‘9 ‘ "0ch ‘0‘ .‘O: Q 1 “~- ':":4¢:i r “we tLQ f ““C£‘"r~ h ‘ Q U‘. I. 1’ ‘ . ‘3 I [H 26 academic requirements in a given area of instructional discipline. The university, along with the parliament, emerged during the Middle Ages. These medieval universities "enjoyed an exceptional position in the society which they served with such remarkable distinction." They were cherished by both Church and State as "treasures, sources of pride, objects of general beneficence." It was during this historical period that systematic prepar- ation for both a lifetime of creative activity and research and a lifetime of professional practice became an edu— cational reality. Likewise, it was during this period that the foundation for the theological doctorate, as we know it today, was established. Paris and Oxford were the Signi ficant early university models where theology reigned as the "queen of the sciences," where faculties worked out among themselves a well coordinated program of studies, and Where threats to Christian orthodoxy by Abelard's rationalizations, by pantheism and philosophical skepti- c' ism, and by Latin Averroists were averted. \ (Fri 1Helene Wieruszowski, The Medieval University P. lgceton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1966), 21bid. :vL-oyaflv 1 “to -ono‘ 'L:"‘ ; F who: .LS 9‘ ~ \ pump» ‘vay- tutti. ‘I‘Q‘A* - n - Dl;fi A” A: ‘lvhouj \yu PH». 5,.“ .5... .._,-m "5":'_’ n ‘ 'iqu 'e‘ l n 5' ,V'Un ‘ ‘ "“tsutc '1 4 H . . 'i’v u ‘ 27 The Modern Era History is generally divided into three somewhat ancient, medieval, and modern. Since arbitrary periods: there is no sharp line of distinction, numerous historians prefer to identify the beginning of the modern era with the round number of 1500 A.D. This historical resumé of the theological doctorate continues in quasi-sequential move- ment from the Reformation period to the present contro- versy over the professional doctorate as a first theologi- cal degree. Protest was and is much in evidence at both ends of this chronological continuum. Degree programs during the sixteenth century varied COnsiderably. The variety was due primarily to the diverse historical origins of the different universities which had Gunfiairged during the Middle Ages, beginning with Bologna and Paris (92., 1160) and closing with Aberdeen in Scotland (1494) and Alcala (1499) or Valencia (1500) in Spain. Taking into consideration such variables as the starting ‘iéiizee, the field of study, and the university requirements, 'tliie total time involved for the doctorate ranged from six to twenty years. Often it was required of a student to e I O I Eijrrl a master's degree, or to show conSiderable profiCiency / lHastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in ‘3 laiddle Ages (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1895), ~ II, pp. 99, 309. i 67 2Schweitzer, op. cit., p. 8. -‘- -"e at: 9" "‘ I! - ' .. an F A . nut-U can . .,..,... A . V a? I'll V‘. U. \ I ‘ “~61": A t“ ‘4 ( ' ‘1-4 H g ' m "r a g r Jk I g ‘ ‘ H V: E» ‘~.l' ( 28 in the arts, before proceeding to the doctorate in areas called the higher faculties of theology, law, and medicine. Schweitzer describes this length of study involvement as follows: Following his license to teach in the arts and his master of arts degree (conferred simultaneously or close together), six to sixteen years of further study were required for the doctorate in theology, law, medicine, or other higher disciplines. Again, midway in this course the student passed through the bachelor's degree and received the teaching license in the discipline near the termination of the course. The doctoral degree in theology was apparently the most difficult one. At least it was the most time consuming, sixteen years of study beyond the master of arts being required at certain schools at certain times. In general, doctorates in the other fields could be earned in less time, usually six to eight years.1 There were exceptions, of course. Notable among them in the early part of the sixteenth century was Martin Idrtdler, a German monk and one of the important leaders of t31€3 Reformation. Luther earned his Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) diisizree at Erfurt, Germany in 1502. His Doctorate of The- ology (Th.D.) was awarded him at Wittenberg in 1512. Iriizearmediate degrees acquired by Luther included a Master (315 Jkrts (M.A.) in 1505 and a Bachelor of Sacred Theology (Esi-flP.B.) in 1510. The Wittenberg doctorate, which offered I"":lt1‘ler the privilege of teaching Scripture publicly and the Opportunity of preaching in the Wittenberg churches, was granted to him just seven years after he completed the ac: . . . Ei11 conferred sixty-seven honorary doctorates of phi- l<>£3er of honorary doctorates of philosophy was reduced by the beginning of the twentieth century; although, as indi- cated, the practice did not cease until 1937. Before this long and intense struggle to develop and Protect the academic standing of the Doctor of Phi- losophy degree began, the earned Ph.D. was considered on s(DI-“ewhat an equal level with the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) a nd the Bachelor of Divinity (B.D.) , both graduate de- grees. By the time that the controversy ended, the Ph.D. w as more highly regarded than the LL.B. and the B.D., as We . ‘11 as the honorary doctorates. The prestige of the Amer-i can Ph.D. had matured slowly with supportive assist- anc . . . e from German univerSities. American Colonial colleges and universities had fo llowed the English practice of awarding the Bachelor of m-:.-—.« *7 - " : . ‘w V . . )1 ‘ I l ‘..,q at 59' a. " ,.lo’ . .u A‘:" I‘: a...“ - a ' , nvnnu «Cr - A 'on‘d‘i‘u . . . . . a vo-F‘ . vvouo-H.C q i=9~e ( Ut-~.‘ l 36 Divinity, the Bachelor of Laws, and the Bachelor of Medi- cine degrees with or after the Master of Arts degree. It was standard operating procedure, for example, to confer a Bachelor of Medicine (M.B.) degree upon medical student graduates at Harvard prior to the year of 1811. The same was true at the University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers, Columbia, and some of the other universities. A decisive Change occurred in 1811 when these schools not only com- menced the practice of awarding the medical doctorate (M- D.) but, retroactively and without further academic demands, granted M.D.'s to the M.B. 's of preceding gradu- ating classes. Such action gave some evidence to the rapid development that was to be associated with the medical profession. Actually, prior to the establishment of the Philadelphia College of Medicine in 1765 there was only one way Open to a young person who desired to enter the pmactice of medicine in the Colonies. He had to appren- tice himself to a physician. Apprenticeship involved SeVen years at first. This time period for training was reduced to three years as a competitive compromise once new medical schools began to emerge following the Re\rolutionary War. Lee offers insight into certain corAditions during the early days of medical school deVelopment when he writes that "while some of the early med-i- cal schools had a university affiliation most were ‘ a .0“' .c-OU‘- I.“ ([3 ’. ‘vh II. “1‘. UV - “ 37 informal affairs operated for profit by their faculties and grossly lacking both in standards and facilities. When, in 1847, the American Medical Association was founded, its primary purpose was to improve medical education and medical practice. As the nineteenth century drew to a close the United States had 160 medical schools, a.number about equal to the total of all other medical Schools in the world at that time. There was a rapid in- crease in the number of schools but much was lacking in Stitndards except at a few of the more responsible medical CCl1.leges such as Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Following an in-depth study sponsored by repre- EBEBIItatives of the Carnegie Foundation and the American ”deaéiical Association, certain findings were revealed in a report made by Mr. Abraham Flexner and Dr. Nathan P. <2(>J-Well. Uninhibited denunciations of sub-standard con- di tions were made. The immediate response to this report was dramatic. In Lee's words: Second-rate medical schools and diploma mills began closing their doors almost immediately. By 1920 the number of schools had been reduced to 87. Only 80 remained in operation by 1927; of these 80 schools, however, only 62 were rated "class A," or fully approved by the Council on Medical Education, as meeting the standards for faculty and facilities, and the requirement of two years of college for \ 1Peter V. Lee, "The American Medical School: A :28? Study in Professional Education," Theological Edu- M. v. No. 3 (Spring, 1969), 198. m n- . .a \(‘D ’4 n I (D (D C) (‘).‘<: (I. ‘(2 H U“ C 3‘ ‘ n". V" '6: Q 5::‘H “tau: snapl 5" v“ .38 admission and four years of study for the M.D. In 1905 there were 5,600 medical graduates. By 1922, with 81 schools operating, this number had been re- duced to about 2,500. During the subsequent twenty years the number of medical schools was still further decreased to 77 (primarily the result of borderline or unapproved schools failing to meet standards) yet by 1940 the number of graduates had risen to about 5,000. These changes were significant. They set the stage for a respected medical profession that today can make the substantial claims that it is "the only one of the professions that requires a doctor's degree before final admission to the guild; second, that at least one earned doctorate is required in order to be a member of tl'le faculty for teaching other doctors. . . ."2 Today, the great majority of medical students Girlter medical school after successfully completing a £3tandard four-year premedical training program. There are e33<<2eptions to this. Johns Hopkins University devised a plan in 1959 for selected students to achieve their M.D. degrees in seven years instead of the usual eight. After only two years of college, these students embark on a fiVe-year course of study in their medical school. I‘llcather variation, for example, is Stanford University. 3E1: lengthened its medical course to five years, thus tea<1uiring nine years of study beyond high school graduation \ lIbid.p pp. 199-200. In: 2James L. Tullis, "Discussion of Dr. Lee's Paper," -.~_SESElogical Education, V. No. 3 (Spring, 1969), 218, a-‘A': . .vovn‘ . s’z. '9‘. q IA-c A! n . :“V! p, “‘0 .41 Q 3'» '“evo 3.6 M a; 5’ U. ‘U. Q . l’=‘~ .‘h‘ 39 before the granting of the doctorate of medicine. Wayne State University has a 2-4-2 plan which is used by about 10 per cent of its students. In this arrangement a stu- dent may enter a four-year combined liberal arts-basic medical science program after completing two years of college work. At the end of the sixth year, when approxi- mately four years of college work and the first two years Of the traditional medical school training have been com- pleted, the student receives a Bachelor of Arts degree. During the final two years of training the student is erlxrolled in the regular medical school's clinical program. The M.D. is awarded at the completion of these two years Of training. The significant factor in this extended illus- tII’-"ation concerning medical education is this: medical edu- cation has moved a long way from the superstition and ignorance of the Middle Ages to a respectable program of preparing students for a lifetime of professional practice. What has been the experience of the theological student in the United States? What is his historical pQSition? Does he have anything equivalent to the Flexner- C:<>lwell report in Charles Feilding's Education For \Mihistry71 S<31‘Acbols in the United States and Canada be compared to the \ Could the American Association of Theological (1) Charles R. Feilding, Education For Ministry SCEYton, Ohio: American Association of Theological (DCDIS, 1966). “wen w,-. p; . a . on... ‘i ‘ .FSVV F‘ nov' ”6‘ a II. Or~ )- Jun, .. op d‘vuy ., O . - ‘p-tf‘ “I vuvu u an.“ A: ‘Vjobu 40 American Medical Association? Is his heterogeneous heri- tage such that it makes comparisons between his profession and the other professions not only difficult but, in some instances, impossible? Such questions may be unwarranted; they may not be too relevant; they may best be considered in the chapter which follows. What is of greater conse- quence at this moment is an arrangement of data that will Shed some light upon the traditional aspects of the theo- lOgical research doctorate. The first person to receive an honorary doctorate from an American institution of higher learning, the only one so honored in the seventeenth century, was Increase Mather, sixth president of Harvard College. Harvard, founded in 1636 and therefore the oldest college in the United States, conferred the Doctor of Sacred Theology (3 -T.D.) honorary degree upon Mather in 1692. This doCtorate was not awarded Mather at the time he became p~"1‘€-=-sident of Harvard, as might be assumed, but conferred after he had held this office with notable distinction for 8e‘Ien years. The conferral, however, was given primarily in recognition of his accomplishments in science, liter- Qty ability and politics, achievements gained outside of his office as rector or president of Harvard. Increase Mather served for four years as the of~=-“—L‘-‘I°.c:ial agent in London of the Massachusetts Colony. He w as successful in having the charter of 1691 modified 2i , . “Q Ifi“‘ u '.u- . ”V ; 0'9'” 3 ”.08 C . 'hfi‘av IvaV. . o...“ - JI-QO‘.‘ o ‘ :q-y I on .‘V . ‘* no.5 Vouu. . ‘y'crg . n“... n 1“ CA A H '. no- In .n.. C“. ”'9“. a I. .."'b‘\ ~56. ‘4 Fr V'Val : 41 considerably, a great advantage to the Colony. His scien- tific investigations were well known and greatly admired. He published more than 150 books. Awarding the S.T.D. to Increase Mather did not Start a trend. Harvard did not confer a second honorary doctorate until 1771, at which time it granted a S.T.D. to Nathaniel Appleton, an eminent clergyman of Massachusetts. In fact, honorary doctorates were awarded on only twenty- Actually, eight occasions by American Colonial colleges. there were only nine colleges chartered before 1776. Five Of these--Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and Dart- mouth--conferred honorary degrees. Of the total number of tWenty-eight degrees awarded, fifteen were honorary theo- logical degrees (six S.T.D.'s and nine D.D.'s). Columbia awarded the most honorary degrees, nine in all. However, Princeton, with its five Doctor of Divinity degrees, con- ferred the largest number of honorary theological degrees priOr to the Revolutionary War. It should be kept in mind that outstanding indi- viduals in the American Colonies did receive honorary chtorates from British and European universities. Just as soon as political independence was gained by the Re"<>lution, academic independence was asserted as well. The number of honorary doctorates conferred during the l 0 ast quarter of the eighteenth century in the United \ 1Eells, op. cit., p. 54. 1:99: '..v-~ , .01- V. .J' ‘-.'.a n - .5 ."..V .A.-' Javvv- ) ...,,. . |:.C .’.. P. '9" Ev ”pa- haunt: "‘ " hm '90 5;. a’ M ‘61.,“ ,. «5“‘t ‘ 5" ,9 p § )1 H “J b '17“ ._M q, l" 42 States increased considerably. From 1776 to 1800 upwards of 250 honorary doctorates were conferred by a dozen American colleges. Eighty-nine of this number were Doctor of Divinity degrees, and twenty-nine of the total Were Doctor of Sacred Theology degrees. Although honorary doctorates were scarce during the Colonial era, the same could not be said for bacca- laiireate and master's degrees. Many young men studied for thee ministry which, significantly, was the chief purpose JfiDJ: the founding of Harvard. The bachelor's degree was fj.1:st conferred in 1642 on nine young men who enjoyed a dxbtnble distinction. They were members of the first gradu— ‘aiszng class at Harvard, and they were first in the United Eitzéites to receive the baccalaureate degree. From 1649 1‘3-1'Zlirough 1656, a total of fifty-three young men got their 1\«-IB. degrees and thirty-five, their M.A. degrees at I‘Ia-‘li‘vard . Theology, from the beginning, was taught and EstEldied at Harvard. The first professorship established :L11 ‘this College was the Hollis Professorship of Divinity :L11 1721. In 1764 the Hancock Professorship of Hebrew and \ 11bid.’ p. 59. 2New England's First Fruits (London, 1643), p. 16, ireproduced by Samuel E. Morison, The Founding of Har- as Harvard University Press,’1935), pkard College (Cambridge: m-g - 9 .09? .mV. ’.-o-~v: xuuioi . . qA-A ”H l ‘ ‘ygivoud no: yA: 0'. O ‘ aura-w: O U‘H‘n b a U 1.4.. ‘ I "Db A “Nuau L: It! *w-C‘l We (1 5‘“- n V“‘n:.. I r M)- - “:l‘ec “NC- {wags I SR'V‘A‘ “WU; “fin, WRSE 43 Other Oriental Languages was founded, and the Dexter Lectureship on Biblical Literature became a part of the academic scene at Harvard in 1811. The Official Register of Harvard University informs its readers: "In 1811, also, steps were taken to organize a program of graduate studies for candidates for the ministry, and this was the starting point of the Harvard Divinity School . "1 The Harvard Divinity School was not the first theological school to be founded in the United States. The first one was started in 1784 by the Dutch Reformed Church in New York, later moving to New Brunswick, New Jersey.2 The Reformed Church, generally regarded as the Oldest Protestant Church in the United States with a con- tinuous ministry, sensed that the educated and the wealthy Were demanding a clergy that was capable and that could Command respect. Other theological schools were estab- lished and these schools became some of the finest early prefessional schools in America. They were graduate From the beginning, the completion of a college a chools . Drake describes the ccurse was required for admission. clilrriculum briefly in this manner: \ I! l"The Divinity School, 1970-1971," Official e ister of Harvard Universthy, Vol. LXVII, No. 16 (Cam- lrldge: Harvard University Printing Office, August 28, 970), p. 17. Clifton E. Olmstead, History of_Religion in the mun-i. ted States (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall: I p° ' PA”. A. EEG-4»- C5 .""U~" a ~:_ t. I“: La . K‘a "A ‘ I it... by . Q . n .1. E Q I 0 V ,‘ 5...“:1: “"u‘ 44 During the nineteenth century for the Protestant trainees, the basic work centered in a study of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Subjects of study included Bibli- cal exegesis, systematic and practical theology, church history, apologetics, rhetoric, and elocution. There was little, if any, opportunity for election of courses.1 ' The Catholic schools of theology, following the Council of Trent pattern, became virtually self-contained isolated academic communities in which students were trained to be priests of the sacrifice of the Mass. Most of the Catholic seminaries were established in the rural areas in order to provide the peace and quiet considered essential. The recent Vatican Council has instituted dramatic changes in the training procedures for priests. Isolation has been replaced by integration; a rigidly imposed discipline is being replaced by a self-actualized pattern for the students in training. Ecumenical dialogue has been established and the multiple needs of both Church and society are under serious consideration. Not only were Catholic theological schools iso- lated for many decades, but so were many of the Protestant seminaries as well. From the historical perspective, theological education in the United States from the date of its inception has been largely a denominational affair. With a few notable exceptions, theological training has been church-centered in a provincial sense until rather 1William Drake, 2p? American School in Transition (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1955), p. 312. : a .A ‘ .u A H . I .gwvaH ‘ basicallj - . a 1515331 45 recently. Theological seminaries, for the most part, were founded and maintained by particular church groups, basically to prepare men to minister in these churches serving as sponsoring agents. The more Open door policy toward student admission and the regrouping of denomi- national schools on a transconfessional basis are con- temporary phenomena. One of the most impressive characteristics of theological education in the United States is its adapta- bility. It is dynamic, in process, subject to change. As Mackie states, "Like the church, it is semper reformanda."l It has been affected by the cross-currents of historical, political, economical, and religious change in the United States during the latter part of the eighteenth, the nineteenth, and nearly three-quarters of the twentieth centuries. Having felt the impact of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Great Awakening, and the Revolution already, the American people were partially prepared for change by the end of the eighteenth century. Change was not always rapid and, at times, it seemed as if the greatest resisters to change were the clergy. On other occasions, they were the forerunners of change. Depending upon the period of history and the 1Steven G. Mackie, "American Seminaries in World Perspective: A Draft Balance Sheet," Theological Edu- cation, V, No. 1 (Autumn, 1968), 42. :irt'JIStances iefend or to C From 1 train'ng in ti :asically 891" cation has to akpenetrati able answers- hrprofessit :cMackie: Fron have alw theology or even over the eYES the '56 Gerr 18. Yet 46 circumstances involved, arguments can be marshalled to defend or to dispute these postulations. From the earliest establishment of theological training in the United States, when our country was basically agrarian in its economy and theologically- oriented in its education and politics, to the present day when its shibboleths are science, industry, tech- nology, and secularism, the thrust of theological edu- cation has been dualistic. It is to study theology--to ask penetrating questions about God and to seek reason- able answers--on the one hand, and to train ministers for professional practice on the other hand. According to Mackie: From a European viewPoint, American seminaries have always seemed to pay too little respect to theology as an autonomous science. The education or even the training of ministers takes precedence over the study of theology. No doubt to American eyes the traditional European, and in particular the German, approach looks one-sided; and it often is. Yet there is a sense in which it must be stressed that ideas are at least as important as institutions; that theology is entitled to our respect and cannot be studied with impunity; that the task of the student in the seminary is, at least in part, to study theology and to see where it leads him. Nor can we cut any corners; theology may unsuit him for his professional task. We must run the risk that the theologian with a fire in his belly may prove no comfortable minister for the local congregation.1 Such statements should not be surprising to read. Seminaries in the United States have known many conflicts; they have faced diverse problems. Perhaps nothing has been 1Ibid., p. 46. + ' " .