~ "/Llll”'£"£"llfl/”"£”££L’”flflfllmfl'fll’!”11”" ‘ LIBRARY? MicFWrtn Stat-e Umvcrszry (u, ., OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATEfiEALS: Place in book return to rem-we charge from circulation rem-rm; CAREER DATA AS INDICATORS FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION by Duane H. Elmer A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1980 ABSTRACT . CAREER DATA AS INDICATORS FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION - by Duane H. Elmer Graduates of theological schools in North America may provide invaluable information for their training institutions. A follow-up study was conducted to learn about the career experiences of 2070 graduates of five graduate theological schools from the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. The major purpose of the research was to provide information to assist these five cOOperating institutions in curriculum decisiondmaking toward the goal of increasing the effec- tiveness of their training programs. To supply the necessary information, representatives from the five schools met on three separate occasions with representatives from the church and the researcher to build and refine a questionnaire. The questionnaires were then sent to all North American alumni who had graduated from these seminaries between 1955 and 1978 with either a Bachelor of Divinity or Master of Divinity degree. The data provided information about graduates, institutions and trends. Five sets of graduates were identified: (1) pastors (N-814); (2) ex-pastors in ministry (N-128); (3) ex-pastors in secular employment (N-SO); (4) never pastor in non-pastoral ministry (N‘lBO); (5) never pastor in secular employment (N-75). The data was also computed so Elmer, Duane H. that each institution could learn what its own graduates were saying. In order to determine trends, graduates were clustered into five sets: graduates of 1955-'58, l959-‘63, 1964-‘68, l969-‘73 and l974-‘78. Formerly, pastors and ex-pastors attended seminary to train for the pastorate building primarily an undergraduate majors of either humanities or theology/religion/Bible. However, in the last five years, fewer have entered seminary with a clear vocational choice, and more were doing their undergraduate work in natural science and social science. In thirteen pastoral activities, pastors and ex-pastors rated themselves quite effective in preaching, teaching and pastoral visitation but indicated need for more skills in peOple-building activities and in personal development and discipline. Ex-pastors in secular employment generally rated themselves lower in the above items. They also indicated they had experienced less supportive relationships while in the pastorate. Pastors and ex-pastors enjoyed the "freedom to preach and act as they saw fit" while in the pastorate, but rated as least satisfactory "members' willingness to carry out their Christian witness in the world" and "members' willingness to study and be trained." Of the twenty-five potential reasons listed for leaving the pastorate, those currently ex-pastors but still in ministry indicated they were drawn away from the pastorate by such things as attractive work Opportunities. Ex-pastors in secular employment had left more out of frustration, citing such things as personal inadequacy in the role of church leader. Attractive financial benefits did not influence eithers' decision for career change. Elmer, Duane H. Graduates who never entered the pastorate were generally less certain about vocational choices when entering seminary. Those who chose ministry employment expressed satisfaction with their training but those who chose secular employment were relatively dissatisfied. The five institutions were more similar than dissimilar. .At three of the schools, however, most of the graduates had applied in order to train for the pastorate; but over one-half of the applicants accepted at the other two schools came for other reasons. At all of than private study was considered the most valued part of the training. With an increasing number of entering seminarians having no clear vocational choice, it may be necessary to place greater emphasis on career counseling to help these people clarify their career goals. To respond to the needs indicated by pastors and ex-pastors for more help in peOple-building skills and personal development and discipline, the seminaries should increase or add courses in personal discipline and interpersonal relationships. In addition, field education should incorporate these as goals for in-service training. Further, the use of andragogical methods in the c1assroom.would enable modeling of closer relationships between faculty and seminarians. It is also suggested that the five seminaries form a cOOperative program of continuing education for their graduates. By such joint efforts they may be able to meet more effectively the needs of those in the pastorate and promote closer relationships between seminary and church. DEDICATED Wife, Muriel . . . . . . . . _who understood and helped me understand Sons, Scott and Marc . . . . who waited and helped me to wait Mother and Dad . . . . . . . who taught me and helped me teach Friends and Colleagues . . . who listened and helped me hear Future Seminarians . . . . . who may be benefited and benefit others ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .Mcst research projects of any size and substance are usually the result of cocperative efforts. This research is no different. Five seminaries participated in the project and deserve special reccgnition for the generous sharing of their personnel and resources. The cooPerative attitude and dedication to the task by the representatives of each school made the research not only more enjoyable but more valid and more relevant. I sincerely hope the continuing fruit may be commensurate with their fine efforts. The guidance of Ted Ward along with the assistance of committee :members 8. J. Levine, B. A. Bohnhorst and L. E. Sarbaugh was most appreciated. Their overriding concern for peeple and warm commitment to this researcher brought a human element to the study, an important value in its own right. As a colleague and fellow researcher Sam Rowen offered valuable help at important points in the research. He is also to be credited for being part of the group which conceptualized the worthiness of the study. Those who participated in the typing and preparation of the graphs were Mary Jo Samples, Faye Thomas and Pam Chissus. Their patience and endurance were not small factors in the completion of the manuscript. Claire Mellis was responsible for the fine editorial work which brought greater clarity and consistency to the thesis. Mary Danielson provided timely and valuable help in scoring the questionnaires. Appreciation is expressed to Men in Action of Miami, Florida, for their concern and commitment to the develOpment of theological education. Without their interest the study could not have been accomplished. This Ha research is part of a larger Men in Action project for the advancement of quality theological education. I trust that the insights from this study will contribute toward that quality and to the success of the larger seminary project. The ARVIDA Foundation, also of Miami, Florida, provided generous financial support for the research. People who commit themselves to a vision in this way always serve as special encouragement. Others helped too, directly and indirectly. God bless all who helped. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 STAMNT OF THE PROBIEM . O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 1 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Context of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Focus of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2 LITERAmRE m D C O C O O O O O O O O O O C O O C 2 2 Trends in Ministerial Training . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 mama Studies 0 C O O I O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 25 smry O O O O O O O O . O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 38 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Description of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Description of Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Validity Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Reliability Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Role of Research Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Operation of Research Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Training of Scorers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Content Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4 FINDImS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S 6 Pastors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Ex-Pastors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Never Pastors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Trends in Rte-Seminary Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . Background Experiences . . . . . . . . . . Training Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . Ministerial Experiences . . . . . . . . . . Institutional Perspectives . . . . . . . . Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY ALUMNI QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . GUIDE FOR SCORING QUESTIONNAIRE . . PASTORS' AND EX-PASTORS' OPINIONS': EFFECTIVENESS IN’PASTORATE SHOWING SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GRwPS O O O O C O C 0 O O O O O 0 iv Page 143 143 147 152 158 165 169 184 199 202 Table 93.1 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 LIST OF TABLES - RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY INSTITUTION RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY INSTITUTION AND GRADUATING CLASS PASTORS' REASONS FOR ATTENDING SEMINAR! PASTORS' OPINIONS: SEMINAR! SHOULD INCREASE EMPHASIS--FOUR LEADING ITEMS RANK ORDERING AND PERCENTAGE OF PASTORS RESPONDING "MUCH" OR ”VERY MUCH" WHEN ASKED "TO WHAT DEGREE MIGHT THE FOLLOWING REASONS CAUSE YOU TO LEAVE THE PASTORATE FIVE PASTORAL ACTIVITIES WITH LARGEST DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN IMPORTANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS BY STATUS SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PASTORS AND EX-PASTORS ON,EFFECTIVENESS IN THIRTEEN PASTORAL ACTIVITIES RANK ORDERING OF SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS DURING PASTORATE COMAPRISON OF PASTORS AND EX-PASTORS ON SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS PASTORS' AND EX-PASTORS' RESPONSES ON "WHAT MIGHT OR DID CAUSE YOU TO LEAVE THE PASTORATE" SHOWING SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES ACROSS GROUPS AND RANK ORDERING BY GROUP SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PASTORS AND EXwPASTORS ON FOUR FACTORS: RELATION TO GOD, OTHERS, SELF AND HOME PRE-SEMINARY FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT Page 54 54 57 63 65 74 78 79 80 83 97 101 Table 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 PRE-SEMINARY EMPLOYMENT BY INSTITUTION AND BETWEEN INSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS IN PASTORAL ACTIVITIES BY INSTITUTION SHOWING RANK ORDERING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS DEGREE FACTORS WOULD OR DID CAUSE DEPATURE FROM THE PASTORATE BY INSTITUTION SHOWING RANK ORDERING AND BETWEEN INSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES PRE-SEMINARY FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT ACROSS TIME SHOWING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE COLLEGE MAJORS 0F SEMINARY GRADUATES ACROSS TIME vi Page 107 116 122 135 136 Figures 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 LIST OF FIGURES Level of Satisfaction with Seminary Training by Status Pastors' Opinions: Value of Instructional Factors Pastors? Perceptions: Importance and Effectiveness in Pastoral Activites Pastors' Opinion: Seminary Should Increase Emphasis College Majors of Seminary Graduates Graduates: Reasons for Attending Seminary Pastors' and Ex-Pastors Opinions on Pastoral Activities: Importance and Effectiveness Ex-Pastors’ Opinions: Seminary Should Increase Emphasis Pastors' and Ex-Pastors': Satisfaction on Aspects of Pastoral Ministry Length of Time in Pastorate before Leaving Pastors' and Ex-Pastors' Responses: Relation to God, Others, Self and Home Institution by Present Status Reasons for Attending Seminary by Institution Value of Major Instructional Factors by Institution Value of Minor Instructional Factors by Institution also Showing General Satisfaction Rating Personal Help from Seminary Personnel by Institution Institutions—-Pastors' and Ex—Pastors' Opinions: Seminary Should Increase Emphasis Page 58 60 61 64 69 71 73 77 81 95 96 103 105 108 110 112 113 Figures Page 4.18 Pastors” and Ex-Pastors' Perceptions: Relation to God, Others, Self and Home by Institution 132 4.19 Reasons for Attending Seminary Across Time 138 viii I swam OF THE PROBLEM Theological graduate schools exist primarily to train individuals for careers in the professional ministry. Educational training programs however need systematic and reliable feedback from time to time to continue to be relevant to the current ministerial demands. Graduates of these institutions-the most direct beneficiaries of the training programs-are in a position to provide helpful information to those who make curricular decisions. The research therefore is a follow-up study of 2,070 alumni of five cooperating theological seminaries. It has as its goal the improving of curriculum design for theological education. MOMOPTEESTUDY This particular follow-up research reflects large scale concern for contemporary theological education. Numerous Questions are being raised by those related to the field of ministerial training. Robbins may have discerned a key problem area. He cites a recent ngcholggy Today article in which clergy are rated seventeenth in ”respected and desirable professions”- just below manufacturing foreman and just above power station operators. Robbins remarks: ”However, the ministers of Eennepin County may be pointing out a far greater dilemma. Is it possible that the inner ear of John Q. Public as noted in the Psychology Todgy listings has picked up the discordant overtones of an ambivalent and frustrated profession...a profession that has not resolved the mismatch of perceiving, desiring and preparing for one kind of ministry and accepting and implementing something else?" (1979:122). It would appear that part of the ambiguity about theological education and the ministry lies in the debate over what constitutes excellence. Not a few are pleading for a shift from the historic narrow understandings to a new definition of this term excellence (Conn, 1979: Adams, 1979; Friere, 1980, 1973; Nacipil, 1975). Most argue for some form of theological praxis to underlie curriculum development. A variety of expressions are used, but the goal is similar. Nacipil says the seminary must also strive for "excellence in participation in the struggle for life be it in the Church or elsewhere" (1975:57). Niebuhr, Williams and Gustafson believe "The greatest defect in theological education today is that it is too much an affair of piecemeal trans- mission of knowledge and skills, and that, in conference, it offers too little challenge to the student to develop his own resources and to become an independent, lifelong inquirer, growing constantly while he is engaged in the work of the ministry" (1957:209). When Gustafson wrote earlier, in 197U, he believed that theme was already in quest. It appears that this quest continues today. CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM One of the more pressing realities facing the North American Church is that it can no longer continue to be so parochial in its understanding of what constitutes good theological education. Padilla argues force— fully that the vitality of non-western Christianity has much to offer in assisting theological eduCation to reflect Christian value more accurately. "American culture-Christianity should not be allowed to deprive us of the possibility that we all-~whatever our race, nationality, language or culture--as equal members in the one body of Christ, 'attain the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ' (Eph. 4:13)" (1975:52). Werld Perspective. Increasingly articulate voices from the Third Werld are advising_the North American Church and its supporting theological institutions to re-examine their programs. Thus, Amirthan makes a four-fold call for a new style of learning, a new style of ministry, a new style of living and a new style of spirituality (1979:1209127). Coe confesses that Third Werld Christians not only failed to question the suitability of the western model of theological education but were committed to advance it (1973:235). Third World perspectives are shared by many Nerth American educators. Ward and Rowen (1972) suggest that exporting Western models overseas may not provide the most effective base for ministerial training. Savage speaks to the fact that the educational models used by the missionaries to train Latin pastors simply are not developing ministers who serve effectively in their world. He then quotes from ”an open letter to mission executives from key Asian leaders" which says, "Many of our seminaries and Bible schools are stereotypes of Western models and are curriculum-examination oriented rather than training men practically for pastoral ministry in Asia" (1972:28). Kinsler (n.d.), who was instrumental in developing an extension model of theological education in Guatemala in the early 1960's, goes even further. He extends his concern for the limited effectiveness of ministerial graduates in the Third Werld to the values embedded within the educational'model employed. He believes that the traditional schooling model with all its accompanying values must be radically' critiqued and brought under the judgment of Scripture. From his Latin America perspective Kinsler charges that the school- ing model has so dominated the training institution that its ”programs are imperialistic, consciously or unconsciously, for they maintain the privileges and power of an elite and impose an attitudeof dependence“ (1972:43). Moreover, structures which feed off the schooling atmosphere produce hierarchy in relationships and allow the elite to maintain their status, privilege and power. A different model, built more from a theological rather than a cultural base, will provide guidelines for the redesign of theological education and discourage the potentially negative fall out. Or, to state it positively, a critical look at the past can provide freedom to look creatively at the future. The wisdom of the non-western church can help. Leadership Development. Closely linked to a world perspective is the image of leadership which exists within theological education. Third World spokesmen are helping to sharpen and even redefine the image. Since the leadership under consideration here is also the leadership of the church, the issue becomes theological and finds its ultimate definition in Scripture. The definition of Church leadership therefore is important because it relates so closely to the controlling purpose of theological schools. At this point leader- ship development becomes a compelling curriculum concern. In 1974 Christian leaders from around the world gathered in Lausanne, Switzerland to forge a collective sense of the meaning of Church leadership development in today% world. From it came the Lausanne Covenant. Article II of the Covenant united theological education and leadership develOpment. It called for a new style of leadership among national leaders and for appr0priate responses from theological schools. The Covenant reads in part, We are committed to . . . and long that every church will have national leaders who manifest a Christian style of leadership in terms not of denomination but of service. We recognize that there is a great need to improve theo- logical education especially for church leaders (Douglas 197537). Building on the_Lausanne Covenant, Jonathan Chao offers a forth- right if not biting critique of western leadership styles. He speaks of de-westernizing (therefore de-secularizing) the present.models of ministerial leadership, and considers it the ”initial and most crucial task before us” (1976:198). It will bring reformation to theological education. Existing models reflect a Roman administrative heirarchy spawning an elitist class which often abuses its power by oppression and exploitation, says Chao. Ward assesses most management.models of leadership as attempts to control people by inducing, motivating and congratulating (1977:34). This contrasts with the biblical concept of leadership which is best captured by the word “servanthood”. The servant possesses no authority or power to decide what another ought to do. The servant does not selectively reward desirable behavior and punish undesirable behavior. The servant's role is much closer to accepting people where they are, sharing insights and resources‘with them and growing together (1977:34). Nature of the Church and Ministry. An understanding of leadership development:must find its definitional context in the nature of the church and ministry. Winter insists that "the question of the forms of training cannot be separated from the forms of ministry” (1969:70) . A holistic approach to theological education demands that some basic attention be given to the nature of church and.ministry. The fact is that approaches to training spring, at least in part, from an under- standing of church and ministry. Bromiley (1959) says the church is a people related to God. The people are in turn related to each other, in both local and universal fellowships. In addition they are related to the world by the charge to incarnate the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church. In all three relationships the people of God are called to serve or minister. ‘The nature of that.mdnistry is somewhat determined by psychological and sociological factors but at the bottom line it is determined by the individual and the diverse gifts bestowed sovereignly by God upon each of His people-through the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is.a “charismatic community" (Covell, 1971:17). All members of this community, the church, are charged to serve through the discovery, nurture and development of their gifts. In this sense, everyone is called to minister in a manner consistent with the suffering servant. Prom out of the community of ministers emerge those gifted for leadership roles (Goodykoontz, 1963). Over time and in a variety of experiences.the members of.a local church recognize a few people who have the capacity to serve by equipping others. The biblical model suggests certain qualifications for these-people (I Timothy 3) but warns againstrecognizing anyone too quickly (verse 6). It must be emphasized that the role of leadership.does not imply one person over another. Quite the contrary, a person provides leadership in such things as serving, esteeming the other greater than oneself, in humility, 1 learning and mutual respect. Goodykoontz calls servanthood the "fundamental concept'~of’ministry (1963:17). The servant image contrasts with the historical image of the church *4-“ . ___ _- - - —-—-—.—.r‘e-.. ._...._ a..s-...—..i——--—. 1“...“ “~— H» - .‘_ - ,, — w...—-.—.