‘p “SCI: 0 ' R+n c:“"'a‘v .V i';:I. - t;:~h arid t} [5:8 and mo: ":e a dual '4 given to a i practice. '- is not capai is not capai research at that within diverse, it Unti schools, on fessional D: at toe send: The Stufient fol course of a «L . me seminar; m Arts! SC or College, u. - melt EduCE 47 so exhausting, and yet so challenging, as seeking a satisfactory solution to the‘problem of attempting to teach and train students under the same roof to be good theologians and effective practitioners at the same time. More and more there seems to be an awareness that this may be a dual track proposition if it is to be accomplished. If the student is to become adequately prepared for a lifetime of creative activity and research, the teaching and training procedures should vary from the preparation given to a student planning for a lifetime of professional practice. This does not imply that an individual student is not capable of doing both, or that a theological faculty is not capable of helping the student prepare for both the research and the nonresearch attainments. It does imply that within a limited amount of time, with emphases quite diverse, it is difficult to accomplish both simultaneously. Until very recently when several theological schools, on a unilateral basis, began offering a pro- fessional Doctor's degree, all earned doctoral degrees at the seminary level were research degrees. The normal pursuit of a doctorate for a seminary student follows a fairly well-defined, generally accepted, course of action. Degree candidates for graduate study on the seminary level must have received a Bachelor's degree in Arts, Science, or Philosophy from an approved university or college, or they must satisfy the seminary faculty that their education has been equivalent to that of graduates 3f approve is lost 6.6 ation for Q‘l 0 ‘ 3331131 nai iesigred t ::e candid avaster's the prereq 3333:1810: iiorough t s‘Sp‘erior k Adequate t ‘45 more t '48 senin a 48 of approved colleges. A broad liberal arts background is most desirable. Students lacking sufficient prepar- ation for seminary graduate work are required to take additional non—credit courses to make up the deficiencies in order to qualify as a candidate for a degree. If the study program they elect to take is designed to lead to a Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) degree, the candidate usually mustfirst meet the requirements for a Master's Degree in Theology (Th.M.). In some schools the prerequisite for entrance into the Th.D. program is a Bachelor of Divinity degree of high quality that offers thorough training in various theological disciplines and superior knowledge in the major area of concentration. Adequate training in languages is required also. More and more the baccalaureate degree is being phased out of the seminary curriculum and being replaced by a master's degree. This nomenclature change is in keeping with the tendency in American education and culture to regard a bachelor's degree, gg'fggpp, as the term used to indicate a student is declared ready to be considered for graduate work. The Bachelor of Divinity degree awarded for success- ful completion of graduate study, usually of three year's duration, is not consonant with the views of national educational agencies that desire consistency in degree nomenclature. The renal step; grcgram has years of gra baccalaurea' grogram has siously havl as the blast The Th.M. d attainment study. The aEgree is p; excellent 1‘, scholars, re C“ally. ric his doctor; luguage st {ESEarch an C'EXICY 0f tw v A. g‘audate fa spiritual A 3fialified W. “‘90109}; ( ' 49 The Master of Theology (Th.M.) degree is the normal stepping stone to the Th.D. degree. This master's program has many requisites and usually culminates four years of graduate study, plus a thesis, beyond the college baccalaureate degree. Most often the Master of Theology program.has been designed for those students who pre- viously have completed a three-year seminary course, such as the Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree or its equivalent. The Th.M. degree, when awarded, indicates a high academic attainment in a particular area of biblical or theological study. The program leading to the Doctor of Theology degree is prepared for persons who are capable of doing excellent research. The goal is to develop creative scholars, research specialists, and capable teachers. Usually, rigorous requirements must be met to qualify for this doctorate, including qualifying and area examinations, language stipulations, a dissertation demanding scholarly research and of publishable quality, and a minimum resi- dency of two years of academic study and research. The graduate faculty encourages Th.D. candidates to think critically, to communicate effectively, and to develop spiritual maturity and leadership ability. A second highly-regarded research doctorate that qualified seminaries offer is the Doctor of Sacred Theology (S.T.D.) degree. This degree is designed to gresare p tries, 52 age-grout forth. I fates for ad leads or in the Doctor 01 , .ectual a 50 prepare persons for a wide variety of professional minis- tries, such as pastoral counseling, inter-city ministries, age-group ministries, institutional Chaplaincy, and so forth. In essence, outstanding students who are candi- dates for the S.T.D. are trained for effective service and leadership in the parish, in some related ministry, or in the development of a new form of ministry. The Doctor of Sacred Theology degree represents high intel- lectual achievement as well as professional capability. Although the requirements for this degree vary in appropri- ate respects from the longer established Ph.D. and Th.D. degrees, the quality of achievement is ranked on a com- parable level. Applicants for admission to this program must hold the Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Divinity or Master of Divinity degree, or their equivalents, from schools of recognized standing. They must demonstrate that they have superior competence in academic work in both college and seminary. The candidate for the S.T.D. has to complete a research project, written in disser- tation form, that demonstrates his ability to put to effective use his knowledge and skills gained through his study program and experience. The profile of the newest doctorate, the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) degree, designed to prepare the seminarian graduate for a lifetime of professional practice, will be dealt with extensively in the next chapter. Th :asy centuri to peripatet Literated cc first univer 1:1. The i total deqree of the doctc will supple: hi9l'21}"respe Professional The earned c‘ “research a P0585 as We] their attiti “fire is thj Of history t terns a Stir Of a new PIC (D.Min') I in 101111993, and Cal Schools hl,‘ he". 9e5 into 51 The Summary The doctorate, as indicated, has developed over many centuries since its humble origin in the title given to peripatetic teachers and church fathers. It has pro- liferated considerably since Bologna and Paris awarded the first university doctoral degrees during the twelfth cen- tury. The interaction between earned and honorary doc- toral degrees has added many chapters to the development of the doctorate and, undoubtedly, myriad new chapters will supplement. The doctorate has flourished into a highly-respected symbol of scholarly achievement and professional competence in twentieth century society. The earned doctorate comes in two large academic labels --research and nonresearch. They differ in their pur- poses as well as in their programs. People differ in their attitudes toward these degrees also. Perhaps no- where is this difference more pronounced at this moment of history than in the theological arena. The issue con— cerns a stirring controversy centered around the intrusion of a new professional doctorate, the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.), into the student classrooms, the faculty lounges, and the administrative offices of our theologi- cal schools of higher learning. That which follows plunges into the heart of this conflict. II. III. IV . AL The Sch Pre Pre The II. III. IV. OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER II THE CONTROVERSY A Live Option The American Association of Theological Schools Presentation of the Problem Presentation of the Issues The Summary 52 society. 0 as a modern Observation is to some flicts? In mSOlVed pr, technolOgica Unde has Played i Educational PEQp1e’ Con negatiVe Cor Storm Warni: evil to be ( so“ See it nary Phase CHAPTER II THE CONTROVERSY A Live Option Controversy is a live option in the American edu- cational tradition just as it is endemic in our democratic society. One might tend momentarily to regard controversy as a modern-day phenomenon. But is it not a more cogent observation to recognize that contemporary controversy is to some degree an intensification of yesterday's con- flicts? In fact, it may be a predictable extension of the unsolved problems and challenges associated with a complex technological society. Underestimation of the influential role controversy has played in the ongoing progress of the United States' educational systems is a viable possibility. To some people, controversy has only sonorous overtones of a negative connotation; it is the harbinger of ominous storm warnings. To others, controversy is a necessary evil to be endured en route to a more informed position. Some see it as a precursor of exciting changes, a prelimi- nary phase for renewal and stimulating discovery. Still 53 others may r6 of the doubt: tension by 1: There may be that naximi 2' focus. Cont. issues which ful discussi. places of "e. argumentatio; intelligent < Protective Vs Change attiti ““131 minds Naive 54 others may regard controversy as catharsis, an expurgation of the doubts, anxieties, and hostilities designed to ease tension by the peaceful processes of discussion and debate. There may be some who think of controversy as a threat that maximizes the danger of Open strife and rebellion. Thoughts concerning controversy can be controversial. Often today's controversy in education lacks clear focus. Contradictory opinions are expressed on educational issues which are seen in kaleidoscopic patterns. Meaning- ful discussion or serious debate is wounded in the abiding places of "either-or" forced options and "for-or-against" argumentation. Extreme positionism tends to cancel out intelligent consideration of legitimate alternatives. Protective vested interests and change-for-the-sake-of- change attitudes produce grotesque silhouettes in pro- vincial minds characterized by compartmentalized thinking. Naivete would seek its day in court. It would judge impertinent the request to study educational con- troversial issues as reflections, in part, of the larger conflicts in society itself. It would seek to ignore the possibility that some of the controversial opinions con— cerning education emerge from the differences between the American system and the European system. It might even fail to submit as evidence the fact that controversy has its citizenship in the contradictory, yet interrelated needs, beliefs, goals, values, priorities, and ideas of men . :ontrover doctorate exarined. head of s zations c in the L‘r In 55 The specific issues involved in the educational controversy surrounding the invasion of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree are now to be examined. Such an invasion has occurred upon the beach- head of seminary soil already disturbed considerably by recent curricula changes. Moreover, such issues have been and are being debated seriously by member organi- zations of the American Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (AATS). The American Association of Theological Schools Since the American Association of Theological Schools figures prominently in the professional doctorate controversy under discussion, some salient, descriptive information concerning this organization is both appropri- ate and necessary. Abbott Lawrence Lowell was president of Harvard University from 1909 until 1933. In 1918 at Cambridge, Massachusetts, he arranged a meeting of repre- sentatives of a number of Protestant theological schools in the United States and Canada. At a meeting in 1920 the Continuation Committee, selected at the original informal gathering, proposed that a formal name be adopted for the group President Lowell had called together two years pre- viously. This action was approved and the Conference of Theological Seminaries and Colleges in the United States and Canada emerged. Member schools assessed themselves ten dollars annually to defray the costs of the Conference, which was t :resently 1 brief some :irding the Wi1 its me: took as interes highes1 ter; tc these : cationa nation Europe; tmitie with ar A 5 Conference Association and Canada. s(em-”arms um listi Sade in the tent Creati. H '1 pal Theolog: cl? 56 which was to convene biennially. Jesse H. Ziegler, presently the Executive Director of AATS, offers in brief summary the following review of the purposes under- girding the formation of the Conference: With membership open to schools recommended by its members, the Conference, which met biennially, took as its object "to promote intercourse amongst . . . its membership; to confer concerning those interests which are common . . . ; to advance the highest ideals of training for the Christian Minis- ter; to consider any problems of . . . relation of these institutions to the State and to other edu- cational establishments; to provide . . . infor- mation . . . on advanced theological studies in Europe; . . . to make known in EurOpe the oppor- tunities for such study in America; and to deal with any other matter. . . ."1 A significant event took place in 1936 when the Conference decided to change its name to the American Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. Standards for accreditation of theological seminaries were adopted and two years later (1938) the first listing of accredited schools was compiled by the AATS. Much of the groundwork for these advances had been made in the Mark A. May study, completed in 1934. Excel- lent creative leadership was provided when Charles L. Taylor was persuaded to leave the deanship of the Episco- pal Theological School in order to become, in 1956, the first Executive Director of the American Association of Theological Schools. Taylor served with distinction in 1Jesse H. Ziegler, "The AATS and Theological Edu- cation," Theological Education, II, No. 4 (Summer, 1966), 8-67. _ . :3! 1?. I‘ ' 3311311 ICE gr agrees. 57 this strategic capacity for ten years. During his tenure of office there were numerous outstanding accomplishments. For instance, the AATS was granted membership in the National Commission on Accrediting with responsibility for graduate professional education in theology. An agreement was negotiated with the American Association of Schools of Religious Education which committed AATS "to accept responsibility in the graduate professional area of religious education."1 Another significant event occurred in the autumn of 1964 when the publication of a scholarly journal en- titled Theological Education was initiated by AATS with' the help of a financial grant from The Lilly Endowment, Incorporated.2 Jesse H. Ziegler, Associate Director of AATS, became its first editor, a position he continues to hold. Theological Education, published quarterly, inter- prets major issues confronting theological leaders and presents research investigation especially valuable to the education of ministers. When Taylor resigned in 1966, Ziegler moved up from Associate to Executive Director of the American Association of Theological Schools. Ziegler soon announced six objectives for AATS accomplishment within lIbido ' pp. 5-700 2Jesse H. Ziegler, "Editorial Introduction," 2222l2919a1 Education, I, No. 1 (Autumn, 1964), 1. e’v’al‘uau Strong a 58 the forthcoming decade of 1966-76. These goals were defined as follows: (1) the Association will attempt correlation of its services with the emerging design of the ministry in the contemporary world; (2) AATS will correlate its own functions in the light of evolving ecumenical forms; (3) effort to improve the quality of theological education at all levels will be made by the Association; (4) AATS will strive for the achievement of maximum development of faculty resources within member schools; (5) aware of the problem of resource distri- bution, the Association will seek to effect optimum distribution of resources to help meet the approachable needs of theological education; and, (6) AATS will serve as a service organization to promote the general improve- ment of theological education.l Ziegler recognized the need for some searching evaluation and some radical changes in order to assure strong advances in the progress of education for ministry. He also realized that the controversy over the choice of the basic professional degree in theology hung like a storm cloud within the atmosphere, potentially threatening the unity of the American Association of Theological Schools.2 lZiegler, "The AATS and Theological Education," op. cit., pp. S-7l-S-78. These pages offer elaboration of t e six objectives paraphrased above. 21bid., p. s-7o. ”A! v J; C)" (D 59 Presentation of the Problem Without doubt, the issue of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree has been and presently is being debated seriously, conscientiously, and sometimes heatedly by member organizations of the American Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. Many questions are being asked. For example, what standards should be set and what require- ments should be met in order to make the professional doctorate, as a first theological degree, a degree of competence? What effect would the professional doctoral degree have upon the master's degree programs within the seminaries? Will this professional degree "cheapen" the doctoral degree concept? Will the granting of the pro- fessional doctorate improve the "public image" of the minister? Will it upgrade the "self-image" of the minis- ter? Will the professional doctoral degree become an ordination d3 £3222 for some church denominations? If the possibility exists that a person might receive a J.D. in law and yet fail the bar examination, that one might be granted an M.D. in the medical profession and yet fail to achieve the right to practice, is it also true that a person might be proffered a professional doctorate in theology and fail to meet ordination requirements? Should not sharp lines of distinction be drawn between a pro- fessional type of doctorate and the academic doctorate based primarily on research education? Will the granting u‘ :- .u» man at... 9. any Poo ho~§ 60 of the professional doctorate tend to upgrade ministerial education through improved seminary programs, or will the opposite be true? Will many graduates, earning the pro- fessional doctorate, continue their education on a post- doctoral level? Is the professional doctoral degree in theology mainly a change in degree nomenclature, or is it designed to give greater meaning and substance to theo- logical education? Other questions are being asked. If some semi- naries, on a unilateral basis, adopt the professional doctorate as a first theological degree, as some already have, and other seminaries do not, will this give to those schools who do a distinct advantage in student recruit- ment? If graduating students of seminaries receive doctorates en magsg, will not such doctorates become suspect in the public mind? Is the chief motivation for awarding the professional doctorate to graduates of seminaries a desire to achieve "distributive justice," i.e., to do what medical and law schools are doing for their graduates? Will standards of admission to theo- logical schools become as rigorous as the standards of admission to the other professional schools? Should the granting of the professional doctorate be restricted to those who achieve a high degree of excellence in their preparation? Would seminaries do well to eliminate all other degrees and award only one degree--the professional doctorate? IV. q a ‘\1 ‘ov “I.“ 61 Although not myriad, questions abound. Educators in the theological milieu are searching for answers and this includes personalized soul-searching. Concern for education at the doctoral level for persons who basically are interested in the practice of ministry is not new. For example, some interest in the professional doctorate existed within the membership of The American Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada as early as 1942. Despite much debate and differing opinions, common agreement seems to have been found in one area to date. There is consensus that when a professional doctoral degree in ministry is granted, that degree should reliably represent the valid recognition of professional competence and high intellectual achievement. Even though require- ments for this degree will and should differ in certain respects from requirements of the well-established re- search degrees, such as the Doctorate of Philosophy and the Doctorate of Theology, the qualitative goal of achieve- ment envisioned is to be at a commensurate level if cer- tain projected aspirations are attained. Where doubts occur, they are not founded on low thresholds of aspi- ration; rather, they arise from fears that seminaries may not be positioned presently to maintain standards equiva- lent to goal orientation. There is, of course, a cadre of theologians who question the need for and motivation .A ‘l u N. ... ‘ a uh. I A u ‘8': Uh}! 62 behind the professional doctorate as a first theological degree. They challenge and are challenged. Cross currents multiply. Presentation of the Issues As early as the winter of 1966, soon after the School of Theology at Claremont made the initial uni- lateral move to establish the professional doctorate as a first theological degree, Montgomery expressed his views in the following tone: College and university bulletin boards across the land are sporting the University of Chicago Divinity School's eye-catching poster announcing its new de- gree program for ministerial training: a 4 1/2 year "Doctor of Ministry" course. Static over this move is heavy in the American Association of Theological Schools. The question of revamping the standard B.D. program came before the AATS when the School of Theology (Methodist) at Clare- mont, California, announced that it would offer a "Doctor of Religion" degree and Chicago made known its plans to grant the D.Mn. Coupled with these specific institutional plans came a request from the Methodist Association of Theological Schools for an immediate study of the B.D. question. At the last biennial meeting of the AATS, in June, 1964, discussion of these petitions was hot and heavy, and recently a pamphlet of some sixty pages has been prepared by Jesse Ziegler, associate director of AATS, to acquaint theological faculty members with the issues. The confidential nature of the pamphlet pre- cludes specific discussion of its contents here, but no tales will be told out of (divinity) school if we point out the obvious: Many AATS seminaries are deeply disturbed over a unilateral move that could give a few schools distinct advantages in the theological student market, which . . . appears to be steadily diminishing. The suspicion seems to exist that in the growing com- petition for students, Chicago and Claremont may have ;63 created programs grounded more in self-seeking Eros than in the Agape that "seeks not her own."1 Since Montgomery postulated his opinions in 1966, a sequence of events relating to the professional doctorate, and to the American Association of Theological Schools' involvement in this controversy, has occurred. In June of 1966 a special committee was appointed by the AATS to prepare a statement of standards for the professional doctorate in ministry. Serving on this Com- mittee on Standards for the Professional Doctorate were: Seward Hiltner of Princeton Theological Seminary, Henry B. Adams of San Francisco Theological Seminary, Charles Feilding of Trinity College Faculty of Divinity in Toronto, C. Ellis Nelson of Union Theological Seminary in New York, C. Penrose St. Amant of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ernest W. Saunders of Garrett Theological Seminary, and F. Thomas Trotter of the School of Theology at Claremont. The initial meeting of this Committee began in a tense setting in view of the radical differences of con- viction among Committee members. Regardless of personal and representative conviction, those serving on the Com- mittee dedicated themselves to place the general concern above their personal interests. The Committee prepared a 1John Warwick Montgomery, "Theological Doctorates," Christianity Today, x, No. 10 (February 18, 1966), 54. .pc 'H ufirb" . o F - - ’ w-bo.‘ ‘ .A' ‘ ub-o :F' out a k!- duh. Iv I‘h 64 tentative statement of standards and circulated them to member schools. On February 9, 1968 a total of thirty theological schools sent representatives to a hearing held in Chicago for the purpose of discussing the proposed standards. Some of the schools, approximately a dozen of them, sent prepared statements criticizing and evaluating the pre- liminary statement of standards. All of the critical statements were heard. An item-by-item consideration of the proposed statement of standards followed. Revisions were made. No vote on the revised document was taken. However, the Committee believed that the representatives present, for the most part, were generally prepared to support the revised statement, while reserving the right to disagree at certain points. The revised statement was sent to the deans of AATS member schools early in May of 1968. Whatever action was planned would have to wait until the Twenty-Sixth Biennial Meeting of AATS planned for June 10-13, 1968, in St. Louis. The deans also received a "Commentary" from the Committee which amounted to a justification account of the collective reasoning that produced the statement of standards. In their Commentary the Committee members indicated a recognition of the possibility that the pro- fessional doctoral program, rightly established and executed, could represent a relevant pioneer effort on I n- I‘V-O qv U. A‘s ~\~ A\~ De Mi \uJ 65 the frontier of theological education, rather than a nomenclature substitution for the Bachelor of Divinity or Master of Divinity degrees which they frowned upon and discouraged. The biennial meeting of the AATS in St. Louis produced discussion, debate, and accentuated controversy over the professional doctorate as a first theological degree issue. The Committee report was "tabled." Emerg- ing from this four-day event was the authorization to appoint a special committee "to investigate the question as to whether the Association as a whole should recommend a change from the B.D. degree to a professional doctorate as a first theological degree."l Krister Stendahl, Dean of the Harvard Divinity School, was named the chairman of a special ten-member committee known as the Committee on the Professional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree. This Committee, appointed by the president of the AATS, consisted of Vitus E. Bucher, Dean of St. John's School of Divinity; Charles M. CoOper, President of Pacific Lutheran Theo- logical Seminary; Charles U. Harris, Dean and President, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary; Gordon E. Jackson, Dean of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; Duke K. McCall, President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Joseph C. 1American Association of Theological Schools, Bulletin 28, p. 90. 66 McLeeland, Professor at McGill University Faculty of Divinity; Ronald E. Osborn, Dean, Christian Theological Seminary; Joseph D. Quillian, Jr., Dean, Perkins School of Theology; Fred R. Stair, Jr., President, Union Theo- logical Seminary in Virginia; and Dean Stendahl. A replacement on the Committee was made during the second year of its work. John Eidenschink, Dean of St. John's School of Divinity, succeeded Vitus E. Bucher. The Committee labored over its assignment for many hours. By the middle of October, 1969, the Committee had compiled and circulated its Preliminary Report. Com- ments were requested and received from AATS member schools. A series of ten hearings were scheduled on a regional basis during January and February of 1970. The geographi- cal locations chosen were: Dallas, Berkeley, Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Atlanta, Louisville, New York, Toronto, Boston, and Washington. Member schools were en- couraged to send representatives to the place most con- venient for them. Representation could include adminis- tration, faculty, and students. A request was made to limit the total representation from any one school to three in order to make the procedure at the hearings more manageable. Some delegations from the participating schools included students and alumni. Interest was high. As one indication of the tension felt and exhibited at times during a hearing held at Chicago on January 13, 1970, for instance, a critical statement purported to 67 represent the views of the Garrett Student Association Coordinating Board of Garrett Theological Seminary was read and circulated. The Garrett student reaction, addressed to the AATS Committee, read as follows: As seminarians, deeply committed to a concept of ministry which demands that we rise above petty self- interest, we strongly object to these hearings and to the Preliminary Report. We can only view these hearings to be symptomatic of a deep pathology in the church. We see the move- ment toward the professional doctorate to be based completely on status considerations. We denounce the AATS for wasting time, energy, and money on such petty, self-serving matters while the world is burning at the doorstep of the seminary. The AATS, by so misplacing its values and priorities, displays the sickness of elitism which infests the church, making it incapable of responding to the needs of the poor and the powerless. By its participation in this status game, the AATS brings into serious question its credibility as an accrediting agency. We call upon this committee to cancel this and all subsequent hearings, and to recommend that the AATS drop consideration of this matter.1 Immediate reaction by the Committee chairman was that of restraint and politeness. The hearing continued. The Garrett Student Association Coordinating Board state- ment served notice, however, that proposals advocated by the Committee in its Preliminary Report would be challenged 1This statement was read and then distributed in written form to delegates attending a hearing on the Pre- liminary Report, prepared by the Committee on the Pro- fessional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree and sponsored by the American Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada, which was held at Bethany Theological Seminary in Oak Brook, Illinois, on Tuesday, January 13, 1970. 68 by some seminary students, as well as by certain faculty members and administrators. At a later date, the Committee on the Professional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree acknowledged in writing: We note especially the view seriously voiced by some students in sharp criticism of the AATS spending time, effort, and funds on questions of degree nomen- clature in a time when "the world is burning at the doorstep of the seminary." We recognize such indig- nation against status games and status considerations and we declare that experiments with theological edu- cation free from the strictures and prestige of aca- demic degrees are welcome within the AATS. Many voices were heard at the Chicago hearing in addition to those of the students. Ideas expressed in random comments include these encapsulations: It is difficult to "shake" the image of the research degree when discussing the professional degree; what is going to happen to the master's degree, especially the M.Div. degree?; it seems as though is not a "status" matter so much as it is a "measurement" matter; I see it more as a matter of "when," not "whether"; what will this do to the Master of Sacred Theology degree especially?; what about students who are not of doctoral calibre?; how many of our member seminaries could qualify for this type of program? 1American Association of Theological Schools, Pro ram and Reports, 27th Biennial Meeting (Claremont, Ca 1 ornia, June l7-l9, 1970), p. 75. 69 Additional criticism was heard at the Chicago hear- ing as serious objections to the professional doctorate were directed to the Committee chairman. For example, Carl E. Braaten, Professor of Systematic Theology at Chicago's Lutheran School of Theology, wanted to know if the chief reason for awarding the doctorate to all gradu- ates and theological schools is to achieve "distributive justice"--that is, to do what medical and law schools are doing for their graduates. Having alluded to this unveri- fied assumption, he then urged acceptance of a corollary of this "justice," namely, to be certain to apply equal standards of entrance. Braaten said he shuddered at the grotesque prospect of all our graduates entering their parish communities with the title of "doctor." He com- pared any attempt to reach-for the glamor of title and for the security of status as evidence of "the decadence of mind that afflicts those who are supposed to be leaders in the church and in its schools."1 Braaten continued his argument by saying, "To award a graduate of a seminary this degree will either hold him up to ridicule, since he will bear a title which his performance cannot match, or it will bring about a 1Carl E. Braaten, "Objections to the Professional Doctorate," a prepared statement circulated at the AATS Hearing on the Professional Doctorate as a First Theo- logical Degree, Oak Brook, Illinois, January 13, 1970. 70 further cheapening of the degree."1 Braaten could not see why a minister should have to face either of these alternatives. One of Braaten's colleagues, Franklin Sherman, then serving as Acting Dean of Faculty, also prepared a briefly written, critical analysis. In response to the Preliminary Report made by the Committee on the Pro- fessional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree, Sherman had this to say: The proposal comes at a time when many schools are making the transition from Bachelor of Divinity to Master of Divinity degree programs. We ourselves made this change at the beginning of the current year. We now offer the Master of Divinity and, for those not seeking ordination, the Master of Theological Studies degrees. Like some other schools, the Lutheran School of Theology refrained from making any such change in nomenclature until we could thoroughly examine, revise, and reform our whole program of theological studies. We did not want simply to stick a new M.Div. label on the old B.D. curriculum. Under the new plan now in effect--in- volving a new way of beginning theological education in what we call the Integrated First Quarter Program, new and flexible ways for the student to come to grips with the necessary material and for the faculty to evaluate his competence, and a new capstone in the form of a master's thesis, we believe that we can grant the M.Div. or M.T.S. degrees with integrity. The thought of giving our present graduating stu- dents doctorates en masse, without requiring of them any further work, and without a rigorous selective process that would have had to occur at a much earlier point--this thought, however much we love our students and respect them for what they are, indeed strains credulity.2 lIbid. 2Franklin Sherman, prepared statement (in part) circulated to representatives attending AATS Hearing on .A- y. ° H .o‘ Ch: PM a! ‘I'A 71 Sherman indicated concern, also, that this change would have world-wide repercussions. He pointed out that in his opinion "theological scholarship in America is not so highly regarded elsewhere that we can afford to take the lead in watering the currency of academic nomen- clature."1 Other critical comments were made by representa- tives attending the Chicago Hearing at Oak Brook, Illinois. Often such observations were based upon incomplete knowl- edge, partially false assumptions, and/or fallacious reasoning. The Hearing offered opportunities to clarify the issues, to correct certain erroneous assumptions, and to achieve a degree of understanding. Not all of the representatives present espoused negative tendencies. Some were neutral, seeking to be better informed before making commitments. Others were positive, expressing favorable reaction. Proponents of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree, somewhat less vocal at the Chicago Hearing, also expressed varying reactions to proposals contained in the Preliminary Report. In general, however, the conviction that the professional doctorate would eventually become the standard degree for the Professional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree, Oak Brook, Illinois, January 13, 1970. lIbid. 72 the practice of ministry in qualified seminaries seemed apparent in their remarks. Their concern was to insure that proper consideration be given to the professional nature of such a degree. Enlightened exposure to both the Christian heritage and the contemporary world, plus an intelligent personal realization of the minister's divine and human potential, tested in classrooms and field areas under theoretical and actual conditions, emerged as vital aspects of the desired matrix of professional minis- terial training. Members of the Committee exhibited patience. They listened well and marshalled their arguments carefully while defending their position. Input from the ten hear- ings offered cogent considerations, suggestions for report revisions, and some encouragement to Committee members. Underlying the externalities of the controversy are the deeper, more penetrating issues that should not be overlooked. Perhaps it is in this area that causes rather than symptoms can be examined. Fifteen years have elapsed since the publication of the Niebuhr-Williams-Gustafson study of theological education in the United States and Canada. Niebuhr, in particular, wrote of a "double function" for the semi- nary: on the one hand, "It is that place or occasion where the Church exercises its intellectual love of God and neighbor"; and on the other, "It is the community that 73 serves the Church's other activities by bringing reflection and criticism to bear on worship, preaching, teaching and the care of souls."1 In interpreting this double function, Moore indi- cates that it "affirms the traditional concept of theo- logical education in terms of a more or less co-equal emphasis on the so-called 'theoretical' and 'practical' disciplines."2 The situation is generally less than more with regard to co-equal emphasis between these disciplines. Even if it were possible to establish and to maintain such a balance, there would be no guarantee that an ideal situ- ation had been achieved. As Dean Jerald C. Brauer of the University of Chicago Divinity School has observed, "Nothing better guarantees the inability of seminaries to fashion a genuine professional degree than the builtr in split between so-called practical and the other so- called theoretical fields."3 Attempts to concoct a satisfactory "mix" often spawns mediocrity, producing neither excellent graduate schools academically nor 1H. Richard Niebuhr, The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry (New York: Harper, 1956), p. 110. 2E. Maynard Moore, "Theological Education for a Revolutional Church," Theological Education, IV, No. 2 (Winter, 1968), 603. 3Jerald C. Brauer, "Discussion: The Seminary in Ten Years," Union Seminaryguarterly Review, XXII, No. 4 (May, 1967), 335. CIA." 1"“ a. “ “av I; on .1 o .5. .au . 4 .an ”I .516 Hath any 0 u at. t \\ 1.. ”.8 SJ 74 competent training schools professionally. Widespread uneasiness about the obviously dichotomized theological disciplines is not new. Owen Thomas suggests that there are psychological and cultural reasons for this dichotomy. He believes "that the fundamental source of it is the failure on both sides to face the basic question about what the church and its members should be and do today."1 He is of the per- suasion that "traditional disciplines often do not get to this question and the practical disciplines assume it has been answered."2 As should be expected, not all theologi- cal spokesmen concur with Niebuhr, Moore, Brauer, Thomas, gt 31., in placing emphasis upon the double-function, upon the dual track, upon the "seemingly apparent" dichotomy between the theoretical and the practical aspects of seminary training. The controversy continues at ground floor level. Charles Feilding, who with the assistance of Thomas W. Klink, W. John Minter, and James D. Glasse wrote a book entitled Education For Ministry,3 indicates "that lOwen C. Thomas, "Some Issues in Theological Edu- cation," Theological Education, V, No. 4 (Summer, 1969), 349. 2Ibid. 3Charles R. Feilding, Education For Ministry (Dayton, Ohio: American Association of Theological Schools, 1966). This book, proposed and authorized by the AATS, was written in response to a request to make a detailed study of practical training for the ministry. 75 there is something too simple about the division of theo- logical education into two parts: academic and practical. Yet the notion persists and I have become more and more convinced that it must be exposed as false because of the confusion it engenders."l The tendency toward integral theological education, which Feilding advocates, is the thrust of the Chicago Theological Seminary, for example. In the school's Register for November, 1970, the following statements are made: Theological education at CTS is also aimed at intellectual and personal integration. . . . The Faculty aims at the constant interpenetration of the scholarly, the professional, and the personal. . . . No genuine dialogue takes place, however, without hard-earned knowledge, penetrating ideas, adequate conceptualization. Rigorous scholarly effort is demanded, but the student also needs to try himself out. He needs to test his message against human need in a world which is often hos- tile and apathetic if he is to avoid danger of becoming a "merely phraseological Christian." Theory must inform and direct practice, and practice must in turn aid in the critical evalu- ation and improvement of theory.2 The position that the Chicago Theological Seminary is taking is not the traditional "practical education" of the 1940's and the 1950's in seminaries where the tendency was to replace practice with lectures about practice all too often; nor is it a concept of theological education to which "practical training" has been added. Instead, it lIbid., p. 9. 2The Chicago Theological Seminary Register (November, 1970), p. 5. .4 (I) a I." I 1 '3‘ lug“. ‘V'v I.“ ‘9... 76 is an integrated way of life experience for the theological student when it functions according to intended design. The multifarious controversy surrounding the pro- fessional doctorate as a first theological degree produces genuine differences of opinion, frequently expressed with strong feeling, over the adjective used to describe the doctorate. Feilding comments on this: The adjective "professional" seems to be used in the pejorative sense more often than not; the pro- fessional is bloodless and inhuman or even a crook. Along the same lines, to turn an occupation into a profession may imply that it has been deprived of its human touch and turned into a profitable business.1 When the word "professional," as it relates to the ministry, is employed with negative connotations, it may be in use to describe clericalism or the rigid and moral- istic attitudes of ministers which have popular appeal to few, if any. Harsh judgment may follow and the statement, "He is too professional," may ensue. In his discussion of this subject, Feilding remarks: Perhaps we have said enough to show that there need be no apology for calling some ministries pro- fessional, even as there can be no justification for any ministry that becomes clericalized, pompous, self- important, authoritarian, rigid, impersonal, time- serving, or venal. These vices belong to human sin- fulness not to professional status. The practice of a professional Christian ministry requires sound learning and tested experience and may also require the hazardous and sensitive exercise of authority; but unless it is first of all a humble service, it will lack the essential moral quality of being a Christian ministry at all.2 2 lFeilding, op. cit., p. 69. Ibid., p. 70. 9"! ‘sl' EV. IQ.“ “do The (A: 77 The distinction made by Feilding that certain undesirable attributes associated with "professionalism" in the ministry are vices belonging to human sinfulness rather than to professional status is both discerning and meaningful to those searching for truth instead of stereos typed labels. The negative connotations applied by some people to the descriptive term "professional," as it relates to Christian ministry are rejected by others, such as Thomas. Owen Thomas underscores two assumptions concerning the ordained Christian ministry in an article which he wrote for publication in the American Association of Theological Schools' quarterly publication, Theological Education. Thomas postulates: One assumption of this article is that the ordained Christian ministry is properly called a profession in that it involves the generally accepted marks of a pro- fession. It is intellectual or learned in the sense that it is based on a body of theoretical knowledge. It is practical in the sense that it is aimed at the performance of specific functions of society. It in- volves the use of skills and techniques which can be taught. And it deals with matters of great human significance. Another assumption of this paper is that the pro- fessional character of the ordained ministry is a necessary aspect of it in the modern world, something to be approved and praised rather than disapproved and blamed. . . . In a highly complex technological urban society when all other professions are becoming more highly rationalized and carefully trained, it can be forcefully argued that the church needs a more expert and knowledgeable ordained ministry rather than a more inexpert and ignorant one. 1Owen C. Thomas, "Professional Education and Theological Education," Theological Education, IV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1967), 556. 1 ‘TO'J umvl “u... ‘1‘“! .Il'n (I 78 Before leaving this particular aspect of the con- troversy centering around the professional doctorate in theology, it is only fair to point out that there are numerous aspects of the ordained ministry today which are subject to legitimate criticism. In certain geographical areas of the United States, for instance, the ordained ministry, poorly educated and not well qualified with skills and techniques, does not possess a professional character and, undoubtedly, will not possess it in the foreseeable future. The desirable solution would not seem to be a less professional ministry. The very opposite, a more professional ministry in the optimum sense, would seem to be the best answer. Some of the opponents to the establishment of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree indi- cate discretely that when the total spectrum of graduate professional education is surveyed, theological education, when compared to medicine, law, business, education, and others, stands out noticeably for its general lack of university affiliation. They would, in the light of the tendency since 1900 for graduate professional education to move away from the independent proprietary school toward the university related professional school, agree with Henry who accepts professional education in the university as both the norm and the ideal, and who declares: "The university environment--university stimulation, nfl‘ Y_‘ be. ' qn1|n i305! ' ! H16» first 1"‘9 ‘1‘“ i (1 79 university-imposed conditions for education, above all, university-inspired and university-directed research--has without doubt benefited professional education."1 Since most of the professions have regarded the university setting to be essential for professional edu- cation, why is it that less than one-quarter of the theo- logical schools accredited by the American Association of Theological Schools are integral parts of universities? In fairness, it should be pointed out that about 40 per cent of the remaining accredited theological schools have some type of university affiliation or, at least, are located somewhat near to universities. As might be expected, the percentage among the unaccredited theo- logical schools is considerably less. The primary answer to the question raised is the obvious fact that most of the theological schools in the United States are denominational, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to become organically related to secular universities. The difficulty would occur on both sides of proposed mergers. On the one side, the church-state argument would loom large; on the other side, it would be argued that university affiliation could create conflicts over control between the denomination and the university. Some would want to point out that 1N. B. Henry, ed., Education for the Professions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 19. 80 experience has shown in many instances that university professional schools often have little vital association with the rest of the university, that sheer physical proximity does not guarantee meaningful interchange between a school of theology and the graduate faculty of a university. They would want to know why the same pattern would not apply to a graduate theological school. In spite of such sentiment and argument, there is a decisive movement within the AATS to encourage greater relationship between universities and graduate theological schools, especially through the actualization of cluster seminaries. With the movement goes a cogent warning from Ernest Cadman Colwell.l Although Colwell favored the uni- versity setting as the proper context for theological education, nevertheless, he warned against the potential danger involved that the theological school may join the graduate schools of the university in attempting to justify itself by research alone rather than by a proper balance in the pursuit of truth and the adequate practical prepa- ration of men for the ministerial profession. For years, as has been established, both surface evaluations and underlying philosophies have kept the controversy over the professional doctorate as a first theological degree not only a live option but a lively 1Ernest Cadman Colwell, "Seminaries in the Uni- versity for the Church," Lutheran Quarterly, XVIII, No. 4 (November, 1966, 322-24. ' I qw.‘ p‘ uh rah! a 6'; 5:5 QCV“ . A»,- u'vu‘y no»! VY». 81 Option as well. Controversy has been aimed toward clari- fication of the issues in hope of amelioration. As is often the case, in some instances it has obfuscated them instead. A case in point will serve as amplification. In a statement prepared by the faculty of Phillips Seminary for distribution among representatives of member schools attending the Twenty-sixth Biennial Meeting of the American Association of Theological Schools at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, June ll-l3, 1968, the following comments concerning the professional doctoral degree were made: We react favorably in general to the report on the "The Doctor's Degree in Ministry", since it discourages the small seminary from launching into doctoral pro- grams with inadequate resources. We hope that AATS will resist the tendency for the smaller, non- metropolitan, denominational seminary to move into weak doctoral programs. We do not wish to move this direction ourselves, and hope that other small semi- naries will not be forced to by the new initiatives being taken by certain seminaries which by-pass the B.D. or M.Div. and offer a Doctor of Religion or D.Min. degree as the single terminal degree for the parish ministry. These schools probably do not under- stand the pressure they have put on smaller schools to succumb to a temptation to try to offer similar doctor- ates. We hope the AATS will hold to tough criteria on all doctoral programs in religion, as indicated in this report. We are amazed, however, that at the same time that the AATS is firming up these standards for doctoral programs, its Task Force on Curriculum seems to be also proposing that no other schools than those offer— ing doctorates should be involved in seminary education at all. That is the clear implication of "Theological Education in the 1970's". The message that comes through clearly to us is that any seminary which does not come up to the quantitative and environmental [H M h‘ 'l 82 standards of "Minimum Nucleus" institutions (p. 689) is of inferior quality. We do not think that the majority of members of AATS concur, but such an im- plication is clearly present in these documents.1 Faculty members at Phillips Seminary revealed their concern on two counts: one directly related to the professional doctorate with its "run-off" pressure on the smaller, non-metropolitan, denominational seminaries, and the other a more general problem dealing with seminary doctoral programs and some new proposals made by the Task Force on Curriculum of the AATS. Members of the Phillips faculty expressed in words the fears shared by educators associated with the smaller theological schools. Such fears increased and some of them surfaced during intense debate of the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) degree at the Twenty-seventh Biennial Meeting of the AATS at Claremont, California in June of 1970. Months earlier when it was believed that the Com- mittee on the Professional Doctorate as a First Theologi- cal Degree would press for the adoption of a "one track" program leading to the professional doctorate, a program that would completely eliminate the Bachelor of Divinity and the Master of Divinity degrees while proposing the Doctor of Ministry (or the Doctor of Divinity) as the first professional degree, there were strong repercussions, 1"A Plea for Multiple Strategies in Theological Education," a statement for distribution at the AATS Assembly in St. Louis, June 11-13, 1968, by the Faculty of Phillips Seminary, Enid, Oklahoma, p. 3. 1f!— . nu vi (1» (I) 't 1 reg! ‘ ‘ovh‘ tar? ht “ Tew W A. ‘b‘« u: 83 especially from the smaller theological schools. Some of them expressed fear that the official sanction of this program by the AATS would put them out of business com- pletely. The situation was further complicated because some of the theological schools are part of university complexes where it would be difficult for the university to grant permission for the divinity schools to offer professional doctorates. Canadian members of AATS were almost unanimous in the assertion that they believed they would be unable to offer a Doctor of Ministry degree, or any professional doctorate, in spite of any moves that the Association would make. At Claremont, the Committee's original proposal made allowance for a "two track" program. The Committee members acknowledged that they had "become convinced that the M.Div. should remain as a recognized degree for candidates for ministry."1 They added, "We anticipate that this degree will be offered both by schools that decide not to offer a professional doctorate and by some schools that will offer such a doctorate."2 Their first recommendation, which was amended later, requested that the AATS recognize the right of member schools to advance toward the establishment of programs for a professional 1American Association of Theological Schools, Program and Reports, op. cit., p. 75. 