——_—— _. . _.7 ~,_- leader as the omni-ccmpetent, spiritual dynamo who stands as a lone giant above every one else in apostolic authority, spiritual knowledge and all-encompassing competence. And these characteristics are pre- sumably dispatdhed with electrifying proficiency. Kinsler states the point: A pastor is expected to have above all a deep sense of call, a self-image that places him in a unique sphere of service, dedication, and sacrifice. His integrity and authority should not be questioned. He is the spiritual leader of his congregation, the axis around which the life of the church.revolves. The people cannot grow spiritually beyond the level of their pastor. He is the prime mover, orientor, and advisor for all the programs of the church. He is the preaching-teaching elder, who must expound God's revelation, maintain discipline, and lead the congregation (n.d. :93). If the church leader looks like the above--a kind of ecclesiastical superman-and if he is the axis around which the ministry revolves, then he is best trained in one kind of educational environment. If on the other hand the church leader views the ministry of the church to be shared by every member and views leadership not in terms of hierarchy, but as dialogue and reciprocal ministry, then a different type of training environment may be more appropriate. Definition of church and ministry is the context for development of training programs. Training programs communicate certain images of the church and ministry. ‘Those trained by an institution for example tend to embody the image of that instiution and thus reinforce its definition of church and ministry. Churches and theological schools should share their respective images of church and ministry. If a discrepancy exists, they need to work together toward a program of training which reflects a more similar image of church and.ministry. Or, as Savage says, "The urgent task of the seminary today is to sit down with the church and discover afresh the type of training that will lead to an effective ministry--a ministry that will lead the church on in real growth“ (1972:29). Factors in Human Learning. Several topics, while not all-inclusive are germane to the discussion and conveniently fall under this rubric. The topics are pedagogy and andragogy, schooling and education, and knowing and doing. Pedagogy ‘Pedagogy literally means the ”loading of children". and ' Andragogy Most definitions have omitted the child aspect so that pedagogy has come to mean ”the art and science of teaching” (Webster). The fact remains that most educational systems are still child and youth oriented. One educator suggests that the bulk of schooling at the college and graduate levels still draws primarily from pedagogical principles. Thus, most adults are taught the same way children are taught (Knowles 1970). Andragogy is the term recently coined for the teaching of adults (Knowles, 1970). As a new technology, andragogy is causing many to re-examine much of the prevaling thought about the teaching of adults. The adult is more than a grown child. Therefore, the principles and technology of educating children are neither equally effective nor are they appropriate for the education of adults. The schooling of children has been primarily concerned with the transmission of knowledge (facts, content). The notable skills required are listening, remembering, writing and repeating. But the adult has developed many additional abilities that must be capitalized on by the wise educator. For example, adults can interact around a body of information or a concept for extended periods of time; they can pgrticipate in a larger group in both sharing and clarifying insights; they can synthesize varying pieces of information to form a unified whole: they can analyze pieces of a whole individually, in relation to other pieces and to the whole; they can discover resources to extend their learning; they can speculate on implications of what they are learning for application to life: they can enter the real world, reflect on their experiences, make value judgments and re-order their lives to respond differently the next time, if they so choose. In pedagogy a learner's need is determined by someone other than himself. Adult education seeks to respond to the self-defined needs, _ interests and concerns of the learner. The role of a teacher in the pedagogical system is essentially that of an expert, his chief function being to ”deposit" his/her knowledge in the minds of the pupils. Thus learning is primarily passive. In adult education, however, terms like ”facilitator”,."coordinator” or “resource person“ more accurately describe the role of one who teaches adults. Learning here is primarily active. The adult learner can and should assume a more significant role in pursuing the educational process. Theological education concerns itself with adults and, therefore, expects to take advantage of the additional conceptual and psychomotor skills adults bring with them. Knowles makes an observation about education of adults in general which may have application to the theological scene as well: ”Indeed, in my estimation the main reason why adult education has not achieved the impact on our civilization is that most teachers of adults have only known how to teach adults as if they were children” (1970:39). Schooling Einstein said, ”education is that which-remains after and . Education you have forgotten what you learned in school”. Although Western society has equated schooling and education, they are not synonymous. In fact, Walter Doyle (1976) wonders how schooling 10 ever captured the field of education. Schooling is only one means toward education; many argue that it may not even be the most effective means. Educators, parents, employees and students are becoming increasingly frustrated with the results of schooling. For example, the skills required to be a good student in school are not the same skills necessary to be a good spouse, parent, missionary, pastor, administrator, etc. Hence the question: does schooling prepare one adequately for life? SKILLS REQUIRED AND REINFORCED ADDITIONAL SKILLS FOR EFFECTIVE IN SCHOOL LIVING/MINISTRY Listening Decision making Writing . Observetion/hypothesizing Remembering Application of knowledge Repeating Discernment Inquizv Communication Self-understanding Inter-personal relationships Coping with stress Self-education and so on Because theological institutions are beginning to capitalize on the adult skills of its participants, they have been able to break the grip of an exclusively schooling model. Recognition of the validity of extensive field education, off campus seminars and overseas study/travel have indicated that some rethinking and restructuring is underway. However, further reflection on the weaknesses of the "schooling" model as the only or major model of education reveals that continued rethinking and realignment is necessary. The schooling model is not to be discarded but should be put in perspective in order that it may more effectively serve the educational program of the church. 11 The lessons are clear. . .for establishing standards of excellence in theological education. we need to be liberated in the church from seeing schooling at the very center of theological-education, recognizing it (despite its defects) as 223 of many valid approaches to education. That liberation must of necessity affect the school oriented traditions behind ordination require- ments, formed in the west and adopted in non-schooling cultures. In the west it had resulted in too many ecclesi- astical doors shut to gifted men who do not meet the requirements.' And, in the third world, it has created the large disparity between the many who perform functionally as ministers (without schooling) and the few whose gifts the church may recognize because they have the necessary academic degrees. (Conn 1979:347-81. Knowing Educators are continually challenged to find ways of and Doing closing the dichotomy between knowing and doing, rhetoric and behavior, reflection and experience, theory and practice, cognitive and psychomotor, truth.and action, witness and life. But, "in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary, we have continued to operate on the assumption that to know the good is to do the good” (Carr 1979:149). The Greeks were primarily concerned with clarification-especial1y in the sense of the verbal and conceptual processes of cognitive reasoning. The ability to clarify and repeat information in a form similar to the one in which it was received represents the primary concern of Greek education. Content mastery was judged largely by cognitive testing procedure. The goal of Greek education was cognitive excellence. Theological education aims for obedience-especially in the.sense of one being willing to ag£.on his or her understanding of.biblical authority. For the Christian, obedience has "its origins in the Triune God who has spoken, and its effectuation in Man‘s response to that word in the world of history that belongs to God" (Conn 1979:3601. To be considered Christian, then, education requires a priority concern for the appropriate relationship between knowing and doing within the whole person. Ministerial excellence, often equated.with academic excellence, must be redefined more in terms of a dialectical interaction between reflection and action (Freire: 1970). The debate about which is best-theory or practice-—is useless and misleading. "Theory must inform and direct practice, and practice must in turn aid in the critical evaluation and improvement of theory“ (Fielding 1966:11). Conn puts it in a more theological reference: . ”The word of the covenant given by God forbids us from isolating covenant witness from covenant life, thought from action, truth from practice. Truth is the practice of the will of the covenant God... Education as the pursuit of "sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9) is not the suggestion of an academic exercise but...the exPression of covenant faith- fulness in a Godecentered way of living. (1979:360- 361). Holtrop (1977) also argues that Greek ontological categories suggest that sound doctrine is primarily the pursuit of precise theological definitions and statements. However, truth is not contained solely in propositions. “If I tell the 'truth' apart from love and piety, I am.not doing the 'truth' at all, and consequently I am not telling the truth, according to the Scripture...I can be very 'orthodox', indeed, and very unbiblical at precisely the same activity" (1977:10).” The theological curriculum must find more dynamic interdependence between knowing and doing before that kind of education can fulfill the Hebrew ideas that surround "covenant”, “sound doctrine" and "truth". ‘giew of People. Educators are redefining curriculum from its focus on content to a focus on peeple. Some are saying, in effect, curriculum is people (Macdonald 1975). Regardless of whether that statement finds acceptance in all circles, it forces curriculum 13 developers to look at various ways of viewing pe0ple. An assumption about people creates a certain type of "soil" in which ”grows" a certain type of curriculum. Kline (1976) asserts that the teacher's basic assumptions about students are the most crucial elements in teaching. She lists four views of students which essentially dictate the teacher‘s classroom behavior. That each view implies a type of curriculum is readily apparent. The Aristotelian view assumes rational man and is chiefly concerned with truthful and logical presentation. The Freudian strategy assumes man reared in delusion and is concerned with dispelling fantasies and prejudices. The Pavlovian strategy assumes conditionable man and uses various stimuli to elicit desirable responses...the' Rogerian strategy...rests on the assumption that man holds to his beliefs despite logic, truth, and conditioning when changing these beliefs threatens his identity and integrity' (1976:30-31). Philosophical debate may be offered on the above four views, but the point remains that one's view of peoPle is a controlling influence in how curriculum is perceived, structured and operationalized. The readings edited by De Graeff and Olthius (1978), especially one chapter entitled ”The Greek versus the Hebrew View of Man: has a foundation for a biblical view of man from which curriculum can draw its shaping influence. Biblical anthropology of course is not the only category of biblical theology which bears on curriculum development, but it is one of the most basic. Freire (1970) too has some notions about learners. He believes that learners are often viewed as "containers" or ”receptacles” to be "filled“ by the teacher. Education then becomes the act of depositing this material into the repository of the learner's mind; and the learner's task becomes one of receiving, memorizing and repeating it. 14 This "banking" concept of education never allows the learner to develop a critical consciousness from interaction with the world in order to become a transformer of the world. Banking education establishes a false dichotomy between the teacher who only teaches and student who is only taught: the teacher knows, thinks, talks, and chooses and the student does not know, is thought about, listens, and complies. The student is treated, albeit unconsciously, as an object. Creativity, independent critical thinking, reciprocal learn- ing and intervention with reality are unwittingly discouraged (1970: 57—68). Carr summarizes. ' "Hence they will resist learning situations in which they are not treated with respect, in which they are pressured to be dependent. Moreover, adults bring much ° more and varied experience to learning, and that experience is very much a part of who they are. Teaching which fails to value and utilize that experience clearly de- values them as persons (1979:148). FOCUS OF THE PROBLEN The study involves the alumni of five graduate level theological schools of the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. In particular, the subjects of the research are those who graduated from the basic Bachelor of Divinity or Master of Divinity program between 1955 and 1978 and who presently reside in North.America. Circumstances became favorable recently for a cross-institutional study of these graduates for curriculum.improvement purposes. In November, 1978, presidents and representatives of theological schools of the National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches met in Philadelphia to share their thoughts and express concerns about ways to train more effectively for the ministry. Some means of eliciting responsesfrom the alumni seemed the logical place to start. 