21bid., pp. 75-76. expre othe . ‘9' a n ' 1 “‘0‘“: ”n- o...’ 84 doctorate (D.Min.) providing that such schools have academic and other educational resources that would warrant such a development. The recommendation was accompanied by four provisional guidelines, seven state- ments of content, and four standards dealing with purpose, admission policy, faculty, and library. Certain comments expressive of the professional doctorate's relations to other study programs were included in this first recom- mendation. Some of the fears expressed in the Phillips Semi- nary faculty report were assuaged, but certainly not all of them. The pressure upon the smaller schools continues and it extends beyond recruitment problems. The big question, "Where do we go from here?" is unanswered or answered incompletely for some. Questions regarding the content of the two degrees (D.Min. and M.Div.) are being raised as the controversy continues. The Committee insisted that the Doctorate of Ministry was different, that it was on a higher level and was not to be regarded as a mere extension or intensifi- cation of the Master of Divinity degree. After reviewing the content related to the Doctor of Ministry degree, the responses of certain member schools followed a pattern Which, in essence, said we are already offering the kind rnpetence to its doctoral program in ministry through the fOllowing components and/or relationships: 1) Methodologies by which such disciplines as biblical studies, history, and theology are seen as nuclear to, and therefore informative of, the practice of ministry; lIbid., p. 42. 116 2) Competencies in the practice of professional skills, such as preaching, teaching, pastoral care, worship, church administration, and other functions of the ministry; 3) Experimental learning, such as is gained in field education and/or an internship year under the joint supervision of the theological school and adjunct professors in the field. 4) Field assignments in both church and non-church settings under joint supervision for the purpose of develOping insight, skill, and methodology for the better practice of ministry; 5) Colloquia focused on the practice of ministry which would become integrative for the entire doctoral curriculum; 6) Independent studies encouraging students to follow up their own leads from earlier curricular or field education experiences; 7) Interdisciplinary learning, especially the dialogue between disciplines of theology and the human sciences and other secular fields.1 It is through such means as these that the Phillips [Iniversity Graduate Seminary attempts to help its students Cievelop skill in communicating and applying the Christian ifaith. The program leading to the Doctor of Ministry Ciegree is designed to improve the student's ability to 1:hink deeply and constructively about his personal faith :in God and to allow him to find ways in which his faith can 13a put into effective use in the life of a local church tflnrough preaching, teaching, worship, pastoral counseling, «aund the application of sound administrative principles. Eisgsley Theological Seminary (Methodist) The Wesley Theological Seminary, 4400 Massachusetts AVenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016, is a graduate \ lIbid., p. 40. z! mh?_.u m 117 professional school whose chief function is to prepare Christian men and women for the ministries of the church and for the work of Christian education with particular emphasis upon offering adequate preparation for the parish ministry. Their three degree programs (Master of Divinity, Master of Religious Education, and Doctor of Ministry) have been formulated in order to accomplish this principal function. The Doctor of Ministry degree at Wesley Theological :Seminary is a professional degree designed for churchmen :in pastoral forms of ministry. It represents advanced gyraduate training for forms of ministry other than teach- :ing in college or seminary. Since it is an advanced ciegree, the student must hold a first theological degree from an accredited school of theology in order to be éiéhmitted to the D.Min. program. In addition to possessing ii :2.0 (B) average or better in his previous theological studies, having a reading knowledge of at least one lan- guage other than English, and having passed the Theologi- cal Record Examination, the student applicant must show e3"‘C2ellent promise for effective Christian ministry. At Wesley Theological Seminary the general focus of each D.Min. candidate is on the Christian ministry and ‘tflh‘533 capitol city of Washington provides numerous labora- t:<:’3=iies of learning. Each student for the doctorate must <2 thse a specialized area of study, selected from the 'Www, in A'A 118 possibilities of Biblical Interpretation, History of Christianity, Christian Thought, Church and Society, Pastoral Theology, and World Mission of the Church.1 A project-thesis is required. Concerning this, the Wesley Theological Seminary Bulletin states: The project-thesis which, with oral examination, is to be granted four hours credit may be based principally on library research or, along with study of relevant literature, may lay greater emphasis on a carefully planned encounter or task in experimental ministry. In any case, the project-thesis must re- late work in the student's chosen special focus to some form of ministry, such as preaching, teaching, administration, pastoral care, of community involve- ment. The thesis must, in every instance, be of graduate quality, including form in accord with standards approved by the faculty.2 In addition to the project-thesis, each candidate for the D.Min. degree must meet the requirements of the Advanced Seminar on the Ministry, offered for two semesters. frflis integrative seminar deals with biblical, historical, and theological understandings of ministry as they relate 't&3 the role of the church as a servant in the modern world. (31163 year of satisfactory ministry under approved super- viSion is also required. The entire Doctor of Ministry program, including the project and thesis, is to be com— pleted within three years. Based upon the conviction that "The world of the Lléa”t:€e twentieth century needs more than a conventional 28 1The Wesley Theological Seminary Bulletin, Vol. p~ " No. 3 (Washington, DtC}: Wesley Theological Seminary, all, 1970), p- 25- 2 Ibid. 119 ministry,"l Wesley Theological Seminary is attempting to present a new dynamic, a new program of theological edu— cation in an attempt to relate the ancient power of the gospel to the personal and social needs of the new world. Its Doctor of Ministry degree program represents its furtherest advance. The Summary The speed-up in higher education will be debated vvidely for months to come. U.S. News & World Report be- llieves there is consensus concerning this. Whether or ruot the professional doctorate in theological education vmill contribute to this speed-up is debatable. At this nmoment it would be difficult to predict. tflais matter. A few seminaries have adopted the professional doctorate as a first theological degree. It is a reason- able assumption that others will follow, although no great stampede is predicted. Will there be a tendency eventually to standardize the minimum length of time re- cJuli-red to acquire the Doctor of Ministry degree? If so, ‘Vlelil it be streamlined into three years and gradually take the place of the Master of Divinity degree? Will it t: . . ‘2‘ (extended to five or six years, or W111 1t shape up ..__-~__ 11bid., p. 8. 2U.S. News & World Report, loc. cit. 120 into a four-year program--more in line with other pro- fessional doctorates? Will there be a growing tendency for seminaries to choose the professional doctorate as a first theo- logical degree, rather than as an advanced theological degree? Built upon the foundation of the Master of Divinity degree, or its equivalent, will it still require about the same combined total of years as the professional doctorate programmed as a first theological degree? For instance, three years will be required for the M.Div. and, 'then, the addition of one or one and one-half years more 'to complete the Doctor of Ministry degree. The study of eight theological schools offering 'the professional doctorate did not present decisive infor- nnation regarding either the trend for the future or the t:ime expectancy for degree completion. What the survey may have revealed, and this perhaps much more important, is the strong desire to offer a competent degree program t-‘~1"-1a1t will equip its graduates much more adequately for t11e challenging, complex, and dynamic parish ministry. upCD‘ do this, it is expected, will require change-~perhaps Iréiéiical change in some instances--and insight, plus c=<>warage. It will demand reflective thinking and bold 5“:=1:ion--the formation of new models of theological 63‘511Jcation. It may be that the Doctor of Ministry program 121 is the long awaited vehicle needed to usher in those :new models. Time will tell. II. III. IV. OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER IV A PROPOSED COMMUNICATION MODEL FOR THE PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE AS A FIRST THEOLOGICAL DEGREE Citing the Potential Exposing the Problem Sharing Some Concerns Presenting the Model Concluding the Chapter 122 CHAPTER IV A PROPOSED COMMUNICATION MODEL FOR THE PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE AS A FIRST E 1"”?! THEOLOGICAL DEGREE ; E Citing'the'Potential The emergence of a professional doctorate as a :fjxrst theological degree does not need to be a category- mistake in logical classification, nor a selfish seeking after a status symbol in a pejorative sense. It does not have to become a postscript to a Master of Divinity degree It PrOgram, nor a threat to the M.Div. life expectancy. does not have to be regarded as a contrived effort to erect a barrier between those who espouse scholarly research and those who prayerfully want to see Christ's Church become a more viable option to men in today's marketplaces. The professional doctorate as a first theological degree does not have to be a divider of men, a thorn-in— the‘ flesh to faculty members dedicated to research, a pa"I‘dering to some students who may need ego reinforcement. It dOes not have to become blasphemy to the traditionalist, e Short way home to the impatient, and the theological Sc: hQOI's "we can do it too" to the other professions. 123 .fl 7.— 124 The emergence of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree can become an effective means by which seminary curricula can undergo some radical and necessary changes. The changes proposed are not alter- ations merely calling for greater proliferation of subject matter, nor generous enhancement of electives, nor expedi- ent streamlining of course syllabi. The professional doctoral program may be an ameliorative means of inte- grating faculty members in challenging team effort, of encompassing student participation in the total learning process, of closing the gaps between administrators and faculty, of tightening the ranks between the churches and the seminaries, of bringing theological schools and uni- Versities closer together in functional interaction and Sharing of resources, of expanding the operational bound- a"Ties of the seminary to the strategic areas of the inter- city, the retirement centers, the suburban apartments, the business malls, the executive suites, the coffee hOlilses, the recreational parks, the rural granges, the university campuses, the private homes, and other places where people are and life goes on. Much of what has been said may sound like a L1't<>p:i.an dream, a medicine man's panacea, an idealistic cloud cover. It may be that and little more. But, unless We dlfeam dreams and see v1s1ons, unless we stop looking for Opportunistic gadgets and temporary devices, unless we rely upon divine help and human resources in a 125 divine-human cooperative for purpose, power, and plan, our seminaries will become less relevant and more antiquated. Skin treatment will not do where heart surgery is required. To avoid it Consensus diagnosis calls for an operation. may be more threatening to theological education than atomic fall-out. Exposing the Problem A positive message reverberates through seminary cilassrooms and hallways. It is echoed in catalog hyperbole. Ifiie message is this: the seminary is a learning laboratory (apaerating for the primary purpose of preparing men and vvcxmen for Christian ministry. Beauford Norris, president (:15 the Christian Theological Seminary at Indianapolis, declares that the primary objective of the school he heads "the professional preparation of ministers." Clare- "The School of Theology exists as jJS mont's catalog states, tfiiéa Church's school. It is committed to the education of generations of ministers and teachers for the professional clergy of the Church."2 At Lexington the message reads, "This seminary is engaged in professional education for 'tlifia Christian ministry in a changing world. It conceives \ die; lBeauford A. Norris. "A Message from the Presi- (Fnt.“ Christian Theological Seminary Bulletin, X, No. 3 ebrutalry 28, I969), 3. “fica. 2Annual Catalogyl970-7l, Vol. XII, No. 6 (Clare- 11‘3, Calif.: School of Theology at Claremont, February, 19 77(3), p. 7. 126 its mission as intimately linked with that of the churches. . . .'J' Another statement of purpose reads: "An evangelical and interdenominational community of scholars, Fuller Theological Seminary is committed to excellence in graduate and professional education for the manifold ministries of the Church."2 It is the aim and purpose of McCormick Theological Seminary "to be an intel- lectual center for the Church, undertaking graduate level theological education which involves pursuit of the de- scriptive and constructive tasks of religious studies, together with a rigorous investigation of the nature and mission of the Church, and the shape and style of ministry in contemporary society."3 James D. Glasse, president of Lancaster Theological Seminary, starts out his message in the Seminary Bulletin by writing, "If you are considering a ministry of the church, and if you are seeking a semi- nary at which to prepare for that ministry. . . . "4 1"Education for Ministry," Lexington Theological Seminary Bulletin, Vol. V, No. 10 (Lexington, Ky.: Lexing- ton Theological Seminary, 1970), p. 3. 2"The Purpose of Fuller Theological Seminary, " Academic Pro ram Issuei 1970- 72 of Fuller Theol o ic cal Semi- nar , vol. No. 6 (Pasadena, Calif.: Fuller Teologi- Seminary, December, 1969). P. 7. 3"Aims and Goals," McCormick Theological Seminary Bulletin (Chicago: McCormickfi Theological Seminary, 1970- Inside Cover. 4James D. Glasse, Lancaster Seminapy Bulletin (Lancaster, Pa.: Lancaster Seminary, n. d.), p. 2. 127 The Memphis Theological Seminary Bulletin announces the purpose of the seminary in these words, "It exists to edu- cate persons who are called of God for the varied minis— tries of the Church. At present its chief emphasis is upon preparing persons for the pastoral ministry and for missionary service."1 The Presbyterian School of Christian Education at Richmond, Virginia simply states in its Catalog Issue 1969-1970, "The purpose of the Presbyterian School of Christian Education is to prepare men and women for service in church vocations with emphasis upon the educational work of the church."2 At Andover Newton Theo- logical Seminary near Boston the purpose for its beginning and continuance as a theological school is this: "The primary concern of Andover Newton is the professional edu- cation of Christian ministers, persons equipped by learn- ing, faith and discipline to assume places of responsible leadership in the life and work of the churches."3 Dozens more similar statements of purpose could be extracted from current catalogs of theological schools in 1"The Purpose of the Seminary," Memphis Theological §gminary Bulletin (Memphis, Tenn.: Memphis Theological Seminary, 1970), p. 11. 2"Introduction," Presbyterian School of Christian Education Capalog Issue 1969-1970, Vol. LII, No. 2 (Rich- mond, Va.: Presbyterian ScHool of Christian Education, 1969), p. 5. 3"Introduction," Andover Newton Catalog 1979371 (Newton Centre, Mass.: Andover Newton Theological Semi- nary, 1970), p. 12. ‘__- 128 the United States and Canada. The recurring thrust of the seminarian raison d'étre is to equip qualified persons basically for leadership roles in the work of the Christian Church, especially in the complex fabric of the local church ministries. Has the obvious too often been overlooked or ig- nored? Is it possible that curricula changes within our seminaries, whether radical departures from the norm or slight modifications intended for improvement, have been drafted within the academic confines without thorough investigation of the realistic scene of action where the churches are? Regardless of the impressive credentials of faculty members and academic administrative officials, is it conceivable that remote relationships occurring be- tween seminaries and local churches could be considered anything other than a serious deficiency, particularly when projections of major consequence for Christian ministry are under reflective consideration? Is not the relevant local church that has a spiritually-strong, consistently— effective, dynamically-alive, and constantly-in-demand Christian ministry an outstanding laboratory for seminary observation and evaluation? Should not the local church that is losing its effectiveness and doing poorly in its ministry be examined carefully also? And what about the church that is neither outstandingly effective nor tragi- cally ineffective? Is it possible that both seminary and 129 church would learn much from closer relationships and more direct feedback? Certain impressions should be avoided in order that erroneous inferences will not be made. Many seminaries--perhaps most of them--have some direct contacts and numerous indirect contacts with local churches. But the interaction is intermittant and in- frequent as a general rule. The governing boards of most seminaries are represented by churchmen, both lay and ordained. Students at the seminaries often are involved in local church ministries while matriculating. Pastors of churches are invited for special lectures and for chapel services. Some ministers serve as part-time faculty. By and large, however, the communication lines between seminaries and local churches are inadequate, disorganized, and obscured. Under such circumstances, it is difficult for the seminary and the church to comprehend and appreciate satisfactorily their mutual relationship. Samuel Miller places the greater responsibility for breakdown in effective interaction at the doorsteps of the churches, rather than the seminaries. He expresses his concerns in this way: Something of the relationship between the church and the seminary may be paralleled by the situation in medicine or in law. In medicine, the school acts as a research and teaching organ, while exerting a continuous pressure on the level of professional care offered by the hospital. In law, the school likewise serves as an instrument of research and teaching, while effecting an intense pressure on the courts and 130 the exercise of justice. In religion, the situation can scarcely be generalized. For the most part, the seminary seems to exert little or no direct pressure on the churches at all. . . . Denominational semi- naries provided the kind of ministers the churches wanted, or if they moved much beyond that, the demo- cratic processes soon conditioned their graduates to conform if they expected either to stay or to ad- vance. Generally, it is hard to distinguish any effect the seminaries have had on the life of the churches. Indeed, if there has been any pressure at all, it has been in the opposite direction: churches keeping the seminaries as close to their own line as possible. ' The obvious conclusion, regardless of the assess- ment of where the greater responsibility or blame lies, is that the need for consistent and close interaction between the seminaries and the churches is lacking. The lack has a deleterious effect on all concerned. According to Miller an answer to the problem is not easy to discover. He believes that the type of ministers the churches desire is not the kind the seminaries want to provide them. In clarifying his point he says, "This is not the result of any overt hostility, but simply because the seminary is predominantly an educational institution and the church a social one; in the former, the scholar is the ideal; in the latter, a pastoral leader."2 Agreement with Miller, totally or in part, only acknowledges the problem exists. 1Samuel H. Miller, "Church, Seminary, and World: An Uneasy Frontier," Theological Education, II, No. 4 2Ibid. 131 Effective dimensions of interaction and cooperation must be found and employed to work toward needed solutions. When a seminary faculty elects to offer any pro— fessional program of theological education in order to better equip its students for parish ministry, for in- stance, it can ill afford to overlook any significant aspects of what a parish ministry is now and what it should be, or predictably will be, in the future. When that faculty chooses to proffer a professional doctoral program, its reSponsibilities are greater because of in- creased demands and expectations. How widespread among the faculty is the knowledge of the pastor's life style? If they are going to assist young men to be pastors how knowledgeable should they be personally? What help is given to the prospective pastor dur- ing his seminary education to prepare him for such atti- tudes and feeling tones as loneliness, over-sensitivity, paranoic tendencies, guilt feelings, insecurity, resent- ment, anxiety, lack of confidence, discouragement, unfor- giving spirit, impatience, hostility, laziness, vanity, fear of failure, jealousy, avarice, and so forth? Who will warn him about pandering attention, about unjustly criticizing others, about failing to listen well? Who ‘will teach him.how to use feedback discretely, how to manage his financial affairs wisely, how to be perceptive, 1low to communicate effectively, how to pray diligently, 132 how to preach forcefully? Will seminary education prepare future pastors for critical evaluation and sound decision- making? Will students be taught how to relate their religious traditions and their own theology to the social problems at hand? Will they learn how to apply Scriptural truths to contemporary issues--such as the moral problems to be faced in genetic advancements, abortion, euthanasia, poverty, pollution, and so forth? Will Biblical prophecy be related cogently to current events in a language that the people can understand? Will there be any exposure to the problems associated with a building program, with moderating at business meetings, with organizational procedures, with motivating a church staff, with talking with draft-evaders and conscientious objectors, with break- ing the news to parents about their daughter's pregnancy out of wedlock, with leading a song service, with showing good taste while making church announcements, with making innovations and living through the anxiety which they create, with bringing unprofitable programs to an end and managing the problems which result, with counseling a homosexual, with understanding the feelings of a church "drop-out," with preaching the funeral sermon of an avowed atheist? Will the seminary encourage the prospec- ‘tive pastor to think creatively, to institute new ideas 'tactfully, to recognize overworked ego defensive mecha- Iiisms? Will the seminary teach its future leaders how to 133 teach others how to lead? Will pastors-to-be get some concept of the vastness of potential man-hours available in the average church? Will they respect their personnel management responsibilities? Will they be indoctrinated sufficiently well in small group interaction procedures, and will they recognize the potential of small groups at work both within and without the church? Will the ad- vantages of multi-media techniques be emphasized? How much stress will the seminary place on the necessity of training the lay people to evangelize? Will worship forms be analyzed critically? Will the seminary use the case study method to good advantage? Does the seminary teach the potential pastor how to acquire a good library and how to use it effectively? Will the professional degree graduate have any exposure to business administration since he will be spending considerable time and energy doing this? Will he receive instruction and be given experience in counseling, in Christian education, in hospital calling, in visiting prisoners, in ministering to youth, in assessing carefully the modern scene in Russians, in officiating at a wedding, at a funeral, at a baptismal service, and at a holy communion service? The list seems long but there are many omissions. Is it conceivable that seminaries should even attempt to accept such diversified professional responsibilities? Some say not. If they do so, how can they avoid 134 shallowness of spirit and mechanicalness of procedural operation? Will they be able to transmit the reality of God with excitement in an age saturated with sophisticated boredom? Will they be able to help recover the lost skill of reflection in soul-satisfying, God-honoring worship? Will they teach their students how to "distinguish be- tween the spurious virtues of getting ahead in the world and a true ethic of human integrity?"l Will they be able to instill confidence in God and man, and enjoy an cpti- mism described by Miller as follows? The age is stupendous, exciting beyond description, and desperately hungry for something that will reach down into the solid substance of reality, something that will touch us wide awake, drive the shadows from our eyes and the fears from our hearts, and bless us unmistakably at the sure center of our hearts. We may not welcome it, either in the sacrosanct air of the church or in the traditional custom of the semi- nary, but there is nothing we want more at bottom than to see the gospel come clean of all its fantastic wraparounds, and to be able to declare it in such a way as to make welcome news to men hungry for a larger truth than they have found in the laboratory or the marketplace.2 In order to insure that "the gospel will come clean of all its fantastic wraparounds," major emphasis in theological educational process must remain on the traditional disciplines of Bible, church history, and Systematic theology. Consequently, the theological semi- nary, as Bennett observes, "should be a place where the inspirations and illuminations that come from the 11bido I p. 8.570 21bido 135 traditional sources meet with the stimulations and chal- lenges that come from the unmet social needs of most of humanity that cry to heaven."1 What, then, is the big problem? It is this: can today's seminaries adequately handle the complex demands of professional theological education, especially the preparational responsibilities for a pastor's multifarious ministry, with its present curricula formats? If so, can adequate preparation for ministry be accomplished in three years? Should such preparation take four years, five years, or even six years? Before these questions receive an answer, certain concerns should be expressed regarding professional education, especially on the doctoral level. Sharing Some Concerns Theological education has had its capable analysts such as Niebuhr, Williams, Gustafson, Feilding, Bridston, and Culver. But it has never benefited from the "either- operate-or-die" diagnosis of the famous Flexner Report which reformed medical education. Although theological education has undergone many small or moderate changes, it still awaits the big reformation. Who knows exactly how major the "surgery" will be, or when the "operation" will take place? What are some of the concerns that k 1John C. Bennett, "Theological Education and Social Revolution," Theolggical Education, III, No. 2 (Winter, 1967), 287. 136 indicate a need for change? Since they are salient to the success of theological education, some of these con- cerns should be stated. They have a distinct relationship to the proposed model for the professional doctorate as a first theological degree. Concern Over the Traditional FormalismrFunctional Dichotomy The traditional formalist accepts and enjoys cer- tain structures of Christian activity without explicit regard to their functional purposes--the needs they are supposed to meet or the situations to which they are rele- vant. Form is important for its own sake with or without function. The functionalist takes the position that form follows function, that the real value of anything "depends on how effectively it fulfills the purposes for which it was designed."1 Based on this premise, any pattern of Christian ministry can only be justified by reference to the functions it performs in the life of the Church and in the world. When extreme positions are held, tension exists. On the one hand, the student in a seminary may be taught that "the most important service to the world is to preach and teach the unchanging Gospel, to prepare souls for eternal life, and to administer the sacred rites in the Church of Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, 1Philip R. Phenix, "A Functional Approach to the Understanding of Ministry," Theological Education, IV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1967), 537. 137 today and forever."1 On the other hand, the student may be taught "that God can be truly and Christianity served only by entering deeply into the affairs of the world, identifying with its life, and meeting its needs on its 2 O 0 When extreme p051t1ons are taken and an own terms." either-or Option confronts the student, concern should be shown over the serious consequences of this forced option, this unwarranted dichotomy. If the seminary is to be both practical and academic, both technical and scholarly, the gap between these two extremes must be bridged. No seminary dare risk being either a center of theological learning only or merely a training school for the minis- try. Every seminary should be both. Concern Over Depersonalization Graduate theological education often encourages depersonalization. The student is emotionally separated from himself and his world. Holcomb and Maes describe this bifurcation by reporting, "The self of sensitivity, responsiveness, and creativity yields to increasing pres- sure to think about abstractions for their own sakes; only the abstractions have now changed."3 In many instances, seminary students consistently move back and forth between _ 1 2 Ibid., p. 529. Ibid. 3Walter L. Holcomb and John L. Maes, "Functional lRoles, Professional Identity, and Theological Curricula," {rheological Education, II, No. 3 (Spring, 1966), 192. 138 their week-end pastorates and the seminary classrooms. Depersonalization occurs when the sense of wholeness and continuity in one's own existence is lost or greatly diminished. In the focus on theological abstractions the authentic world and the personal self are lost from view. The process of depersonalization is a matter of concern. Why should the dichotomy between the seminary and the real world be so prominent? Concern Over Frggmentation Theological education should be integrated. Too often it is not. Subject matter is compartmentalized. Holcomb and Mass refer to seminary curricula in the tra- ditional pattern accordingly: Traditionally theological education has been centered in discrete, organized, but isolated subject matter areas, around which have been offered courses dealing with practical concerns such as skills and functions of various kinds. But the student (and later the graduated professional) never encounters life in such discrete, organized, and isolated ele- ments. Rather, he becomes a part of and has to live in and deal with more or less amorphous, dynamic, complex, and evolving fields comprised of persons, events, relationships, institutional structures, cultural and group traditions and norms, competing values, and conflicting forces. In short, tra- ditional theological curricula, as commonly experi- enced by the student, bear little relationship to the milieu of the life of the church-in-the-world, either as it is or could become.1 1Ibid., p. 193. 139 One of the real concerns in the seminary scene is the need to present to the student an integrative approach to learning. This requires an understanding of the major purpose of the total theological educational enterprise and demands a close interaction among faculty members, and between faculty and students. The parts must be seen in relation to the whole to avoid fragmentation. Qpncern Over Educational Isolationism Educational isolation is no longer a feasible option for seminaries desiring to prepare men adequately for ministry in our contemporary world. Monasteries and hermitages do not fit today's pattern. Theological edu- cation must be seen in the context of the Church's mission and against the backdrop of societal needs. It must be considered carefully with respect to university resources, modern technology, scientific advancement, and the develop- ment and growth of other seminaries. Modern theological education has its devotees to the "cluster plan." Seminaries located fairly close to each other, especially in metropolitan areas, are chal- lenged to cluster. Proponents of this plan claim that it makes possible the effective c00peration, joint planning and programming, and sharing of resources within a manageable geographical area, thus allowing inter- confessional dialogue to occur on an ecumenical basis. '..3 . . ~ I w _ . .., r 140 Such a nexus of educational faculties and facilities pro- vides unified access to community and cultural opportuni- ties for ministry, eliminates expensive duplications, and offers students access to all the courses and all the professors in the entire cluster, they claim. Others disagree, questioning most of the assumptions made concern- ing the "cluster plan," especially the "economical savings" argument and the premise that clustering is truly ecumeni- cal. There are advocates who favor overcoming the edu- cational isolation of some seminaries by giving them uni- versity relatedness. They suggest advantages, such as library resources far greater than the seminary has, access to a large number of scholars that can be called upon to assist the seminary at crucial times, a diversification of course selection to complement the seminary curriculum, and c00perative study programs leading to Ph.D. degrees. Some question whether or not the university is the center toward which the seminary ought to gravitate. They pro- pose, for example, that the university and the seminary both need another center to express their concerns; namely, "man in increasingly congested society, man enmeshed in social structures, human beings in conflict, society in revolution."1 Persons who are reticent to favor university 1Robert H. Bonthius, "Resources Planning in Theo- logical Education: A Response and an Offer," Theological Education, V, No. 2 (Winter, 1969), 69. ".3- : . EV - ‘59- 141 relatedness of some sort for the seminary express their opinion that the universities do little to demonstrate their awareness and concern for the existential problems of mankind. They also mention that the priorities of the universities may differ substantially from the priorities of the seminaries and the churches. To those who desire to eliminate, insofar as possible, the effects of theological educational isolation there are other alternatives proferred: among them, Ecumenical Schools of Theology, Graduate Theological Unions, Association of Theological Faculties, Interdenomi- national Theological Centers, and so forth. Regardless of efforts being made to diminish the isolation of many seminaries, such isolation still remains a real factor in theological education. This factor, according to Anderson, "contributes to the growing irrelevance of much of the ministry of the clergy for assisting Christians in their encounter with the secular world and this iso- lation is in turn reinforced by that irrelevance."1 Over- coming educational isolation does not mean, of course, that all the theological schools will move into clusters, federations, centers, consortia--some related to uni— versities and some not. Some have and more will. Some will resist. No single model will serve. As more lay # lTerence R. Anderson, "The Seminary as Part of a University Community," Theological Education, II, No. 1 (Autumn, 1965), 35. 142 persons become involved in theological education, it is generally conceded that the seminary action will move toward the larger metropolitan areas. This is the thesis of Robert Moss,1 Harvey Cox,2 and others. Meanwhile, in contrast to other graduate professional schools, the vast majority of American theological schools are denomi- national, standing outside of the university campuses and maintaining considerable degrees of educational isolation. Will this condition continue to change? Ramm says that it must change. He contends that "If religion is ever to come back as a great force in America it must come through the universities; therefore, that is where our seminaries belong."3 Concerns over the isolation problem are many. The positions different educators hold vary greatly. There are other concerns that will receive brief mention only. There are the concerns for a closer work- ing relationship between the seminary and the Church, be- tween the seminary and the secular world, between the research-oriented and the nonresearch-oriented faculty members. There is concern for greater excellence in 1Robert V. Moss, Jr., "Contexts for Theological Education in the Next Decade," Theological Education, V, No. 1 (Autumn, 1968), 12. ' 2Harvey Cox, On Not Leaving It to the Snake (New York: Macmillan, I967), p. 14. 3Bernard L. Ramm, "What's Happening in Our Seminaries?," Eternity, XXI, No. 6 (June, 1970), 25. 143 academic and professional achievement. There is the con- cern for increased dialogue between faculty and students. Concern exists also over whether or not a greater number of lay people will become part of the seminary scene as faculty. There is concern over the multifaceted aspects of curriculum revision. Concern is expressed over the serious omission of the religious experience of black Americans in the life and program of the seminary. Ziegler shows concern when he claims that "In a dynamic, changing, revolutionary period those for theo- logical education dare not be content to do their work as it was done 50 or even 10 years ago without serious 1 While looking to the future with its evaluation." prospects, Littell indicates concern as he asks the question, "What kind of theological education is needed to train a representative ministry accustomed not to monologue and the giving of orders but to dialogue?"2 As these concerns--and they could be augmented by numerous others-~are carefully evaluated, one strong thread is woven through the fabric of each of them. Taken singly, or considered in groups, there is a pronounced need to deal with certain phases of the communication process. 1Jesse H. Ziegler, "Models of Theological Edu- cation," Theolpgical Education, I, No. 2 (Winter, 1965), 79. 2Franklin H. Littell, ”The Seminary Provides for Dialogue," Theological Education, I, No. 2 (Winter, 1965), 83. 144 Reviewed collectively the concerns reveal networks of communication problems, variegated in kind and degree. Analyzed individually, some of the concerns are basically communication problems per se. Some examples should be examined to test the validity and reliability of these assumptions. The first concern mentioned focused upon the "form" versus "function" bifurcation which raises many questions and produces myriad problems in curriculum planning. Is communication a real factor in this un- settled dispute? Bridston makes the following observation relating to this question: It is recognized that the classical curriculum is functionally deficient in providing future minis- ters with many of the skills and techniques--the professional know-how--necessary for their eventual ministerial practice. And so "practical", "function- al", "pastoral" courses and departments are tacked on the existing educational fabric for corrective and remedial purposes. Naturally, a crazy-quilt pattern emerges. . . . That is to say, "corrective" and "remedial" measures may under certain circum- stances and given certain elements be more destruc- tive than constructive in the long run. And it would appear that much curricular "reform" in the interests of functional and practical "relevancy" has had this patch-work character and that the strain that it has imposed on the theological edu- cation fabric is beginning to show itself in tearing and fraying--not only in terms of lack of educational integration on the formal level but in competitive- ness and failure in communication between seminary faculty members of the "practical" and "impractical" fields and in the confusion and lack of a sense of coherence and synthesis on the part of the students. . . . Functional relevancy may be purchased at the 145 expense of organic unity and it may be that the price is too high.1 Bridston encapsulates one of the major problems in the seminary situation and he describes it, in part, as a "failure in communication." The quick "remedy," too often accepted as a panacea with subsequent regrets, has been "courses in communication." The directional aim may have been toward the targets but the "weapons" used were not powerful enough to reach the targets. If "organic unity" and "educational integration on the formal level," as Bridston employs these concepts, is to be achieved, why not construct a new educational model in which the com- munication process becomes the integrative force, the matrix of the curricular structure? The approach would not be merely a smattering of communication courses, nor even a department or division of communication. It would be a well-integrated curriculum specifically related to seminary objectives and based upon sound communication methodologies and techniques. There are those who say that professional education and skill must be built upon a solid foundation of character, broad cultural interest, and a sense of social responsibility. Why not consider the possibility that professional education must also be built upon a solid foundation of effective communication? 1Keith R. Bridston, "Form and Function in the Education of Ministers," Theological Education, IV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1967), 544. 146 If effective communication is essential to the success of the entire educational operation of theological schools, what manner of thinking can justify the compartmentali- zation of "communication" within the seminary structure? Would one glass of water satisfy the physical needs of a dehydrated dying man on the desert sands? Then there is the concern about depersonalization. If, as Hance, Ralph, and Wiksell point out "communication is the process of attempting to share with another person, or with other persons, one's knowledge, interests, atti- 1 tudes, opinions, or ideals" would it not seem like sound reasoning to believe that this type of sharing, or inter- action, consistently and meaningfully pursued, would alleviate many of the problems associated with depersonal- ization? While making it clear that all communication is not interactional, Berlo does present interaction as the ideal of communication. He says: When two people interact, they put themselves into each other's shoes, try to perceive the world as the other person perceives it, try to predict how the other will respond. Interaction involves re- ' ciprocal role-taking, the mutual employment of empathic skills. The goal of interaction is the merger of self and other, a complete ability to anticipate, predict, and behave in accordance with the joint needs of self and other.2 1Kenneth G. Hance, David C. Ralph, and Milton J. Wiksell, Principles of Speaking (Belmont, Calif.: Wads- worth Publishing Company, Inc., 1969), p. 5. 2David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 131. 147 Communication lubrication throughout the seminary "machinery"--classroom situations, dormitory experiences, educational field opportunities, etc.--would do much to reduce the friction that results in depersonalization. The concept of interaction is vital to a comprehensive understanding of the concept of process in communication. Treatment of symptoms associated with depersonalization is an unsatisfactory approach when there needs to be a diagnosis of causes followed by proper treatment at the sources of the infection. Should "physicians" of effec- tive communication be ignored when illness is present? Must an epidemic occur before the emergency call is made? Concern over fragmentation in theological education was underscored. Discrete, organized, but isolated subject matter areas do not tend toward an integrative program of education. Fragmentation distorts a true-to-life picture. Holcomb and Maes reinforce this observation by stating that "traditional theological curricula, as commonly experienced by the student, bear little relationship to the milieu of the life of the church-in-the—world, either as it is or could become."1 Feilding comments that "To many a student the curriculum is a load of isolated subjects which he 'carries.'"2 Niebuhr described such 1Holcomb and Maes, op. cit., p. 193. 2Charles R. Feilding, Education for Ministry (Dayton, Ohio: American Association of Theological Schools, 1966), p. 149. 148 a situation as a "piecemeal transmission of knowledge."1 If professional education for the ministry can be prepa- ration for that which is relevant, it also follows that it can be preparation for that which is irrelevant as well. One of the more obvious means to prevent it becom- ing the latter is to design an integrated curriculum that is true to the basic purpose of the seminary. If the assumption is valid, as Gunnemann postulates, that the ideal seminary "is a community with the best teachers, curriculum, facilities and environment it can provide, organized to assist the student in his growth as a minister of Jesus Christ,"2 then everything possible should be done to keep it a "community" cohered around this central purpose. Definition of purpose should pre- cede curriculum construction and revision of curriculum should be consistent with the purpose defined. These are essential guidelines to curriculum integration. Inte- gration must be based upon the primary purpose. Since the communication process permeates every phase of the seminary life, it should receive serious consideration as a necessary dynamic force to initiate and maintain curriculum integration. 1H. Richard Niebuhr, Daniel Day Williams, James M. Gustafson, The Advancement of Theological Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 7. 2Louis H. Gunnemann, "From Purpose to Curriculum," Theological Education, II, No. 3 (Spring, 1966), 177. 149 Concern over the consequences of educational iso- lation has been alluded to as well. A drastic stretch of the imagination is not required to recognize the importance of the communication process in action in order to accom- plish greater cooperation. McKay advises that theological education "has largely to move out of its academic struc- 1 tures in a radical way." Seeking to clarify this state- ment, he comments: Here I speak of the actual reorientation of much of the learning experience, its move from the concerns of the academy into the concerns visible in the arena of society. . . . I am talking of Bible, theology, history, ethics, pastoral theology--the heart of the curriculum in every theological school I know. These must begin to impinge on the life of the church and the world. These must be liberated from the academic ghetto. These must become the most powerful weapons in the church's arsenal for mission. These must shape the style of the church's engagements in the world.2 In McKay's statements there appears a strong dual implication--that of reorientation of curriculum thrust and that of relocation of pedagogical site. He spells this out distinctly in the following words: The notion that the years of theological edu- cation are necessarily to be spent ppgdominantly in the classroom, With occasional foray into the world" (or even with well-articulated field education), and that these years of study are to be basically com- pleted prior to undertaking the work of ministry, has surely weakened our understanding of biblical, theo- logical, historical, ethical, and pastoral materials. This weakening of understanding is matched by the 1Arthur R. McKay, "Some Deliberately Immoderate Observations on Theological Education," Theological Edu- cation, VI, No. 4 (Summer, 1970), 255. 2Ibid. 150 inadequacy of many field education placements which have served to vitiate our understanding of the engagement of church and world. The trouble is that we are forced by any cur- ricular organization which keeps Bible, theology, ethics, and history in the classroom to make their employment in ministry merely, or, even at best, largely anticipatory. Moreover, sensing the diffi- culty we have often succumbed to the temptation to substitute for the employment of these disciplines in the genuine practice of ministry a type of field education that looks like little more than a "tricks- of-the-trade" charade.l McKay envisions a realistic seminary "context of learning" that is more analogous to that in which actual contemporary ministry is practiced. He believes that this is the pathway to a higher quality of theological education. He perceives the proper counteraction against educational isolation occurring when theological schools are en- couraged "to move out of their denominational and ecclesi- astical ghettoes into new forms of ecumenical cooperation and into new styles of engagement with the resources for theological education which are symbolized by the uni- versity and by the structures of community organization."2 McKay, who has been quoted at length because some of his concerns and his ideas have both a direct and an indirect bearing upon the communication model about to be proposed, summarizes his statements concerning the struggle for power in the decision-making processes within seminaries by saying: 11bid. 21bid., p. 257. 151 The point I make is applicable to any formulation: we have need of one another in our common task: stu— dents, faculty, administrators, trustees, church; black, white, yellow, brown and red; theologians, his- torians, biblical scholars, men in the field and men in the classroom; rich and poor; young and old. Our institutional organization must provide struc- tures which acknowledge that need. It must open channels of communication and participation which assist us to meet one another's need.1 Once again the need for effective communication is cited to give greater vitality to education for mission in theological schools. Every legitimate concern that has been mentioned is linked closely with some phase of the total communication process. In this respect it is true to life. It is also true to the genius of the gospel which figures so prominently in the seminary curriculum. The gOSpel invites sharing. "If sharing is at the heart of Christianity," as McLaughlin reports, "then communi— cation is indeed vital, for communication is the instru- ment by which truth is shared."2 Communication may have an ever increasing strategic role to play in the process of preparing men for pro- fessional ministry--a process that is never terminal upon graduation from seminary although it may achieve its greatest formalized intensity during those years of in- vested learning while in seminary. In the future lIbid., p. 259. 2Raymond W. McLaughlin, Communicgtion for the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan PubliShing House, 1968), p. 20. 