15 The presidents and representatives stated four areas of interest: (1) certain information about the life and.ministry of pastors to help refine training decisions; (2) the precipitating causes for some graduates choosing to leave the parish ministry for another type of vocation; (3)‘the similarities and differences between those who never entered the pastorate and the other graduates; and (4) a comparison of institutions as a basis for a further sharing of resources for mutual benefit. A fifth area was added: the emergence of any trends during the twenty-four years since graduation. The five areas are to be explored in greater detail for curriculum implications . Pastors. The most constructive advice to seminaries comes from those who have entered the pastorate and have continued in it. Having labored in the profession, they are able to give some perspective on where their training has been most helpful and where further emphasis should be given. In general, they are given opportunity to reflect on the preparation their seminary gave them for the parish ministry. One of the more important parts of the study relates to thirteen pastoral activities on which pastors and former pastors rate them- selves. For example, how important do they perceive each.activity to be and how effective are they in it? Existing discrepancies immediately- identify curriculum issues. Pastors and former pastors are also compared in areas they believe the seminary should increase its emphasis. In addition,the study allows the pastor and former pastor to rate their level of satisfaction in various aspects of the local church. ministry. A last series of items addressed to both pastors and former pastors relates to the value of supportive relationships during their pastoral experiences. Aspects of local church ministry and supportive l6 relationships both have implications for curriculum development but particularly for continuing education. Knowing where stress exists and how it may interface with one's network of relationships can be useful in profiling a curricular response to meet those needs. Ex-Pastors. The majority of seminary graduates enter the parish ministry. Some chose to leave. Knowing how many left and why they left constitutes a major concern for seminary faculty and administration. Usually graduates who enter a pastorate do so with the public declaration that they believe God has called them to this particular vocation. That calling also involves a corporate affirmation of an examining process called orientation. Actual requirements vary among denominations in that some require an internship; but all include an oral examination by a counsel as to the beliefs held by the candidate. With three years of concentrated graduate work, a possible internship, an oral examination and public declaration of divine calling, it is normal to assume that the graduate has entered a longeterm,if not lifetime vocation. A career change, then, can be traumatic and often raises questions. How many actually leave the pastorate? Under what circumstances do they.leave? How should the seminary respond? These are questions for which the study provides helpful data. It would also be valuable to know if there are critical time periods when these people are prone to leave the pastorate. If so, extra supports tdght be provided by the school, denominational structures, local church and/or peers to neutralize those forces that otherwise pressure the pastor to resign. In some cases, where there may not have been total clarity in the first place as to an individual's 17 call to the parish ministry, perhaps he should consider another vocation. In this case, these same support groups can function to clarify, guide and even heal. What happens to these former pastors when they leave the parish ministry? Many enter other forms of the Christian ministry. But how many? Some enter a vocation totally unrelated to their theological training. So-called secular work is distinguished from professional ministerial forms of work. How do those who have moved from the pastorate differ from those who continued? How do the two sub-sets of ex-pastors differ from each other? ' Pertinent curriculum questions surface once information is attained. Knowing what causes were instrumental for those leaving the pastorate can assist in identifying where the curriculum.may need review. It could mean adding or restructuring classes; it could mean more, or a different kind of, field education: it could mean continuing education in the form of a ministerial development program: it could mean changes in the curriculum model: it could mean all of the above; it could mean more or less than the above. But, at least data is available to provide an institution with some basis for making changes that constitutes more than a "shot in the dark". Never a Pastor. Only a minority (17%) of seminary graduates never enter enter the pastorate, choosing instead either some non-pastoral form of ministry or secular employment. No stigma is attached to people making other career choices. At the same time it must be recognized that seminaries exist primarily for pastoral training. ”Never pastors” seem ignored as a group of people. The current study particularly notes their reasons for attending seminary, their 18 satisfaction with training, their educational history, and their pre- seminary employment experiences. How do the ones who have never been pastors compare with their counterparts who have had pastoral experience? In a way, seminaries do not directly serve the purposes of the "never pastors”. But they do provide a theological foundation for those who wish it. Furthermore, the "never pastors” may have been open to considering the pastorate upon entering seminary. At any rate, the data provide insights about that group which.can help a seminary administration in advising and counseling seminary applicants. Institution sharing. Institutional sharing has long been a practice and an aspiration for these theological schools. All five of these seminaries are more similar than different in philosophy, world view, presuppositions and historical traditions. Under such circumstances, sharing of resources is advantageous. The study shows where the respective institutions are strong, where there is need of improvement and.where there are similarities in various aspects of their existing programs. An institution seeking greater strength in an area can know which of the others may be of most help. Since teaching personnel are among the greatest resources of the schools, sharing extensively at that level would likely prove the most helpful. A perceived weakness may not always imply a need for improvement however, a school may decide to offer a program without emphasizing it since it may be considered tangential rather than central to its overall thrust. Nonetheless, an information base can be expecially helpful in identifying and strengthening specific segments of the curriculum. Trends. Each educational institution operates on certain assumptions about its students. If the assumptions are faulty, curriculum development l9 and planning will likewise be faulty. Discernment of trends provides for a more accurate perception of reality thus allowing for assumptions to be more valid. For example, if applicants to a seminary exhibit a ; trend away from attending to train for the pastorate, that seminary will need to seriously reconsider its present program, and its long- range planning as well. The alumni in this study had graduated between 1955 and 1978. The twenty-three year time span allowed for comparisons on a number of variables. Were there significant changes over the years in the college majors that seminary applicants had chosen? Did recent . graduates attend seminary for the same.reasons as earlier graduates? Were there any changes in how graduates reflect on their seminary training? The data provided feedback for these questions. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The above discussion on peOple, institutions and trends is now more specifically identified by five research questions. 1. What can be learned from pastors about their pre—seminary career data, their perceptions of the seminary training program and their experiences after graduation that can be fed back into the educational system for purposes of improvement? 2. For what reasons did some who entered the pastorate leave and how do they compare with their peers on career variables? 3. Of those who never entered the pastorate, are there any career indicators that would help the seminary be sensitive to this type of person for such things as screening, advising and career planning? 4. Where are the participating institutions similar and where different which can provide a basis for cOOperative development? 5. What trends are evident from the alumni which would offer insight into short and longer range curriculum planning? 20 DEFINITION OF TERMS A working knowledge of the following terms will facilitate an understanding of important nomenclature used in the study. Seminaries: Institutions providing graduate level theological education for the primary but not exclusive purpose of training people for church parish ministry. ' Curriculum: The series of planned events under the auspices of the school that are intended to have instructional/ educational consequences for the participants (Eisner 1979). Pastors: Those presently serving full-time, or essentially fulltime, in a parish pastorate. Ex-Pastors in Ministry Employment: Those who once served in a parish pastorate but whose present employment is religious in nature, and therefore an extension of the church, but not pastoral per se (e.g., chaplains, religious education teachers, para- church organizations). Ex-Pastors in Secular Employment: Those who once served in a parish pastorate but whose present employment cannot be considered religious or an extension of the ministry of the church. Non-Pastoral Ministry: Those who never served in a parish pastorate but whose present employment is religious in nature or an extension of the ministry of the church. Secular Employment: Those who have never served in a parish pastorate and whoSe present employment cannot be considered religious or an extension of the ministry of the church. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The study is limited to the perceptions of alumni about their own life experiences before, during and following their seminary training. 