152 communication may be regarded as much more than a formal discipline of study within the department of practical theolOQY; it may be accepted as the intrinsic mold around which a theological educational system for the last quarter of the twentieth century can be shaped. Such an approach 2 —-presented in the organized, heuristic, predictive com-' munication model which follows--encompasses both education ip_communications and education £25 communication. Frame- work for the communication model is the professional doctorate as a first theological degree. Presenting the Model The innovative model to be presented in this study is a model in human communication that is designed for a four-year seminary curriculum pattern leading to a Doctor of Ministry degree. All human communication is communi- cation but not all communication is human communication. There is a distinction between the communication of a human--all that a person does when he is communicating—- and human communication which is basically speech com- munication with its involvement in vocal symbolism. The word "communication" is derived from "munia" which means "service." The connotation of communication is mutual help, exchange, interaction within a given com- munity of interest, sharing. From the expansive context of communication--always considered as process--the focus in the model under consideration is upon inter-personal 153 communication. Inter-personal communication differs from other communication situations only in degree. Signifi- cant aspects of the process of inter-personal communi- cation include the use of multiple channels, the value of interaction, and efficient and effective feedback. Some brief definitions may be in order. Process indicates dynamic flow. Events and relationships are viewed as ever-changing, on-going, and interactional. Ippggf personal communication involves situations where two or more people are present in a given place at the same time allowing for opportunities to see each other, to talk back and forth, and to make immediately observable responses. Multiple channels, which may have several meanings, such as message-vehicles (newspapers, films, radio, television, telephone, etc.), are used in this model as references to the human senses (seeing, hearing, touching, etc.). Inter- action, the goal of human communication, involves "recipro- l cal role-taking, the mutual employment of empathic skills." Feedback, a good method for a person to look at himself as a receiver in the communication process, allows the sender of a message the opportunities of observing and interpret- ing the reaction of the receiver of the message and of evaluating his own effectiveness in conveying the message, often having some affect upon subsequent behavior. lBerlo, op. cit., p. 131. 154 Emergence of this model for the seminary situation occurs for several specific reasons. There are numerous communication breakdowns within the average theological school that have hindered the educational process. Stu- dents often indicate disappointment with the slow rate of reform and the apparent irrelevance of too much of their training in seminary as it relates to their future work in a modern and complex world. They want more interaction with faculty regarding curriculum planning. They would appreciate a stronger voice in the decision-making pro- cesses regarding curricula matters especially. There is an apparent communication barrier between research-oriented faculty and nonresearch-oriented faculty. While it is true that necessary diversification in the theological educational program takes place--not all semi- nary students are primarily interested in professional ministry; some want to teach and do research--it should not be overlooked that in the same academic arena the need for an integrated, harmonious approach to the individual student involved in courses taught in both general disciplinary areas exists. If, for example, a faculty member in the practical theology academic disci- pline "feels" that his courses are considered suspect by members of the faculty in the area of systematic theology, better communication is needed. If the professor in Biblical archaeology "resents" the intrusion of "too many" 155 courses in psychology, business management, and public relations, better communication should be in process reasonably soon. Faculty members should interact fre- quently on an in-depth basis regarding mutual responsi- bilities centered around the purposes of theoloqical edu- cation and the means by which these objectives can best be achieved for the students. Faculty deliberations should not be limited primarily to perfunctory house- keeping items in academia. They should allow for mutual concerns, philosophical speculations, and honest evalu- ations that would reveal unselfish spirits, understanding minds, and mature attitudes. Effective communication is required to promote such desirable ends. It is not the only means necessary, but it is an important means that cannot be overlooked with impunity. There is a crucial need for better communication between the pastors and lay leaders of the churches and seminary faculty, students, and administrators. This must occur on a systematic basis. The sporadic forays of stu- dent "teams" visiting cooperating churches, the faculty commitments to church-sponsored conferences, the appear- ances of a few pastors on the chapel program at the semi- nary may be helpful but they barely touch the surface of a needed closely coordinated church-seminary relationship that could be strong with the aid of effective communi- cative forces. 156 There should be a mutual respect and a mutual sense of responsibility between the faculty and the administrative-staff personnel. Faculty and adminis- trators are not islands connected only by a dean who makes "helicopter trips" between them on designated occasions. They are not "enemies" warring over the spoils gained from benefactors. They should be closely- knit team-members, appreciative of each other, and happily- wedded for the purpose of rearing the finest students possible. Good communication is essential to establish and to maintain such relationships. Both the seminary and the local churches are geared toward inter-personal communication with society- at-large. Their objectives are aimed in that direction. Especially of late, both institutions have been challenged greatly, and even exposed, by the humanity around them. Much of the unrest within society that is reserved for the churches and the theological schools points toward serious communication breakdowns. Charges and denials of irrelevancy, unconcern, hypocrisy, and superficial action tend to widen the communication gap. Specifically, then, the occurrence of ineffective communication too frequently and too continuously in faculty-student, faculty-administration, student- administration, research-nonresearch faculty, seminary- church, and church and seminary with society-at-large 157 relationships singles out the need for some means of im- provement, some program of action that will help to over- come the problems that exist because of communication breakdown. Awareness of this need, combined with the timely appearance of a new curricular program challenge centered around the professional doctorate as a first theological degree, provided the motivation necessary to construct a communication model for seminary purposes. The model is molecular in design. It is intrinsic in the sense that it applies specifically to one of several degree programs within the seminary. Not all students at theological schools are preparing for professional minis- tries related to the churches. It is extrinsic in its results-orientation and broader ramifications intended for the Church and society. The model is designed to serve three major functions: the organizational or communi- cative function, the heuristic or research-generating function, and the anticipatory or predictive function. The general model design is pictured in Figure on page 167. Molecular diagrams were chosen because it is the characteristic of molecules to be held together by an attraction for each other (cohesion) and, yet, to be separated from one another by space. Cohesion is strong- est when the molecules are closest together. Molecules in gases are widely separated. They do not form a set pattern but move about freely. Molecules in solids are 158 packed in close contact with each other. They form an orderly pattern and do not move much. Molecules in liquids are packed together in a close relationship to each other but they are not arranged in a pattern. Since they are fluid, they move about easily. The molecular diagrams (Figures 1 and 2) represent the fluid type. Figure l is an attempt symbolically to represent the cohesive relationship that the seminary has or could have with the church, the world community, and the uni- versity. The seminary could, for instance, have either a direct relationship with the community, or an indirect relationship with the community through the church or the university. The community would have a similar arrange- ment with the seminary. The church could be directly re- lated to the seminary and/or to the community, or indirectly related to both through the other. The same holds true for the university. However, there is no solid line direct relationship indicated between the university and the church for two reasons: namely, the church-state sepa- ration as it relates to state universities, and the secular-sacred dichotomy, whether valid or not, that often clouds the issue. A broken line connects the uni- versity with the church to represent denominational church colleges or universities that do have direct relationships with the churches. These are the exceptions. The uni- versity does have indirect lines of communication with 159 the church through the seminary and the community, and the same is true for the church to the university. The communication model designed for the pro- fessional doctoral program aims toward a strong cohesion among all four entities. Although they are separated by space, a meaningful and mutually advantageous working relationship should occur. The communication process becomes the matrix within which these organizations are enclosed. Effective communication among them, especially inter-personal interaction whenever possible, permits each one to be a more viable force in human affairs. Figure 2, shown on page 168, is a selective aspect of the communication process as it relates to these four groups. It centers attention upon the individual student enrolled in the professional doctoral program at the seminary. The prOposed interaction for this student is to be consistently strong with the seminary, increasingly more active with the church and the community. The co- hesion is less with the university and may be primarily one way (toward the student) when it occurs, unless there is considerable library usage or special tutorial help needed. The seminary and the church are brought into a close and meaningful continuing relationship, basically through the students and, secondarily, through the services that each renders to the other. The challenge of great potential is found in the combined force of the seminary 160 and the church ministering in and to the community. This synOpsis of the nature of the model serves as a prelude to the structure and content of the model as adapted to a four-year professional doctoral program in theological edu- cation leading to the D.Min. degree. The academic requirements for the Doctor of Ministry degree should be rigorous and closely related to the present and predictive demands of the professional ministry. The instructional scene of action, far less traditional than in former years with its heavy emphasis upon the lecture method in the seminary classroom, will shift noticeably away from the seminary campus. This may make a dramatic impact upon the decreasing need for erecting new seminary classroom buildings. The "new" classrooms will be located in facilities where ministry is already in process. Stu- dents will find their learning taking shape in "classrooms" provided by the churches and the societal institutions. Business management courses structured for pastoral leader- ship, for instance, should be taught by church business managers, trained specifically for this specialized minis- try and well-equipped to communicate their experience to others who may need this knowledge as they minister at a later time in churches that do not have a business mana- ger on staff. Such instruction should employ the best methods of communication in realistic on-the-job situ- ations. This would replace the present seminary approach, 161 most often used, which delegates to one of the professors of practical theology the responsibility of teaching some basic principles of business management for churches via the lecture method in the seminary classroom. By taking the students to the more realistic place of business management instruction and learning, several distinct advantages are offered to students. The person teaching, generally speaking, will be more qualified to instruct because of more intensive and comprehensive training; because he is current in his methodology, because he can utilize certified public accountants, lawyers, and other resource personnel within the church or community to assist him; and, because he has materials required for demon- stration and the situations built-in that are true to life. When a class in church business management ends, a class in Christian education could begin at the church locale-~now an extension of the seminary campus. The seminary professor responsible for instruction in this academic area may elect to "team teach" this course with the assistance of the Minister of Christian Education. Other specialists, such as Sunday School superintendents, Sunday School teachers, and youth leaders, may be involved--especially as resource personnel and dis- cussion participants. If the church sponsors a day school, additional educational help could be offered. Seminarians in training could attend and participate in staff meetings, 162 class sessions, and youth events. Teaching opportunities under supervision within the church would be available. In this closer working relationship the church would benefit by having the Christian education professor from the seminary as a consultant and by having the students- in-training share some of the responsibilities of the total educational program of the church. Once again, the advantages of being in a realistic learning situation and having the environmental helps and materials at hand enhance this phase of the educational program. As the church's educational program penetrates the community with small group encounters, home Bible study classes, and special events, such as Vacation Bible School, the Christian edu- cation program of the seminary joins forces with the church in the penetration. Exposure to the various educational ministries to the handicapped and to the aged are included also. Another example will be mentioned briefly. A seminary course entitled "Evangelism in an Urban Society," if taught in consecutive lecture sessions in a seminary classroom, would miss much that could be afforded the stu- dent if he received his educational instruction and train- ing from evangelists who are working in real-life situ- ations in the urban society. The "classroom situation" in this case would be portable, part of the time in the semi- nary and part of the time in the community where evangelism is in progress. Rescue mission ministries, visitations to 163 inmates in city jails, and evangelism efforts at airports are three of many opportunities available to put theory into practice as part of the total doctoral program. A crucial factor in graduate theological education is the student's development of his own capacity for continued learning and growth. In order that each student might be able to reflect upon his own progress, he has the oppor- tunity of getting immediate feedback in situations that allow him to practice the principles he is learning while he is in the process of learning them. Supervised in- struction followed by discussion offers much greater opportunity than that which emerges from a situation where a student is taught certain principles in class and then accepts a "week-end assignment" to see if he can find a situation that will allow him to practice some of the principles learned. The examples given are only a few of many that could be cited to indicate the dynamic interaction among four educational arenas prOposed in Figure 1. In essence, this communication model proposes that the student candi- date for the Doctor of Ministry degree will have the advantage of enlarging his "classroom activities" beyond the normal seminary campus geoqraphical limitations as a regular approach to learning. More and more the church facilities should be utilized and church leaders, pro- fessional and lay, should become faculty members or 164 resource personnel. Through as much interaction as possible, the seminary and the church should combine their assets in providing professional education for students preparing for ministry. The seminary should offer edu- cational exposure to the community in the on-going process of ministry. This exposure can be through the church to the community whenever feasible. When not practical, the exposure should be direct. Although the inner-city minis- tries may be more demanding and more exciting, the minis- tries to the suburban and rural communities should not be neglected. The university has much to give and some to receive from working closely with the seminary. Seminary professors could teach courses in areas of their pro- ficiencies if and when needed. University professors could be used to teach certain courses at the seminary, or to give special lectures on occasion, providing their academic and spiritual credentials were in order. Students in both institutions could interact on projects of mutual interests if a working relationship could be established. The seminary library contains numerous volumes on theo— logical subjects that could be made available to uni- versity students, especially those majoring in religion or coqnate areas. The seminary student, extended graduate privileges at the university library, would be encouraged to expand his research horizons considerably. 165 Figure l of the communication model is structured to open every available opportunity for the professional doctoral student of theology to get as competent an edu- cation for ministry as possible. It "eXpands" the seminary campus to include the church, the community, and the uni- versity whenever possible. It enlarges the "faculty” to include as many capable teachers, discussion leaders, and resource peOple as might be necessary to offer optimum instruction. It combines resources, eliminates duplication and unnecessary costs. It presents as many "real-life" learning situations as possible. In its better moments, it is ministry-in-process more than ministry-in-preparation. It unites the church and the seminary throughout the edu- cational process so that graduation is not even an inter- ruption in the flow of continuing ministry. It allows seminary faculty the opportunity to receive inspiration, insight, and professional knowledge that is timely and helpful from specialists in the field. It permits the church and the community to take advantage of the abilities and services of seminary faculty members and, on occasion, of some seminary administrative members. It makes avail- able to the church and to the community a considerable task force of students wanting to help, not only in order to receive experience but to minister to the needs of others as well. The matrix of this proposed model is communi- cation. Without effective communication among all the 166 participants it cannot receive desirable results. It.will take good communication to initiate such a doctoral problem, and good communication to sustain it. As a means of in- suring the best communication possible, the doctoral student would be enrolled in formal classes in communication theory and practice throughout his four years of matriculation. The model is structured for education i2 communications as well as education Egg communication. Figure 2 is a personalized part of Figure l. The perSpective is from the vieWpoint of the individual stu- dent who seeks educational involvement in the environmental settings of the seminary, the church, the community, and, whenever possible, the university. He is a person on the move according to purpose. He is not fighting form versus function dichotomies; he is not being depersonalized. Because of the integrative nature of his curriculum he is avoiding many of the pitfalls of fragmentation. Through combined resources and good communication the threat of educational isolation is diminished. If the program works according to projection he will be able to interact much more freely with faculty, administration, other students, lay people of the church, church leaders, community leaders, and society-at—large. The model proposals have revealed the objectives and some of the means of attainment. They have predicted some favorable results. What needs to find expression now 167 SEMlNARY UNIVERSIT’ CHURCH WORLD COMMUNITY FIGURE 1 168 / \ I \ ‘ UNIVERSITY l \ / CHURCH \ / \ SEMINARY sru DENT COMMUNITY SEM (MARY FIGURE 2 169 is a curriculum plan for the proposed four years of academic achievement culminating in the awarding of the Doctor of Ministry as a first theological degree. The primary purpose of the D.Min. program is to help equip students for learned and effective ministry in the world today and for the world tomorrow. What is the emerging shape of ministry in response to the dynamic changes and pressing challenges of our contemporary world? In offering a partial answer to that question, Stewart comments: The minister is communicator, counselor, catalyst to Christian groups, consultant to laity, and community agent of reconciliation. . . . With all the new forms of Christian service and organization needed in the world, the parish church must not be abandoned. It must continue as the base of operation for the rest of our undertakings . . . Part of the outreach of the committed must be to the half committed and uncom- mitted who often cluster about the church and assist its work for a variety of mixed motives. Their good works and better motives must be tenderly nutured, even while the small groups of the concerned reach out to serve also the avowedly secular community. In such committed, highly mobile, functional groups, the minister will serve as communicator. This implies preaching and teaching, but not in a monological fashion. He will not deliver the Gospel as a farmer does a load of hay, or as a professor may a lecture. He will be in constant dialogue with the committed core about the real issues of their lives. The questions being asked by persons will be corre- lated with the answers in the Gospel. There will be constant interchange and questing by both preacher and layman alike. The vast numbers of stimuli reach- ing people from television, radio, films, and other mass media will sensitize minister and people to the need for selecting out noise, finding silence, and relating on deeper levels of communication. The 170 message of salvation, through worship and prayer, address and response will reach the deepest levels of persons' lives.1 The curriculum development of the D.Min. program must have a close correlation to ministerial responsibility in our contemporary world. Stewart's observations indi- cate the significant part that effective communication should have within that responsibility. The curriculum must reflect that emphasis while not neglecting the emphases that must be given to Biblical studies, system- atic theology, and church history. To ignore the principle that the processes of education should be determined by the product sought would be serious oversight. Taylor acknowl- edges that "the key question in theological education is, What should ministers be?"2 In response to that important question he offers "four indispensable and related com- ponents": (l) ministers should be Christlike persons; (2) they should also be reliable interpreters of Christian faith; (3) they should be related redemptively to the secular world; and, (4) they should be churchmen.3 These components must be infused into the Doctor of Ministry 1Charles W. Stewart, "The Emerging Shape of Minis- try," Wesle Theological Seminary Bulletin, XXIV, No. 2 (Summer, 1967), 14-16. 2Harry M. Taylor, "Education of Ministers," Wesley Theolpgical Seminary Bulletin, XXIV, No. 2 (Summer, 1967) I 28. 31bid.. pp. 28-29. 171 curriculum plan and certain standards Of measurement for competency. Fragmentation, compartmentalization, and "neat packages" of academic courses must be avoided. Even so- called "logical sequences" must be examined closely. Adequate preparation for ministry-is far more important than accumulation Of credits as a goal. If "sacred cow" procedures of the past are incapable Of helping to insure competent results, they must be abandoned or revised. Education for ministry that is diversified must prepare for diversification. The magic Of three-credit courses should be challenged. Why three credits as standard Operating procedure? If the student is special- izing in an area of intense research, why not six- or eight-credit courses? In preparing for a ministry that Offers numerous challenges and demands experience in many areas, why not a number of well-taught two-credit courses? Would the objection be against proliferation as a general policy? Would it be based upon the fallacious concept that "it just cannot be done in two hours of instructional thrust each week?" Must we think in terms of "survey courses" or superficial content when the credit hours are reduced under three? Is it not possible to strengthen and streamline content, to "make the moments count" to greater advantage, to encourage increased student initia- tive, to expect more activity of a.worthy nature apart 172 from the formal scene of teaching, to force faculty to revise their approaches and to update their notes very frequently? Are not these objectives worthy? Should we continue to do things just because they have been done that way for years? Examine life in other areas. Note the tendency toward condensing, toward refining, toward increased quality production in less time. Will this approach eliminate reflection and stifle creative energy? Why not consider the very Opposite as a possibility? One Of the first things this communication model proposes is a greater diversification Of courses, Offered in fewer hours of formal instruction, as preparation for professional ministry. The model, established on a quarter hour basis, divides the academic year into three quarters of approximately eleven weeks each. The average expectation level calls for a schedule Of sixteen credit hours each quarter. A "quarter hour" represents one class period of fifty-five minutes per week for one quarter. A normal academic "load" would be two three-hour classes and five two-hour classes each week during the academic quarter. The schedule would allow for variations, of course, but the normal pattern allows exposure tO seven different courses each quarter. As a general rule, the three—hour courses would be concentrated in the academic areas of Biblical studies, Biblical and systematic theology, church history and the history of Christian thought, and the 173 languages. The two-hour courses would emerge from the academic disciplines in practical theology, communications, pastoral psychology and counseling, missions, philosophy of religion, and Christian education. The composite of all courses is designed to help equip the student with certain basic attitudes, usable knowledge and skills. The student is the focus Of the curricular development in this communi- cation model, more so than logical sequence or insti- tutional arrangement. In the D.Min. degree program greater emphasis is to be placed upon dialogue-in-seminar learning experiences than upon learning methods. This is especially true in the two-credit courses. Team teaching is encouraged and re- source personnel outside the faculty will be invited to participate in the learning experience frequently. The faculty is to be enlarged to include on a part-time basis such professional personnel as pastors, ministers of Christian education, youth ministers, church business administrators, and specialists in evangelism.working with such segments of society as the poor and indigent, the aged, criminals and juvenile delinquents, broken families, the high SOhool and university students, business and industrial personnel, professional people, ethnic and minority groups, and housewives who are interested in small group interaction. 