'The perceptions, particularly those related to parish ministry, need to be correlated with the perceptions of parish members. Results are generalizable to the participating institutions and, to a lesser degree, to other schools within the Reformed and Presbyterian 21 heritage. Where the results of the study affirm results of similar studies, the stronger body of knowledge allows for increased generalization. The exploratory nature of the study also suggests a limitation. It is descriptive in nature and does not purport to identify cause and effect relationships. Furthermore, the instrument was designed specifically for the population of people concerned with the study. SUMMAR! The research is a follow-up study of graduates from five theological schools. The cooperative project reflects a large scale concern for improvement in theological education. However, curriculum decisions must also consider concomitant topics such as the contribution of the non-western church, the nature of ministry, styles of leadership, _ and educational factors in human development. The purpose of the study is to secure information from five sub-sets of graduates in order to gain insights about their career experiences. The graduates' responses are used to help guide the I institutions to improve the seminary training for current and future students. The study also provides for institutional comparisons and discernment of trends. II LITERATURE REVIEW This research is designed to provide a means of listening to those who have trained for the ministerial profession as their vocation and who (1) have decided at some point to leave, (2) have continued in their profession, (3) or have never entered the parish ministry. Their advice coupled with evidence from their career experiences are needed in order to feed back into the educational system information helpful for improvement. A look at related literature will provide a wider base of understanding for what this study attempts to do. Recent literature focuses on the person in ministry with some writers trying to build linkages to educational institutions. Earlier literature had emphasized the functional aspects more than the relational aspects of the minister. TRENDS IN MINISTERIAL TRAINING A major shift in emphasis occured about the mid-Sixties. Until that time most writers had concentrated on role expectations, distinctives and organizational functions of the minister‘s life (Cavert 1960:61; Bentz 1968; Blizzard 1958). Much attention was directed toward identifying and building the appropriate ”image" of the "good" minister (Spangenberg 1966; Whitlock 1963; Blizzard 1956). Toward the latter part of the 1960's the literature suggested that some re-thinking was being done. Hard questions were being asked. No 22 23 longer were the few voices crying in the wilderness alone (Fichter 1968; Hadden 1969). .In Roman Catholic circles the turning point is easily identified with Vatican II. Roche, mingling the sociology of the violent Sixties with his own futuristics, calls for a redefinition of the clergy and organizational structures to allow for the "interplay of people within a community" as a wholesome display of "deeper love of God and neighbor" (1968:XVIII). The shift from role performance toward what Fletcher (1975) calls religious authenticity was to gather momentum into the Seventies. Weber states that "theology...began to rediscover the centrality of the human person" (1971:116). Snyder (1975) suggests that church structures should give way to new forms which will be more conducive to close interpersonal relation- ships, fellowship and the person as an end not a means. Later (1977) be defined more carefully the nature of the church as community and the minister as a person in process with other peeple. From a more recent perspective Mead epitomizes the trend. In a brief monograph which highlights the minister as a person, he states that "The person of the pastor is a key tool of the trade. The pastor's ability to be deeply and personally involved with the peeple in the parish or community directly affects the quality of what happens to them in pastoral care" (l977:3). Thus, it is not surprising that most of the present emphasis in the literature is on intra- and inter—personal growth and development. Schuller (et. a1. 1975:7lff) also identifies the Sixties as a time when clergy were rapidly reinterpreting their philosOphy of ministry. The laity "felt angered and betrayed by clergy who rejected the traditional role of exemplar and chief supporter and interpreter of community values." 24 The clergy, however, saw themselves as "prophetic witness against community norms that had become insensitive to broader human need and protective of privilege for a few" (1975:71). He further states, "there is almost total unanimity among-ex-pastors that their seminaries did not train them prOperly for their parish ministry" (1975:19). A major complaint registered by ex-pastors was that "seminaries and local churches are out of phase. Many seminary professors are simply unaware of what goes on in the local church and the pressures under which the pastor exists" (1975:19). But ex-pastors were not alone in this charge. Apparently pastors continuing in the ministry also believed that the seminaries were out of touch with the realities of the pastorate (Schuller 1975:23; Wilson 1971; Howe 1964; Fielding 1966). In a self-described "bold experiment in theological education" Hahn (1977) describes a training program where the classroom was the local church. The design of the experiment is summarized as on-the-job, in-the-problem, congregationally—based theological education. Its primary strength is in reducing the distance between traditional minister- ial graduate schools and the parish community by "providing a way for theological deveIOpment to take place in closer relationship to the culture, as reflected in congregational life" (1977:293). A compromise between the traditional training program and the experi- mental one described by Hahn was generated in Guatemala, Central America (Winter 1969). Most clearly articulated by Kinsler (n.d.) and called theological education by extension, it has spread throughout the world. In this case, most of the frustrations regarding the inadequacy of the training were voiced by faculty after evaluating the "fruit" of their 25 training program. The program consists of three basic inter-related elements: (1) self-study materials to be mastered by the learners during the week, (2) ongoing involvement in employment, community, and church and (3) a periodic (usually once a week) seminar with an "instru- ctor". The instructor's primary responsibility is to facilitate reflec- tive discussion which will encourage the participants to integrate their cognitive learning with their ongoing life experiences. In Freire's (1970) terms, the facilitator tries to create an atmosphere for praxis. An overview of trends in theological education suggests that con- siderable diversity exists in the approach to training for the pastorate. For the most part, however, the trend of seeing the pastor as a person has continued. Information from the research studies will provide more specific insights. RESEARCH STUDIES Macdonald (1975) suggests that curriculum can be viewed in terms of people. The graduates of a school are one such clustering of peOple who can provide insights for curriculum development. Follow-up studies of institutional alumni has been rather common. Babcock did one of the most ambitious follow-up studies in 1942. It included alumni of all the colleges and universities in the United States. Mills' (1969) study involved several theological schools within one denomination. The Hennipin County study, reported by Robbins (1979), took a different approach to follow-up research by studying theological graduates who were located in a geographical region. This researcher's project is also a follow-up study. The studies reported below provided insights and direction for the preparation of the current study. 26 Jud, Millsand Burch. The study entitled Ex-Pastors by Jud, Mills and Burch (1970), goes beyond those who have left the parish ministry. Considerable time is spent on the comparison of ex-pastors and pastors from the United Church of Christ. Thus, it is highly relevant to the current study. The data was collected at three levels: written questionnaire, private interviews and weekend conferences. The interviews were con- ducted during four regional weekend conferences. A total of 231 usable replies came from the 370 ex—pastors within the United Church of Christ who received questionnaires; then at a regional conference where 149 attended, 131 usable one-hour interviews were obtained. Active ministers of the denomination received comparable questionnaires but at a later date. Jud, Mills and Burch report that pastors and ex-pastors differ very little on most variables. Second, ex-pastors do not consider they have left the ministry. Indeed, some expressed greater opportunity for ministry outside of the pastorate.. The same feeling surfaced among the active pastors who describe themselves as "permanently in the ministry but not committed to staying in the pastorate" (1970:39). In fact, less than 40% indicated they planned to continue in the pastorate. A Gallup poll stating that "322 of all Protestant ministers have considered leaving their religious vocation" supports Jud's findings (Routh 1979:103). A few pre-parish ministry career items in Jud, Mills and Burch's study were noteworthy. While age at ordination was similar (28 for ex-pastors and 27.4 for pastors), pastors ages tended to cluster in the 25-29 year bracket while ex-pastors ages were more broadly distributed between 22-34. Full-time work experience prior to seminary seemed unrelated since about one-quarter of each group had such experience. One clearly relevant 27 factor involved the reason for attending seminary. For example, a signif- icant minority of ex-pastors were either "seeking a faith" (7.82) or "seeking a vocation" (20.4%). At the same time only 58% of them were clear about their vocation and attending seminary as preparation. Among pastors, however, only 4.4% were "seeking a faith" and 142 "seeking a vocation" while 78.4% were clear about their vocation when they entered seminary (1970:184). In ministry tasks, pastors and ex-pastors possess more similarities than differences. Both_agree that preaching and counseling are the ‘more enjoyable parts of the ministry while conducting meetings, program planning and denominational responsibilities were the least favored tasks. But a few clear differences were also evident. While not defining terms, Jud, Mills and Burch say that "pastors enjoy most of the role tasks more than ex-pastors" (1970:41). A second difference focused on the kinds of tasks for which each group had strong preferences. Ex-pastors entered and enjoyed community activities (57.3%) more than pastors (44.8%). Pastors, on the other hand, found great enjoyment in helping people toward Christian commitment (67.62). This compares with 51.9% of exépastors who indicated similar enjoyment. Other findings clustered around tasks of preaching (pastors, 73.22, ex-pastors 58.02) and general pastoral calling where-46.42 of the pastors expressed enjoyment compared to 33.6% of the ex-pastors (1970:73). When asked to rate their satisfaction on ten "aspects of ministry", again a number of similarities appeared. Both pastors and ex-pastors were very dissatisfied with "members' willingness to study and be trained" and "members' willingness to carry out their Christian witness in the world". Only 24.4% of the two respective groups were very satisfied with _the degree to which lay peOple are willing to share leadership tasks. 28 Some sharp differences were noted between pastors and ex-pastors. Among pastors, 73.6% said they were very satisfied with their own "freedom to preach and act as you saw fit" compared to 44.31 of the ex-pastors. When measured as to the "degree to which the work utilizes your strengths rather than your weaknesses as a minister" 38.82 of the pastors said they were very satisfied while 23.72 of the ex-pastors indicated similarly (1970:42). These statistics are disappointing; but, they are well supported by other studies (Blizzard 1956; Bustanoby. 1977; Robbins 1979). When the mean length of each ministerial position was calculated, it was found that pastors averaged 4.6 years in one place, this was one-third longer than the 3.3 years for ex-pastors. .Jud, Mills and Burch cite a 1969 study by Mills which shows a similar tendency of ex-pastors to be less stationary in pastorates. Finding that 46.6% of the ex-pastors held positions for two years of less and comparing this with 29.42 for the pastors, Jud, Mills and Burch suggest that it becomes impossible to establish strong roots and win the peOples' confidence in so short a time.’ The high job mobility may be symptomatic of underlying problems , (1970:48, 177). . Why do people leave the parish ministry? This question was given .considerable attention by Jud, Mills and Burch. Twenty-four possible reasons were listed, though no single item received a majority response. The dominant reason given for leaving was disillusionment with the church's relevance to problems of the modern world" with 43.52 rating it high in importance. Next in importance was the Opportunity to do "Specialized work or training" (38.9%) followed by "very attractive type of work offered" (32.8%). Four areas stood out as having 22 importance for 29 leaving the pastorate: "health problems", 81.7%; "more desirable region or community", 79.4%; "unable to relocate in ministry when move became necessary", 66.4%; "serious conflict with colleague(s)", 65.71 (1970:180). When asked about supportive relationships, pastors and ex-pastors had similar feelings of being highly supported in all but three of seven categories. Whereas 56.3% of the pastors believed they were highly supported by the lay leaders in their congregation, only 42.42 of the ex-pastors thought so. The differences were also marked in feeling isolated. Feeling highly isolated from a "denominational executive who knew their work best" was mentioned by 8.22 of the pastors while 13.71 of the ex-pastors felt that way. Ex-pastors (15.62) felt highly isolated from lay leaders as opposed to 3.22 of the pastors who shared that feeling. A pronounced difference existed in feeling isolated from "others on your church staff (if any)" where only 2.8% of the pastors felt highly isolated compared with 10.32 of the ex-pastors (1970:182). Some preliminary evidence from the researchof Jud, Mills and Burch suggested that families of ex-pastors benefit from a departure from the parish ministry. Over 3SZ.said they had severe family problems or just family problems which improved after leaving. Another-27.52 said they did not have family problems but that the family was happier after leaving. Slightly over 52 said the family was less happy and nearly 202 reported no change. iii-Bi: 'Mills, (1969) of the Jud, Mills and Burch ,. team, has made a significant contribution to the field of career change among prot- estant ministers. He studied four groups within the United Presbyterian denomination: (1) Secular workers who had once been in the pastorate but their present employment was not under the aegis of a religious 3O organization; (2) Graduate Students who had several years in a full-time parish ministry prior to further study; (3) Executives who moved from the pastorate to some executive position either within the denomination or a council of churches; and (4) Pastors who moved from one pastorate to another. He selected fifteen peOple at random for each group with a total of sixty participants from the.l96 presbyteries. Randomness had to be sacrificed, however, when seven refused to participate and thirty-two more were either ineligible or logistically unavailable. Assistant and associate ministers were excluded from the study. Career moves did not correlate in a statistically significant way with any pre—seminary variables such as college major, pre-seminary full-time employment, early occupational intentions, family devoutness or profession selected as the second choice to ministry. During seminary years several factors revealed no significant relationship to career changes: the school attended or its denomination, the certainty_of vocational plans upon entering semdnary or the reasons for choosing the pastorate. - Field education during seminary did appear to have an effect on later ministry. While only 432 of the Seculars said they benefited by new skills/knowledge or benefited personally, 93% of those in the pastorate responded affirmatively. The figures were 69% and 64% for. Graduates Students and Executives respectively. b Other areas where prominent differences surfaced were: salary, mean length of years in pastorate, attendance at worship and increase in worship attendance of 102 during pastorate. Seculars averaged $1,000 per year less at the time of leaving the pastorate than did executives when they left. The mean length of a pastorate was 3.4 years for Seculars and 5.9 31 years for Executives. Average attendance at worship for Seculars was 152 with 46.72 reporting that worship attendance increased by at least 10% while they were there. Statistics for Executives at the time of career change was 225 in attendance at worship. Social class or race of church members, size or type of community, history of church conflicts, characteristics of personal family, and health were not indicators for predicting career change or its direction. Seculars tended to be employed full-time before seminary with college interest centering in the scientific or technical fields and with recent service in church which could be described as conflict-prone. Throughout the categories Pastors and Executives showed numerous similarities. The mean age of the sixty participants was 33.6 with Executives averaging over 36, and Seculars just over 33 and Graduate Students were youngest at 30.7. Mills noted that the age of Seculars was quite evenly distributed (the oldest being 45) when the transition was made. He points out that the move to secular employment was neither a youthful nor a mature decision but a phenomenon stretching across the first twenty years of ministerial service. However, in job stability there was a significant difference (.05) between Seculars and the others. Seculars averaged 2.5 years in pastorate compared with 4.5 for Executivesand Pastors and 3.1 for Graduate Students. Furthermore, when pastorate lengths were calculated, 602 of the Seculars had lasted two years or less in their pastorates compared with 242 for Pastors and Executives. In looking at the sequence of moves, Mills found that 872 of the Seculars had had either one or a series of short pastorates prior to leaving the parish ministry. Only two of the fifteen were judged to have had long pastorates. The same tendency held true for those in graduate studies. The sequence pattern 32 for the overwhelming majority of Executives and Pastors is either short- long or long-long. In his study of the influence of relationships upon career decision- making, Mills introduces a matrix which considers ministerial peer relationships and congregational relationships. Pastors who rated them- selves as having friends among peers and congregation were said to be accepted. Those having no close friends in either group were considered alienated. yHaving close friends in one of the two groups constituted - fringe relationships. The results were clear. Seculars were the most alienated (least accepted). Particularly striking was the degree to which Seculars were alienated from congregational relationships. Mills concludes that lack of congregational and peer relationship influence career changes. ' Seculars indicated the largest number of "unwelcome surprises" in their first pastorate suggesting a larger discrepancy between expectations and reality. They also had the lowest level of satisfaction with ministerial role tasks which related to organizing and pastoral functions. Further, they were least satisfied with leadership Opportunities and the results of the leadership they gave. It follows then that Seculars felt the least overall satisfaction. Executives, on the other hand, reported the least unwelcome surprises indicating a more realistic image of the ministry. Executives and Pastors consistently ranked first and second respectively in all areas where Seculars were low. Again, Mills concludes, "direction of ministerial career change is thus systematically related to perceived goodness of fit between the minister and his parish position" (1969:13). When it :55; to stated reasons (plural) for leaving the pastorate Seculars gave "conflicts" and "hapelessness" as the dominant ones, with 33 "long-range plan" as the reason least mentioned. When asked for the dominant theme or reason (singular) for entering secular employment five said "conflicts" (in the church) and four each listed "hopelessness" and "marital crisis". Executives and Pastors gave as dominant reasons (plural) for'their career shifts "attractive work” and "restlessness". The dominant theme (singular) for Executives was "attractive work" and for Pastors "restlessness". Graduate Students had three dominant reasons: "attractive work", "conflicts" and "long-range plan" in that order. When asked to pick only one theme six said "long-range plan" and six said "conflicts". Interestingly, not one of the fifteen in the group of Seculars mentioned "long-range plan", "attractive work", "unable to relocate" or "restlessness" as the dominant reason for his career change. Similarly, none of the forty-five Pastors, Executives or Graduate Students listed "marital crisis" or "unable to relocate" as reasons for change. Bustanoby. Few statistics exist on the numbers of pastors leaving the parish ministry but Bustanoby (1977) "ballparks" it at one in four for priests and one in eight for the 200,000 Protestant pastors. Routh (1979) reports that the Southern Baptist Convention has a ministerial drop-out rate of 3% per year. Brown reported as long ago as 1934 that of the 6,000 alumni from eleven leading seminaries, 102 had left the pastorate shortly after graduating and this percentage increased to a total of 20% between the years 1920-1925. Bustanoby cites Jud, Mills and Burch in identifying the three crisis periods in the life of a parish minister. The first is three to five years after seminary "when a healthy dose of reality shatters many seminary-days ideals". The second comes at about age 40 when the "pastor realizes he has not reached the goals he set for himself". The third crisis period comes 34 when he looks ahead a few years to face the encroaching "insecurity of retirement years" (1977:14). ‘Mills and Koval (1971) report the peak stress periods to be 1-5, 8—12 and 20 or more years after ordination. In keeping with the findings of others, Bustanoby suggests that churches could reduce the percentage of those leaving the pastorate by providing them with a network of supportive relationships. Johnson's (1975) study found that supervised pastors judged themselves more satisfied and more effective than their unsupervised counterparts. They also valued their work more. This would suggest that even designed relationships can be positive. However, there is the problem of the pastoral image. A pastor is expected, by virtue of his vocation, to have fewer problems. Because of his position he cannot talk to just anyone about his problems since not everyone would understand the peculiar pressures and frustrations of the pastorate. Many are unwilling to go to their denominational leaders because it could jeopardize their future ministry Opportunities. Thus, pastors face a dilemma. They need supportive relationships to survive. But potential misunderstanding or fear are strong limiting forces. Knowles makes an important observation about the realtionship of corporate and individual behavior. One of the misconceptions in our cultural heritage is the notion that organizations exist purely to get things done. This is only one of their purposes; it is their work purpose. nut every organization is a social system that serves as an instrumentality for helping-peOple meet human needs and achieve human goals. In fact, this is the primary purpose for which peOple take part in organ- izations-to meet their needs and achieve their goals-— and when-an organization does not serve this purpose for them they tend to withdraw from it. -So organizations also have a human purpose. (1970:59). 35 Bustanoby also reports role conflicts, particularly the fact that pastors spend too much time an administration, much of it smoothing "ruffled feathers" and not enough exercising their spiritual gifts. Pastors' priorities are inverted by the demands of reality. Blizzard (1956) and others suggest that this is not only an Old problem but also a universal one in the parish ministry (see also RepOrt 1976). Perhaps part of the reason lies in the high level of frustration over the slower pace of the lay leadership. The pastor simply finds it.easier to do things himself. An irony exists at this point since those who talk about the Church in the 80's seem to agree with the growing emphasis in develOping lay leadership (Wright 1979). Much pastoral responsibility includes equipping the laity to discover the full implications of their priesthood including gifts to do the ministry of the church. 'But, by the pastors' own rating, and here the irony is compounded, these are very important skills which they have not been able to do very well (1979:15). Cardwell and Hunt. Using the Theological School Inventory, Cardwell and Hunt (1979) researched the variable of persistence in both seminary and ministry. Persistence in seminary was defined as persevering toward successful graduation. Persistence in ministry meant not leaving that ministry for a period of fifteen years. For the latter, the researchers used only two categories: ministry and secular employment. Of the valid population (N-538) 67.3: were still in mininstry (persisters) with 7.82 in secular work (nonpersisters). The status of 22.32-was unknown. Several factors were highlighted as important when referring to per- sistence in ministry. The clarity of vocational choice and clear sense of purpose for one's being in seminary was ranked first. The second most 36 important factor had to do with relationships, particularly where a wife was concerned. Her stated preference that her husband he in seminary and her willingness to be supportive of whatever he wanted to do correlated positively with persistence in ministry. Other faetors correlating highly with persistence in ministry were role models and job satisfaction. A father active in church and/or aminister as a role model were positive factors for remaining in ministry. Job satisfaction--a sense of "fit" where one's interests and abilities meshed with the requirements of the job-dwas also necessary factor for persistence.. Robbins. Robbins (1979) reports the results of a survey done by the Minneapolis Star newspaper of 301 pastors and priests in Hennipin County. The study showed that 812 of those interviewed said administration and committee work consumed the "most actual time expenditure" or the "next largest time expenditure". However, only 82 actually preferred to be spending so much time in that activity. More revealing was the fact that the pastors and priests interviewed felt their training had pre- pared them least for those particular tasks. Time management was ranked second in the least prepared category. Third place went to dealing with conflict. On a scale of 1-5, where one represents "least prepared" and five "most prepared", the three respective means were 2.5, 2.6 and 2.8 (1980:120-1). Pastors and priests felt most prepared in teaching (4.5) followed closely by spiritual leadership (4.5) and public speaking (4.3). Counseling (3.7) stood in the center.suggesting a modest sense of preparedness. 37 The Hennipin County study included questions about what produced frequent or occasional stress in their jobs. Problems with parishoners led the list of stress producers. This was true for 912 Of those inter- viewed. Mills and Koval (1971) reported exactly the same. Local church. problems were mentioned by 852 and feelings of futility followed with 812. Conflicts in the congregation came fourth (792) followed by loneliness or isolation (672). Lowest stress producing factors were personal faith or unbelief (242) and marital problems (262). ‘Qghggg. Other studies gave relevent though less information. Bridston and Culver (1965) with a Lilly Foundation grant surveyed 12,329 Bachelor of Divinity and Bachelor of Systematic Theology seminarians. .A good part of the study focused on marriage and family. 0f the 652 who were married duringseminary years, 282 had been wed less than two years and 442 from 2-5 years. Nearly 402 of the married had children. Of incidental note was the fact that 92 of the total pOpulation had fathers who were clergyman. These studies also show that Of those who had pastoral experience before entering seminary over 402 said they did not regret this; in fact, it helped make seminary studies more meaningful. Further, 372 even rec- ommended pastoral work before seminary graduation. Although 142 said pastoral work interferred with their studies, only 72 said pastoral work should be postponed if possible until after graduation. A meager 22 found it difficult to relate pastoral. work to their seminary training as the two proceeded simultaneously (1965:233). Hartley (1978) studied marital satisfaction among 500 clergy wives; representing six denominations. She concludes that ministers"wives are as happy or happier than most other married women. 'LOVe, affection, 38 sexual satisfaction and the ability to communicate were given very positive ratings. Size of income was one factor that correlated most positively with marital satisfaction. SUMMARY The concept of ministry underwent a change in the mid-Sixties from emphasis on role to emphasis on person. While role was not excluded in the transition, it had to be redefined to meet the criteria of individual personhood. To some degree a ministerial identity crisis resulted. Theological schools were frustrated and have been experi- menting, some boldly and some less aggressively. The only major philo- sOphical change has come through the theological education by extension movement. Its use emerged through field education as an attempt to bridge academic and functional competence. For the most part, however, changes in theological education are merely refinements or rearrangements of the same curriculum blocks. Review of the literature suggested that pastors and ex-pastors were more similar than different. However, dividing ex-pastor into two sub- sets, ex—pastor in ministry and ex-pastor in secular employment, made the differences sharper. The ex-pastor in secular employment tended to reflect less positively On seminary training, less enjoyment of pastoral roles and generally had fewer at Sunday morning worship. They also tended to be more alienated from support groups and seemed to have more unrealistic expec- tations of the pastorate. When asked why they left the pastorate, ex-pastors in secular employment gave "conflicts", "hopelessness", and "marital crisis" as the primary reasons. Ex-pastors in ministry were drawn from the pastorate by attractive 39 work Opportunities though an underlying restlessness also seemed prevalent. Pastors and ex-pastors were most dissatisfied with "members' willing- ness to study and be trained" and "members' willingness to carry out their Christian witness in the world". PeOple-building skills, such as are needed in develOping lay leadership, seemed to be in short supply. Preaching and counseling were listed among the most enjoyable tasks but administrative and organizational tasks were least favored. Robbins (1979) closes his report on the study by summarizing parts of the comparative data with other professions. He concludes that "very few professionals...consistently enjoy great challenges, the highest levels of satisfaction, and an Opportunity to finish each day with a sense Of accom- plishment” more than ministers do (1980:119). This positive note needs more emphasis since studies tend to give more attention to problems or concerns which give an overall negative orientation. While the role and person of the pastor are in an unsettled state and because theological education has all too often received harsh judgment, credit and honor should be given as quickly and liberally as the criticism. In few professions do peOple work so hard and serve so faith- fully as do those in the religious domain. This study was not undertaken to heap scorn on the profession, but to portray honestly the areas where improvement is needed in theological training. III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The chapter contains a description of the research design and methodology. .Included are a description of the participants, a description of the population, validity concerns, reliability concerns, role of the participants, training of the scorers, content analysis, questionnaire results and a summary of the chapter. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS Five theological schools engaged in this project, all Of them members of the National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches consor- tium. Each school and its representatives shared a similar theological perspective. Their likeness provided a unique Opportunity for these institutions to participate in cOOperative research and to benefit mutually from the-results. An attempt was made at the outset to include two other types of institutions-churches and para-church organizations. While church representatives did participate at various points, only one was involved for the entire project. Since meetings were held at three different locations at three different times, it was difficult for church repre- sentatives to attend consistently. However, their contribution was in- .valuable at the levels of planning. interpreting and implementing. Two para-church institutions* were involved: Men in Action and Missionary Internship. The former assisted in an advisory and financial *Organizations which exist to assist in carrying out a particular aspect(s) _of the overall purpose of the Church, which are Christian in nature but more specialized in task. 40' 41 capacity. The latter was the employer not only of this researcher but also an additional researcher assisting in this project who is working on a related study with the same theological schools. Thus, this project is in a real sense a joint effort of church, school and para-church organizations: ’ Each of the five schools were requested to provide two persons to assist in the design, implementation, and interpretation of the research, one from an administrative level and one from.the faculty-teaching level. The arrangement provided input during each phase of the research on both policy and implementation. DESCRIPTION or POPULATION ' The population represented in this study consisted of the 2,070 North American alumni of the five cooperating theological institutions who graduated between 1955 and 1978 from the basic degree program called either the Bachelor of Divinity or the Master of Divinity. Some persons were found to have both degrees but from different schools. Two attempts were made to minimize this potential duplication. First, each seminary, in preparing its alumni mailing list, tried to factor out those who had graduated from its basic B.D. or M; Div. program. Second, institutional scorers were alerted to detect the problem.when scoring the returned questionnaires. For the purpose of analysis, alumni were placed in three categories or states. The Pastor status refers to those presently in pastoral service in a parish context. The largest number of graduates fall in this category. The second status, Ex-Pastor, refers tO those once in the pastorate but who have changed vocations. Two sub-sets exist within the ex—pastor 42 status, each identified by the career choice made upon departure from the pastorate. The two sub-sets are titled "Ex-Pastor in Ministry" and "Ex- Pastor in Secular Employment". The third status, Never Pastor designates people who have never served in the‘pastorate. Again, two sub-sets are useful for analytical purposes. Graduates who entered a non-church ministry are said to be in "Non-Pastoral Ministry" and those who accepted employment unrelated to the purposes Of the Church are said to be in "Secular Employment". Thus, the respective statistical breakdown of all the graduates (based on 1211 respondents) may be summarized as follows: Pastor (N-814:.67.9%) , Ex-Pastor (Ncl78: 14.9%) Ex-Pastor in Ministry (H.128; 10.72) Ex-Pastor in Secular Employment (N-SO; 4.22) Never Pastor (N-206; 172) . Non-Pastoral Ministry (NelBO; 10.72) Secular Employment (N‘76; 6.32). The word "status" hereafter will refer to one or more of the above groups of people. For purposes of comparison, the graduating classes were separated into the following categories: Class I represents graduates from 1974-1978; Class II: 1969-1973; Class III: 1964-1968; Class IV: 1959-1963 and Class V: 1955-1958. The categories breakdown was to prove useful in comparing perceptions Of recent graduates with those more distant from their training (see Table 3.2). VALIDITY CONCERNS Since the research project was a cooperative effort from the beginn- ing, the questionnaire was prepared by those who would administer it, in most cases the former professors of those who would fill out the questionnaire. Because the group shared a common theological tradition 43 there was a real sense in which the data gathering instrument would be designed particularly for this group. It was important that their values be respected throughout the research. The group design did not jeOpardize validity, however, since all who participated had been or still were educators, most holding earned doctorates. In addition, the committee chairman and three other educators from Michigan State University (includ- ing the researcher) were involved in the design; and an experienced survey researcher from the American Automobile Association of Michigan reviewed it. The fact that the group was not only homagenous but shared a history with the population served the purposes of validity. In the choices of categories, items and vocabulary the group took great care to select words which would effectively elicit the response most directly related to the question. The potential for designers and respondents sharing the same image from any given word seemed most favorable in this kind of environment. The three researchers with help from the Office of Research Consultation at Michigan State University were then able to use the items and wording tO put the instrument into a form for valid and reliable measurement. 