174 As indicated earlier in this study, there will be radical changes in "classroom" locations. The ideal setting available for the learning eXperience in each course will be chosen whenever possible. One Of the major shifts will be toward the utilization of church facilities. This will not only tend to relieve classroom congestion problems in the seminaries but will enhance the learning experience by making it more realistic and by giving to it increased equipment and learning devices in many instances. One Of the major aspects associated with the successful operation Of this model is the cooperation of qualified churches located reasonably close to the semi- nary. Transportation Of students may be a problem but the benefits related to the church-seminary cooperative effort make it a problem worth solving. In some cases, the churches may be able to assist in the problem solution. In certain instances, "classroom" locations will be in hospitals (pastoral care), in rescue missions (missions and evangelism), in business Offices (church management), and in a number Of other experimental learning centers. Optimum theological.education cannot take place within the physical confines of the seminary campus alone. Nor can it occur simply through individualistic field place- ment in situations where all the student gains is practi- cal experience. Students can serve a real purpose in helping to educate each other. Faculty members should be 175 at the scene Of action with their students in order to give valuable assistance to the learning process. For these, and many other reasons, communication is the vital key to the learning process. The knowledge and appli- cation of effective communication methods and techniques will help students to understand situations, persons, social structures, and the complex processes of trans— formation which change individuals, groups, and communi— ties in positive or negative, constructive or destructive ways. Communication is essential if they are going to understand themselves in relation to others and to their professional responsibilities. Communication must be efficient and effective if students learn how to initiate and to sustain the different types of ministries called for by the Christian faith in our modern world. Course arrangement for the professional doctoral program should gravitate around "developmental areas," in so far as possible. During the first two years (six quarters), the stronger emphasis could be placed upon "personal identity." This approach would encourage the enrichment Of personal development in the faith, pro- moting the understanding of one's relationship to God, to others, and to oneself especially. The final two years (six quarters) could stress "professional identity." This would mean refined and intensive concentration upon the ministries within the church and the secular com- munities. What specific effects would this develOpmental 176 approach have? One example might mean a change in the pastoral psychology curriculum, for instance. Instead Of a three-hour credit course in "Theories Of Personality," there might be a change to two courses in pastoral psychology--each for two hours--in "Theories of Person- ality" and in "Personality Problems the Average Pastor Experiences.“ From the moment of acceptance into the Doctor Of Ministry program, the student becomes an integral part of a four-year "team" of several peOple. This group, which may be composed Of from four to seven students plus one faculty member and possibly a pastor or an assistant pastor, should meet once every week for a minimum of an hour tO compare notes, make honest evaluations, Offer encouragement, join in prayer fellowship, and make sure that the standards set for the doctoral program are being met, or are in the process of attainment, for every stu— dent on the "team." The standards for the D.Min. degree are to be extremely high, and if the "team" finds itself motivated to greater achievement the standards may be exceeded. Additional meetings of the group can be arranged by consensus as time permits. Once again, effective communication is a vital part of the model curriculum. To this point the communication model has stressed communication for education. It has shown how vital 177 communication is in the theological educational process for theological ministry. Unless communication barriers are eliminated and communication gaps closed the ambitious cooperative venture of seminary-church-university-community is little more than a daydream. The preponderance Of small groups interacting, the continual dialogue Of faculty and students, the working relationship between churches and the seminary, the evangelistic thrusts into the community, the "team" efforts within the student body, are but several Of numerous phases of the communication process in action designed to make the communication model for the pro- fessional doctoral program a viable Option in life situ- ations rather than just a creative construct for the drawing board. There is another aspect to communication as it relates to this model that cannot be omitted. It is of internal consequence. It is communications 13 education. If a seminary has courses in communications as part of their curriculum, they are usually few in number, mostly concentrated in pastoral theology among the courses in homiletics (the art and science of preaching). Occasion- ally they are found as part Of the curriculum relating to missions or Christian education. Perhaps the seminary faculty presupposes that the student was thoroughly in— doctrinated in communication curricula prior to enrolling for graduate theological education. Seldom is this the 178 _case. And, yet, the truth is apparent that much of the effectiveness of the professional minister depends upon good communicative ability. How often the criticism is made concerning ministers of the Gospel that they had much to say that was good but they did not know how to say it well. Both style and delivery were inadequate. On other 5 Occasions they are criticized for lack of content or for i disorganized sermons, displaying the need for better planning and gathering Of materials and for better sermon organization. Audience and occasion analyses cannot be I overlooked. Other techniques Of persuasive speaking must be taken into consideration. The response to these statements would indicate that such concerns fall into the subject matter Of homiletics and are already getting proper attention within the seminary curriculum. Even a cursory examination reveals that a minister "communi- cates" by means other than sermonizing. In fact, most of his communicating experience is out Of the pulpit. How much serious and effective teaching and training does the student in seminary receive regarding interpersonal com- munication and social influence, conflict resolution . through public discourse, nonverbal communication, the sociology of mass communication, concepts and principles Of design in the communication media, the psychological processes underlying communication and persuasion, group 179 discussion and group discussion leadership, communi- cation and change--the diffusion of ideas and infor- mation, cross-cultural communication, and communication theory and process? The purpose of this line Of reasoning is not to call for a total revamping of the seminary curricula. Ft It is, however, the purpose to point out that communi- cation is a significant part of the “life blood" Of the minister's task and influence. He needs more and better transfusions of communication courses than the average i seminary Offers. This omission is a basic weakness that needs more than a new course or two with a communication label "tucked in" to the practical theological curriculum. The recommendation of the two-hour courses which this model advocates permits the inclusion of a well-planned, carefully-adapted communications curriculum. Most semi- naries should move the adoption Of this recommendation regardless Of whether or not they are considering a pro- fessional doctoral program. There is another significant dimension to the communication model for the D.Min. degree program that needs to be mentioned. By the time the student completes his second year Of studies and training he should have selected a special project of his own, approved by his advisor. He will make this area a two-year career commit- ment Of investigation and service, and will be expected 180 to write a thesis on this project as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Ministry degree. An oral examination in defense of the project—thesis will follow the submitting of the thesis. Graduation is to be predicated upon the student's meeting all the standards required for the awarding Of the degree. Graduation should be only a small inter- ruption in an on-going ministry that hOpefully will gain new momentum with each ensuing year. W— 7“" A I“ “"5““? The words of caution mentioned earlier in this study should be repeated. It is convincingly recognized that no one model Of ministry is capable of setting forth a complete pattern that would fulfill all of God's pur- poses and meet all human needs. A number of models for the professional doctorate should be considered. This is not only commendable but it is the best guarantee for a satisfactory check-and-balance system of complementation and correction. Concluding the Chapter The emergence of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree may be the triggering mechanism needed to bring about some necessary and desired changes in seminary curricula. When changes are proposed and acted upon it is hoped that the seminaries and the churches will coordinate their efforts since both have much to gain 181 by doing so. Without that COOperation and understanding Of mutual mission to the world, preparing men for the professional ministry of the Christian Church would be extremely difficult. Theological education has had its capable analysts but it has never been given the help that Abraham Flexner gave to the medical profession. Consequently, greater reform is needed--especially in such areas of concern as the formalist-functionalist dichotomy, depersonalization, fragmentation, and educational isolationism. Concern over these conflicts are all related to the primary problem-- that Of determining the ability of the theological schools to produce an excellent professional doctoral program for Christian ministry. The excitement of birth pangs produced a new pro- gram, but not without the agonizing labor that preceded it. The satisfaction will come when, and if, some day certain aspects of this Doctor of Ministry model give evidence Of survival ability and growth development. Then will the prophet's voice be heard above the noise of the crowd, "Controversy has always been a part of the American educational tradition. That is what helped to make it great!" W-‘H-I" q OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. Summary II. Conclusions III. Recommendations 182 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Pressing problems in United States and Canadian theological seminaries are currently being tested in the ' fires of controversy. Controversy is deeply embedded in the tradition Of free societies. As the intellectual expression of conflict, anxiety, fear, and hostility, controversy serves the useful function of easing tensions by allowing the peaceful processes of dialogue to minimize the danger of open strife and rebellion. Obviously, some form or degree of conflict is a precondition for contro- versy, a precondition that through controversy initiates the creation of an intellectual atmosphere ideal for reasoned evaluation or resolution. The reasonable inter- action afforded in controversy Often provides the oppor- tunity for intelligent change and progress. There is incontrovertible evidence attesting to the fact that controversy over the professional doctorate as a first theological degree has produced change and 183 184 some progress. Apex Of the change occurred in June of 1970 when the American Association of Theological Schools adopted a motion acknowledging that qualified seminaries had the privilege Of Offering an AATS-approved professional doctoral program leading to the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) as an advanced theological degree. Indication of the process is being shown in the reaction of theological schools to this innovation. The reasoned appraisal Of their academic and other educational resources, the growing sensitivity to the composite needs of the Church and of the society to which it ministers, the recognition of the true tensions that exist in theological schools today, the willingness to investigate and to experiment and to make radical changes where necessary are only several of numerous indications of progress. It would seem likely that the list will grow, the issues will be refined, and that mature decision-making will follow in the wake of the democratic processes of educational controversy. A significant stepping stone in the processes leading to progress will be the introduction of new models for professional ministry. Such models will have to show concern for the individual, the Church, the world, and the communication of the gospel. None of these concerns can be allowed to go into eclipse. Nor should the desired outcomes of education for a professional career--"a well furnished mind trained to think critically, a recognizable 185 degree Of professional competence, understanding and acceptance Of professional values and attitudes, and motivation for continuing education"l--be overlooked. This present study--which has attempted to evalu- ate the problem in historical perspective, to make a proper assessment of the issues Of the controversy; to present a {' representative view of what is occurring on the contempo- i rary scene regarding the professional doctorate; and tO propose a model for serious consideration by the faculty, . students, administration, alumni, and churches associated h with the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School--is designed to Promote the desired outcomes of education for a pro- fessional career in Christian ministry. It is anticipated that this model will be one of many attempting to reach satisfactorily established goals of this institution of graduate study, as well as new objectives that may come into focus as plans materialize toward eventual decision- making regarding the professional doctoral program. While the thrust is future-oriented primarily, the present cannot be overlooked with impunity. Today's problems are complex and compound. The long but false war between religion and science is drawing to a close. We are once more facing Augustine's challenge, attempting to distinguish what is God's and what is man's. In 1Charles R. Feilding, Education For Ministry (Dayton, Ohio: American Association of Theological SChOOlS, 1966)! p. 1150 186 theological education we cannot afford, even momentarily, to abandon the question, "What should we do?," while address- ing ourselves to the current question, "What ggp we do?" The true commitment to higher education entails moral responsibility and spiritual integrity. One of the sound interpretations Of today's unrest in society (the mounting r3 concern over the devastating impact of technology and the 3g basic questions concerning war, crime, poverty, and ’ pollution), is that people are searching for solutions E ' to problems and that they want moral and spiritual answers in language that they can understand. The seminaries cannot ignore their mandate under such circumstances. Neither should their responsible leaders react irre- sponsibly by standing alone with hands in pockets on the edge Of the crowd, peering over shoulders stooped with care, while asking the question, "What's happening?" The old lines, "There they go. I must hurry. I'm their leader." are no longer funny. Theodore Wedel has wisely suggested: "Theological education, accordingly, is already in need of so many up- datings in response to the insistent change in the church's secularized environment that its best preparation for an even more revolutionary future may be to solve problems 1 on today's agenda first." The real issue facing today's 1Theodore O. Wedel, "An Introduction to a Study of Patterns of Ministry and Theological Education," Theo- logical Education, IV, NO. 2 (Autumn, 1967), 527. 187 seminary students and faculty may, in final analysis, be a personal one--namely, "If I were arrested for being a disciple Of Jesus Christ, sincerely concerned about my personal God-given obligations to a society in great need, would there be enough evidence to convict me?" Perhaps this is what the proposed model is saying first and fore- most, that theological schools must help supply the evi- dence tO a greater degree than ever before while preparing men for ministry. Conclusions Research Of a topic as involved as the professional doctorate in theological education uncovers certain con- clusions, some of which are Obvious and others that are not so apparent. These conclusions represent value judg- ments and statements Of fact. They include a variety Of concepts that have diffused throughout the dynamic process Of Christian ministry. Such conclusions are not meant tO be interpreted as "the final word," but thought of only as deductions that have been reached to date through intellectual discovery and experience of life. As a result of the research accomplished for this study of the professional doctorate as a first theological degree, the following conclusions appear to be reasonably valid: 188 The baccalaureate degree seems to be no longer appropriate for graduate work in theological schools. Consequently, in most cases if not all, the Bachelor of Divinity (B.D.) degree will be discontinued eventually and replaced by the Master Of Divinity (M.Div.) and/or the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) as the appropriate degrees leading to ordination for Christian ministry. The American Association of Theological Schools now recognizes the right Of member schools to establish programs for a professional doctorate provided that their academic and other educational resources warrant it according to guidelines, con- tent, and standards proposed. The AATS assumes the legitimacy of theological education which uses no degree whatever. Regard- less Of whether degrees are Offered or not, or of what approved degrees are Offered, the Association urges strongly a professional thrust in theological education. The AATS recognizes the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) as the most appropriate professional doctorate for ministry, and envisions a D.Min. program as having its own integrity, representing ’ 5‘ .- ' A . _ ,~’-'-‘-"B. V 189 a competence level higher than an M.Div. or its equivalent. Some present-day church and seminary structures face revolutionary change or even replacement by new structures. A static conception of the minis- try is no longer feasible. The fact Of secularization has far-reaching conse- quences for Christian ministry. However, recog- nizing the fact and Opportunity of secularity is not the same as adopting the ideology of secular- ism. The latter is incompatible with Christian faith since the Christian is not obliged to accept the world as it is nor to serve it on its own terms. Professional education should be built upon a sound foundation Of character, integrity, broad cultural interest, and a sense of social responsi- bility. Educational preparation for a profession must be functionally relevant toward eventual practice. Educating future ministers in the image of present- day ministers only will not suffice. Competent training ip_and fp£_the communication process must be included. . aw} 10. 11. 12. 190 NO effective resolution has been found to date to eliminate or reduce considerably the tension that continues to exist within most theological schools between the "content" disciplines and the "practical" disciplines, a conflict almost universally deplored although almost universally practiced. The seminary curriculum, and the particular approach to the subject matter taught, tend to reflect the professional orientation and inter- ests of the faculty members rather than those of the students in terms Of the student's eventual professional work. Christian ministry can properly be called a pro- fession since it is intellectual in the sense that it is based on a body Of theoretical knowledge; it is practical in the sense that it is aimed at the performance of specific functions in society; it utilizes skills and techniques which are teachable and learnable; and, it deals with matters of vital human significance. Less than 25 per cent of AATS accredited theologi- cal schools are integral units of universities, although about another 40 per cent of these accredited schools are located near universities L '1 «Ir o- . ‘fi. "'1’ ‘h ‘4: '91-:— 13. 14. 15. 191 or have some sort of university affiliation. A closer working relationship between seminary and university is needed. Graduate professional schools in medicine, busi- ness, education, and social work usually take considerably more responsibility for training-in- practice than do theological schools. Theological education seems in doubt whether the responsibility for training-in-practice should fall primarily on the seminaries, on the place of first employment, or somewhere else. The Christian ministry is becoming more diversified and specialized. Curricula changes in seminaries must be adapted to this fact and its implications. However, curriculum building or curriculum changing must stem from a genuine consensus within the faculty about the basic purpose of the school. Also, since ministers must be theologians, the core subjects Of Biblical and systematic theology and church history, taught in communicable form, must continue to be the basic disciplines of theological education. Qualifications Of faculty teaching in theological schools have increased significantly. Improve— ments have been made in regard to academic 16. 17. 18. 192 standards. But, the majority of Protestant semi- naries are still attempting to prepare students for a great variety of ministerial opportunities by giving all Of their students largely identical programs Of instruction. This standardization in program and methods is becoming increasingly in- adequate. There must be revision, innovation, experimentation, and general reform. Updating and courageous projection for future Opportunities are needed now. There are some encouraging attempts being made at cooperative action by seminaries desirous of attacking common problems by sharing resources. Much more unselfish sharing is desired and needed. Seminaries should experiment more in order to find ways that they can take better advantage Of the possibilities for training and for service in existing community institutions. Ecumenical cooperation is now an operational reality in inner-city ministries while it con- tinues to be only a subject of discussion in most of the seminaries. Ways of closing this gap-- largely a communication gap--must be found and employed. 193 19. A pluriform Church and society will require many new and varied types and styles of theological education. Urban training centers, involved in a lover's quarrel with the seminaries, and other new contexts for theological training are respond- ing to the restlessness Of the Church and society. 20. The seminary of the future must coordinate its efforts much more closely than in the past with both the Church and society apart from the Church. From some Of these conclusions the "seeds" Of recommendations may be found. Hopefully, such seeds will rise in the ground of Opportunity to produce healthier, more productive theological schools--better equipped than ever before to fulfill Christ's Commission through their mission to the Church and to the world. Recommendations More and more there is a growing conviction that a seminary is not a finishing school, nor can it be com- pared with "a freight depot in which a train was being prepared for a forty year run."1 What is a seminary? Is it a manufactory of dogma- ticians producing prefabricated solutions to the complex 1William J. Wolf, "Curriculum Revision at the Episcopal Theological School and Some Dynamics of Its Acceptance," Theological Education, II, No. 4 (Summer, 1966), S-110. 1’ , ”fine-tn 194 problems of life? Is it a perpetuator of attic-mentality, receiving and storing intellectual items that can be ad- mired occasionally but which lack relevance and vitality for day-to-day living? Is it a graduate institution dedicated to producing slit-eyed ministers who cannot stand sudden exposure to the glare of cultural corruption? $3 Is the seminary an instrument of renewal in con- I -4 temporary society, geared to reactivate dimensions of atrOphied human life? Is the seminary a "mobilcentric" ‘ institution which perpetuates the image of "arrival, get the job done, departure"—-sort of a necessary link in a chain Of short-term commitments in life? Or, is the semi- nary "an educational institution, by nature formulated to discuss and transmit ideas, both to enlarge the natural horizon Of young minds and to fit them for a more compre- hensive practice of directing both their own and others' religious activities"?l Is the seminary "a community of faith with the special task of preparing men and women for the church's ministry, and of doing this in a process which involves the intellectual work of interpreting the meaning Of faith in relation to all human knowledge"?2 1Samuel H. Miller, "Church, Seminary, and World: An Uneasy Frontier," Theological Education, II, NO. 4 2Daniel Day Williams, "The Morphology Of Commit- ment in Theological Education," Theological Education, V, NO. 1 (Autumn, 1968), 23. 195 John Bennett claims that "the theological seminary should be a place where the inspirations and illuminations that come from the traditional sources meet with the stimu- lations and challenges that come from the unmet social needs of most Of humanity that cry to heaven."1 One of the seminary bulletins states that a seminary is a place designed to prepare men and women "to do something worth- while in this bewildered and bewildering world; to help others to an understanding of life's meaning; to help them find a faith strong enough to make a difference in their lives; to get them excited about the possibilities of achieving justice in a frail, human society; to help them respond positively to the saving act Of God in Jesus Christ."2 To some degree at least, we must understand what a seminary is if we are going to understand how to make it better. Undoubtedly, hundreds Of thousands of words have been written in the form of recommendations suggest- ing ways to improve seminaries in the United States, in Canada, and abroad. Perhaps one of the most classic statements Of all was Ernest Cadman Colwell's "Ten 1John C. Bennett, "Theological Education and Social Revolution," Theological Education, III, No. 2 (Winter, 1967), 287. 2"Catalog 1970-72," Eden Theological Seminary Bulletin (St. Louis, Mo.: Eden Theological Seminary, n.d.), p. 10. ‘fl’. ‘. ' '|o .. vs .3 .- 196 Commandments for a Theological School" which said a great deal in relatively few words: I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Thou shalt not become a monastery nor a hermitage. Thy walls shall be sliding doors and thy classrooms freeways through which flow the traffic of the world's fears and hopes and needs. Thou shalt Open wide thy doors to the highest reaches of the intellect whatever the risks to tradition and present practice. Thou shalt open the eyes Of thy students that they may see and their ears that they may hear what the Fine Arts reveal Of man and Of God and of their works. Thou shalt educate for the professions men who remain amateurs--men who work for love and not for pay or position, for thou canst not serve God and Mammon. Thou shalt not kill the intellectual life of thy students; neither by overteaching, nor by trivial- ity, nor by too much outside work howsoever noble it be! Thou shalt not remember thine own goodness and forget God, for the Lord will not hold him guilt- less who taketh His name in vain; therefore, thou shalt root out the sickly weed of religious pride and plant the healthy grain Of a humility eager to be ground into bread for any man. Thou shalt not imagine that thou art the Church, for this is to imagine a vain thing! Let the Church be the Church! And the Seminary, a School! Nor shalt thou separate thyself from the Church; for the River of Life flows from the Church to thee, and without it thy studies shall be dull and dusty indeed! Remember that thy vocation is to help the churches increase love of God and love Of neighbor; so shalt thy days be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Remember that worship belongs to God and not to the work of man's hands! Therefore, thou shalt not bow the knee to the Nation nor to Reason, to Creed, nor to Confession; thou shalt not tremble before Government or Bishop or Board, but only under a divine judgment. For freedom Christ hath set thee free; be not enslaved again then under a yoke of bondage!1 1Ernest Cadman Colwell, "Ten Commandments for a Theological School," Annual Catalog 1970-71, Vol. XII, ation, 1. 197 With Colwell's "Commandments" providing inspir- a modest list of recommendations follow: The seminary needs to engage in a training partner- ship with the churches, and this should involve more than the pastors. Lay committees should be appointed to assist in the learning experience of the seminary students. They should share with the pastor in weekly conferences with the stu— dents. More than that, they should reveal Oppor- tunities to the students that emerge from effec- tive lay participation in the mission of the churches. There are numerous ways in which the layman's role in the training of pastors can be enhanced; most Of these involve communication. Substantial educational research on the whole process Of theological education is overdue. There is a genuine deficit of research and developmental activities directed toward search- ing for new programs, methods, and settings for ministerial education. What is occurring in the process Of theological education at both formal and informal levels of learning? Can anything be done toward the adaptation of techniques that have NO. 6 (Claremont, Calif.: School Of Theology at Clare- mont, February, 1970), p. 8. .11.“; 02"“ ' Wfl 198 proven successful in other types of professional education? There is a real need for empirical research. 3. A longitudinal study Of theological education should be made in the context Of pre-seminary education, seminary education, and post-seminary eXperience, including continuing education. An in-depth study that would concentrate on a group Of students from pre-seminary years to five to i ten years after graduation would reveal some meaningful insights into the development of a person in the professional ministry. Becker says, "It is widely felt that the first five to eight years out of seminary make or break the man and his professional commitment. What helps? What hinders? We do not know for sure."1 A study of the type proposed would give some clues as well as Offer considerable information of value for the education Of men for ministry. 4. Another interesting area for research would be a study to determine what combination of course work and field experience could yield optimum 1Russell J. Becker, "In-Parish Pastoral Studies 1960-1966," Theological Education, III, NO. 3 (Spring, 1967), 417. 199 preparational benefit to the student. If faculty members would shift away from the lecture method on more occasions in order to adopt the case method and discussion, the cases under consider— ation could be real cases, not hypothetical; they could be the experiences of the students at work in their parish responsibilities throughout the year, both within the church organization and within the community it has available to serve. 5. Studies could be made to determine "what image Of the minister should inform our teaching and prepa- ration for the parish ministry."1 Many ministers suffer with identity problems. They are per- plexed regarding their vocation and identity. They are analyzed by sociologists and scolded by critics. Becker writes: It is difficult to maintain a firm perspective within the contemporary church and equally difficult to achieve an integrative view of the ministry that will actually hold things together. Bonhoeffer's "man for others," Jenkins' "representative man," Hanson's "pioneer ministry," Niebuhr's "pastoral director," Marty's "theologian and catechist," Come's "agents Of reconciliation," all vie for attention.2 TO this list could be added Trueblood's "coach"3 and many other pastoral images. The proliferation lIbid., p. 415. 2 3Elton Trueblood, The Incendiary Fellowship (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), p. 43f Ibid. 200 Of images and pastoral responsibilities create confusion. A study to determine what valid image or images should inform our teaching would help considerably in preparation for ministry. There is a place for a study concerning the F4 desirability of a university relationship for (g theological education. What are the advantages? fl What disadvantages or warnings should be recog- nized? Would it help to compare the professional i W education for ministry with some of the other professions in this regard? What Options are Open to seminaries presently not a part of a university complex and, yet, geographically situated reasonably close? Would there be any meaningful advantages to the university to have seminary affiliation? These are but several Of numerous questions that would need to be answered in this type of study recommendation. Will functional education for ministry bring about a drastic reformation Of normal patterns of theo- logical education in order to minister faithfully to the critical needs Of today? Some in-depth studies of this subject would benefit faculty and students involved in preparation for ministry. 201 They would also Offer help to alumni who are involved or seeking involvement in inter-city ministries especially. The freedom of expression, which we regard as a basic human right in our society, is not always I 0 J ' 11‘ h .0". a". - used with the highest moral purpose. As the science of speech communication has developed rapidly, scholarly studies in the value dimensions of Speech persuasion have not kept pace. The F seminary should produce scholars who could explore the ethical aspects of the communication process. As advancement is made in the seminaries toward more effective communication, it is recommended that the moral principles and ethical consequences associated with such development receive its fair share of research and application also. If the seminaries work out a better strategy of communication, they cannot overlook the Spiritual dimensions that Offer to man God-given integrity and dignity. The power of persuasive speech in- vites social control. If the seminary personnel receives a multiplication of eXposure to persuasive communications, it must recognize the power of explosive manipulation, the control of thought and mind. Just as it has ethical responsibilities 10. 11. 202 regarding communication Opportunities, it has spiritual Obligations as well. It is recom- mended that the issues Of Spiritual significance concerning manipulation be studied carefully. As more and more the seminary becomes the scene of good communication methodology, it is suggested that it becomes an efficient laboratory contribut- ing experimental studies to an understanding of the processes of persuasive communication. It may Offer an ideal environment for communications theory building. As a theological school its strength in its spiritual commitments, its world and life view, its curriculum in Bible and system- atic theology, and many other plus factors, add needed dimensions for a new or modified approach to communication theory. The seminary has much to Offer in the study Of small group interaction. A study of the con- formity tendencies which stem from membership in groups is a case in point. An analysis of the influence of groups upon the attitudes of their members would make a viable contribution to a serious study concerned with the general problem Of changing Opinions through communi- cations. Why does a person become motivated 12. 13. 203 to conform to one group rather than another? This and other questions could be studied with predicted value in both the seminary and the local church. Seminaries educate ministers. Ministers are Often strong advocates of change. The seminary and the local church would be excellent areas for research in resistance to change (counternorm communications), in dissonance problems, and in polarization tendencies. The "search" for greater meaning in life is some- times spoken Of as an integral part of the edu- cational program of theological schools. It is the contention of this study that meanings are in people, not in things such as words. Meanings, therefore, are learned, not discoverable nor found through the transmission of messages. The communi— cation process does not involve the transmission of meaning. Effective communication occurs when people share Similar meanings. Communication break- downs occur when people fail to recognize that meaning is within peOple, not in messages. It is recommended that faculty, administrative Officials, and students in the seminaries give serious con- sideration to these concepts in order to reduce . "k‘ud 204 the breakdowns in the communication process and to close the communication gaps. 14. The final recommendation Of this study for theological education is the desire to en- courage some interested persons to present new models for the Doctor of Ministry degree program. The creative challenge exists and so does the need. By such efforts, hopefully, the curricula of seminaries will be changed and students will become better communicators of the Gospel, more thoroughly equipped for ministry. A continuous and cooperative assessment of theo- logical education is fundamental to a well-planned and dynamic program for Christian ministry to.a society which is constantly and rapidly changing. The studies and im- provements in the seminary situation which have been recommended would enhance the theological education curricula, in need of reform, and could provide improve- ment potential of no small dimension to ministry in pro- gress. Effective communication is salient to ministry in progress, as expressed in this study, because it proffers significant means to bring needed progress to that ministry. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Berlo, David K. The Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and‘Winston, 1960. Bridston, Keith R., and Culver, Dwight W., eds. Pre- §eminary Education. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg PuBlishng House, 1965. . The Making Of Ministers. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964. Clebsch, William A., and Jaekle, Charles R. Pastoral Care in Historical Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Cox, Harvey. On Leaving Ipto the Snake. New York: Macmillan CO., 1967. . The Secular City. New York: Macmillan CO., 1965. Drake, William. The American School in Transition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1955. Eells, Walter Crosby. Degrees in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963. Feilding, Charles R. Education for Ministr . Dayton, Ohio: American Association of TheoIogical Schools, 1966. Grigg, Charles M. GraduateiEducation. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, 1965. Hance, Kenneth G.; Ralph, David C.; and Wiksell, Milton J. Principles of Speaking, Second Edition. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1969. 205 206 Harris, Chester W., ed. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: Macmillan CO., 1960. Haskins, Charles Homer. The Rise of Universities. Ithaca, N.Y.: Great Seal Books, 1923. Henry, Nelson B., ed. Education for the_Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. . Graduate Study ipEducation. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press, l95l. Kelly, Robert L. TheologicaTJEducation in America: A Study Of One Hundred Sixty One Theological Schools_in the United States and Canada. New York: George H. Doran, 1924. Luccock, Halford E. Communicating the Gospel. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. McGlothlin, William J. The Professiongl Schools. New York: The Center for AppliediResearch in Edu- cation, 1964. McLaughlin, Raymond W. Communication fer the Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968. Miller, Gerald R. Speech Communication: A Behavioral Approach. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1966. Morrison, Samuel E. The Founding of Harvard College. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935. Niebuhr, Helmut Richard. The Purpose of the Ehurch and Its Ministry. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956. ; Williams, Daniel Day; and Gustafson, James M. The Adygncement of_Theological Education. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Olmstead, Clifton E. History of Religion in the United States. EnglewoodTCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960‘— Pusey, Nathan M., and Taylor, Charles L. Ministryfor Tomorrow. New York: The Seabury Press, I967? 207 Rait, Robert S. Life in the Medieval University. Cambridge: University Press, 193l} Rashdall, Hastings. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. OxfOrd: The Clarendon Press, 1895. Schweitzer, George K. The Doctorate: A Handbook. Springfield, 111.: Charles C Thomas Puhlisher, 1965. Smart, James D. The Rebirth of the Ministry. Phila- delphia: Westminster, 1960. Starr, Richard J. The Beginnings Of Graduate_Education in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Taba, Hilda. Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1962. Thwing, Charles Franklin. The American and the German University. New Yorh: Macmillan CO.,—1912. . Universities of the World. New York: Mac- millan CO., 19ll. Trueblood, Elton. The Incendiary Fellowshi . New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1967. Wagoner, Walter D. Bachelor of Divinity. New York: Association, 1963. Walters, Everett, ed. Graduate Education Today. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. Wieruszowski, Helene. The Medieval University. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1966. Articles and Periodicals American Association Of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. Pro ram and Re orts, 27th Biennial Meeting(June 17-19, 1970;, p. 75. . The Handbook. Bulletins 27 and 28. Dayton, Ohio, June, 1966. Anderson, Terence R. "The Seminary as Part of a Uni- versity Community." Theological Education, II, No. 1 (Autumn, 1965), 34-37. 208 Becker, Russell J. "In-Parish Pastoral Studies 1960— 1966." Theological Education, III, NO. 3 Bennett, John C. "Theological Education and Social Revolution." Theological Education, III, NO. 2 (Winter, 1967), 283490. Bonthius, Robert H. "Resources Planning in Theological Education: A Response and an Offer." Theological r_ Education, V, NO. 2 (Winter, 1969), 67-72. 3 Brauer, Jerald C. "Discussion: The Seminary in Ten Years." Union Seminary Quarterly Review, XXII, NO. 4 (May, I967 , 335. Bridston, Keith R. "Form and Function in the Education e Of Ministers." Theological Education, IV, NO. 1 (Autumn, 1967), 543-55. Colwell, Ernest Cadman. "Seminaries in the University for the Church." Lutheran Quarterly, XVIII, NO. 4 (November, 1966), 322-24. . "Ten Commandments for a Theological School." School of Theology at_Claremont Annual Catalog Council of Graduate Schools. The Doctor'ijegree in Professional Fields. Washington, D.C.: n.d. DeWolf, L. Harold. "D.Min.: First or Second Theological Degree?" The Christian Century, LXXXVII, NO. 41 (October 14, 1970), 1211. Gunnemann, Louis H. "From Purpose to Curriculum." Theological Education, II, NO. 3 (Spring, 1966), 177-83. Holcomb, Walter L., and Maes, John L. "Functional Roles, Professional Identity, and Theological Curricula." Theological Education, II, NO. 3 (Spring, 1966), Lee, Peter V. "The American Medical School: A Case Study in Professional Education." Theolo ical Education, V, NO. 3 (Spring, 1969), l. - . Littell, Franklin H. "The Seminary Provides for Dialogue." Theological Education, I, No. 2 (Winter, 1965), 83¥89. 209 Mackie, Steven G. "American Seminaries in World Per- spective: A Draft Balance Sheet." Theological Education, V, No. 1 (Autumn, 1968), 41-51. McKay, Arthur R. "Some Deliberately Immoderate Obser— vations on Theological Education." Theolo ical Education, VI, No. 4 (Summer, 1970), - . Miller, Samuel H. “Church, Seminary, and World: An Uneasy Frontier." Theolo ical Education, II, No. 4 (Summer, 19665, S-47-S-57} Montgomery, John Warwick. "Theological Doctorates." Christianity Today, X, No. 10 (February 18, 1966), 54: Moore, E. Maynard. "Theological Education for a Revolu— tional Church." Theological Education, IV, No. 2 Moss, Robert V., Jr. "Contexts for Theological Education in the Next Decade." Theological Education, V, "New Plan: College Degree in Three Years." U.S. News & World Report, LXIX, No. 23 (December 7, 15505, 64. Norris, Beauford A. "A Message from the President." Christian Theological Seminary Bulletin, X, No. 3 (February 28,319697) 3, Phenix, Philip R. "A Functional Approach to the Under- Standing of Ministry." Theological Education, IV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1967), 528-41. Ramm, Bernard L. "What's Happening in Our Seminaries?" Eternity, XXI, No. 6 (June, 1970), 24-26. Schuller, David S. "The Essential and the Peripheral in Theological Education." Theological Education, V, No. 1 (Autumn, 1968), 1-2. Stewart, Charles W. "The Emerging Shape of Ministry." Wesley Theological Seminary Bulletin, XXIV, No. 2 (Summer, 1967), 14616. Taylor, Harry M. "Education of Ministers." Wesle Theo- lo ical Seminary Bulletin, XXIV, No. 2 (Summer, 19%75, 28-30. Thomas, Owen C. "Professional Education and Theological Education." Theological Education, IV, No. l 210 Thomas, Owen C. "Some Issues in Theological Education." Theological Education, V, No. 4 (Summer, 1969), 346-56. . Trotter, F. Thomas. "Degree Reform by Degrees." The Christian Century, LXXXVII, No. 28 (July 15, 1970), 861. Tullis, James L., et al. "Discussion of Dr. Lee's Paper." Theological Education, V, No. 3 (Spring, 1969), -.._‘_ 11 ‘ r Wedel, Theodore 0. "An Introduction to a Study of Patterns of Ministry and Theological Education." Theological Education, IV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1967), Williams, Daniel Day. "The Morphology of Commitment in ' Theological Education." Theological Education, V, No. 1 (Autumn, 1968), 23-40. Wolf, William J. "Curriculum Revision at the Epsicopal Theological School and Some Dynamics of its Acceptance." Theological Education, II, No. 4 (Summer, 1966), S-lU4-S—115. Ziegler, Jesse H. "Editorial Introduction: Models of Theological Education." Theological Education, I, No. 2 (Winter, 1965), 79-80. . "Editorial Introduction: The Lack of Communi- cation in Theological Education." Theological Education, I, No. 1 (Autumn, 1964), l, 74. . "Major Issues in the AATS 1970 Biennial Meeting." Theolo ical Education, VI, No. 4 (Summer, 19705, 285-90. . "The AATS and Theological Education." Theo- logical Education, II, No. 4 (Summer, 19665, S- -8-8310 Catalogs Academic Program Issue 1910-72 of Fuller Theolo ical Seminar . Vol. XIX, No. 6. Pasadena, Calif.: Fuller Theological Seminary, December, 1969. 211 A Descriptive Catalogue of the Graduate Seminary of Phillips University with Course Listings, 1971- 1973. Enid, Okla.: Phillips University, n.d. Andover Newton Catalog 1970-71. Newton Centre, Mass.: Andover Newton Theological Seminary, 1970. Announcements. Vol. LXIX, No. 9. Chicago: The Uni- versity of Chicago Divinity School, March 2, 1970. Annual Catalog 1970-71. Vol. XII, No. 6. Claremont, Calif.: School of TheolOgy at Claremont, February, 1970. Asbury Theological Seminary 1970-1971 Catalog. Vol. XLVI. Wilmore, Ky.: Asbury Theological Seminary, May, 1970. Catalog 1970-72. St. Louis, Mo.: Eden Theological Semi— nary, n.d. Christian Theological Seminary Bulletin, Catalog Issue 196991970. Vol. X, No. 3. Indianapolis, Ind.: Christian Theological Seminary, February 28, 1969. Lancaster Seminary Bulletin. Lancaster, Pa.: Lancaster Seminary, hid. LexingtonTheological Seminary Bulletin. Vol. V, No. 10. Lexington, Ky.: Lexington Theological Seminary, 1970. McCormick Theological Seminary Bulletin. Chicago: McCormick TheologiCal Seminary, 1970. Memphis Theolo ical Seminary_Bu11etin. Memphis, Tenn.: Memphis T eological Seminary, 1970. Presbyterian School of Christian Education Catalog Issue 1969-1970. Vol. LII, No. 2. Richmond, Va.: Presbyterian School of Christian Education, 1969. Register. Vol. XLI, No. 1. Chicago: Chicago Theological Seminary, November, 1970. The Divinity_School, 1970-1971, Official Register of Harvard University. Vol. LXVII, No. 16. Cam— bridge, Mass.: The Divinity School of Harvard University, August 28, 1970. 212 The Wesley Theological Seminary Bulletin. Vol. XXVIII, No. 3. Washington, D.C.: Wesley Theological Seminary, Fall, 1970. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School_l970-7l. Deerfield, 111.: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, n.d. Unpublished Material Braaten, Carl E. "Objections to the Professional Doctorate." A prepared statement circulated at the AATS Hearing on the Professional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree, Oak Brook, Illinois, January 13, 1970. Garrett Student Association Coordinating Board of Garrett Theological Seminary. A statement read and dis- tributed in written form to delegates attending the AATS Hearing on the Professional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree, Bethany Theological Seminary, Oak Brook, Illinois, January 13, 1970. Phillips University Seminary. "A Plea for Multiple Strategies in Theological Education." A statement prepared by the Faculty of Phillips University Seminary, Enid, Oklahoma, for distribution at the AATS Biennium at St. Louis, Missouri, June 11-13, 1968. Sherman, Franklin. Unpublished notes circulated to repre- sentatives attending the AATS Hearing on the Pro- fessional Doctorate as a First Theological Degree, Oak Brook, Illinois, January 13, 1970. Other Sources Personal interview with Dr. Kenneth S. Kantzer, Dean of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, January 13, 1970. ‘7 “.7 R" H II" II T” "5' I'll“ H N“ JmmmmuIMIIu 13178 6514 3 1293