6 Each seminary was given two cOpies of the first draft of the instru- ment tO review thoroughly with other administrators and faculty. A one day meeting was then arranged to make final revisions. It should be noted that the instrument was not entirely original. About 202 came from research that one or more of the institutions had done at an earlier time and another 202 came from Jud, Mills and Burch (1970). A few slight wording changes were made.in the borrowed material to increase clarity for the intended pOpulation. 44 Face validity was thus established by cOOperative efforts of institu- tional representatives and the three researchers concerned with the project. The next step was to pre-test the instrument for reliability. RsmeurY CONCERNS Seven subjects were pre-tested. Five of these subjects were graduates from the participating schools. Each test was administered individually so the respondent could be Observed. The researcher shared the content of a covering letter which was to accompany the mailed questionnaires. Respondents were asked to indicate in the margins of their questionnaires where they had questions, noted ambiguities or wished to comment. When the respondent had completed the instrument the researcher asked for voluntary comments which were recorded on tape cassette. Most comments focused on slight wording ambiguities. When the researcher asked how they interpreted the ambiguity in order to respond, each time their response was consistent with the image intended by the group and the researcher. Only twice did two respondents mention the same ambiguity at which point more precise wording was chosen. That only minimal problems occurred in pre-testing is a credit to the working vocabulary shared by the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions. Following the voluntary comments, the researcher posed four questions. Was there at any point a lack of clarity about the subject being con- sidered or about individual items within that subject? What were your feel- ings toward the instrument at the beginning and at the end? To what degree did the instrument cause reflection? Were any areas/tapics omitted towhich you would have wished to respond? The first question sent them thumbing 45 through the instrument to refresh their thinking but only produced repetition of earlier comments. The second question brought ambivalent response as they began the questionnaire but positive response afterwards. When "pushed".to state their honest feelings, the worst expressed was one "positive-to-neutral" attitude. The question of reflectiOn proved interesting since five said it really caused them to reflect and three of thOse said they were challenged to realign some priorities as a result. No positive response came from the fourth question. The researcher was satisfied that both the procedure for instrument design and the pre-test had provided for reasonable reliability. ROLE OF RESEARCH TEAM From the beginning of the project there was an attempt to engage the representatives of the schools, the church and the para-church organizations in participation at four levels: the design level, the administration of the questionnaire, the interpretation of the findings and, finally, the application of the results. It was hoped that each level of participation would enhance the sense of sharing, ownership and effectiveness. I Farmington Meeting, The first meeting was held in Farmington, Michigan, May lO-12, 1979. Sixteen peOple attended. About two weeks prior to the meeting each participant received a packet of selected reading on theo- logical education and follow-up studies related to the field. Each was assigned one paper for which he would be the primary reporter to the group and a second paper for which he would be a secondary reporter to the group. The participants had also been encouraged to bringmultiple cOpies of any studies done for or by their institutions relevant to the project. Several were brought, summarized and distributed. 46 Sharing of reports on the readings and subsequent discussion consummed the first evening. As a result a larger context was emerging where specific insights from former studies gave focus and direction for the task ahead. Since most of those present had not attended the presidents' meeting, the next order of business was to give clear definition to the project. Some time was required since several images existed as to the purpose of being there. In the process of clarification, the group began to ' work on goals relating to a follow-up study Of the alumni which would provide the information most helpful for improving theological education. A question was posed to the group. Each person was asked to write as many answers as possible: "What kinds of information could the alumni of your school provide which would help you make better curricular decisions for the future?" When the group members had completed their individual lists, they were asked to share the tOp five or six items. A composite of the priority items was shared and recorded on an overhead transparency. From this composite list the group attempted to cluster related items.into natural categories. A number were suggested and after some discussion the word "relation" seemed to be central. Thus, categories related to church, God, home, self and others were chosen. In addition, the participants wanted demographic and career information. Given these categories, the group was divided into task forces with the assignment of generating items, as many and as specific as possible, which would logically fall under each tOpic category.. Since the categories were not totally discreet, the exercise helped sharpen the definitions. From the task forces emerged the basic items for each 'II category. A good part of the foundation had been laid for the construction of the questionnaire. See Appendix A for the final draft of the question- naire. The group asked the researcher to continue building the instrument which would best insure validity and reliability. Also requested was a format that would be attractive to the graduates receiving the instrument. The format was to include a sense of warmth, personal "touch", and in- formality. By unanimous voice the group rejected a questionnaire with a clinical detached approach. Further, it was hOped that the questionnaire would encourage reflection on the part of each alumnus responding thereby being of some reciprocal benefit. One method employed to achieve a warm, personal tone was the consistent use of the personal pronoun "you" and "your" whenever apprOpriate.' Also, the print was not reduced nor was it put in booklet form. Another attempt at informality failed when permission to use several cartoon strips was denied. In summary, the first meeting met four objectives. 1. Sharing insights about trends in the ministry of the church. Participants submitted studies and follow-up work their institutions had done which related to the group's concerns. Participants had been given pre-meeting reading assignments thereby broadening the expertise they brought to the meeting. 2. DevelOping criteria. Out Of knowledge of what had been done grew the concern to specify what needs tO be done and how to formulate that concern into specific criteria. 3. Designing a procedure to collect information. From the resources accumulated by the participants and from those brought by this researcher, the format Of a survey questionnaire was designed in draft form. 4. Planning the second meeting. A second meeting was scheduled to review the more complete design Of the questionnaire, refine where necessary and make final plans for the mailing and processing of the questionnaires. Pittsburgh Meeting. Using the information supplied from the ”Farmington meeting, a working draft of a questionnaire was prepared. Based on discussions with the researcher's advisor and others with questionnaire building experience, changes were made until it took a form worthy of critical review. As was noted earlier, two weeks prior to the Pittsburgh meeting each seminary received multiple copies of the instrument for wider faculty and administrative review. The Pittsburgh meeting had five Objectives: complete the question- naire, pose questions they most wanted answered from the data output, finalize dates and procedures for mailing Of the questionnaires, make preliminary arrangements for scoring Of returned questionnaires and set dates for a final meeting where familiarization with the computer print- out would be the primary Objective. The nine people attending worked on refinement Of the questionnaire first. Focus was primarily on wording but this took considerable time. Small groups workedover lunch to pose questions they most wanted answered from the data to provide clearer direction for the writing of the computer program. Late September-was ( judged the best time to mail the questionnaires to the alumni. Self- addressed and stamped return envelopes would be enclosed along with an explanatory/encouragement letter from each respective president. November 19-21 were the dates selected for the familiarization process. The final plans had been made. Now it was time to do it. Grand Rapids Meeting, In early November all the completed scoring sheets to date were returned for key punching-a total of 747 subjects. The programs were run and the print-outs readied for the November 19-21 meeting in Grand Rapids. Ten peOple were present for all or most of those three days. The familiarization with the print-out data included six objectives: a description of the four steps of evaluation; an introduction to the reading of a computer print-out; a working relationship with inferential statistics; the use of graphs in portraying statistics; the preparation of a report to their respective institutions; and, any final computer program refinements before the last run. The four steps of evaluation presented to the group were observation,, measurement, assessment and evaluation. It was noted that the first two had been done through the questionnaire and the data each possessed. The task now was to assess the measurements and apply values to those assessments as the final step in evaluation. The role of the researcher was to assist in developing the skills for assessment, graphing and, to a lesser degree, helping clarify values. The statistical information was presented in three segments with relevant work assignments following each segment. The researcher, with a fellow researcher present, "floated" around to render assistance as needed. For example, one session was used to introduce standard deviation. The basic concept of the bell-shaped curve, the meaning and plotting of standard deviation was explained and illustrated using several pieces of the data. The participants then broke into small groups to work with data using this skill. 50 The final morning was given over to reports from the participants. Findings were shared by use of graphs and charts. It immediately became clear that valuable material was being shared and arrangements were made to duplicate each report for the others. In the process of*working with the data, the participants.discovered that some parts were not useful in their present forms. Also, needs for additional information surfaced. Discussion determined the relative value of such information and where there was group consensus the researcher noted the requested changes. The amount of information the group chose to delete about equalled the amount requested so there was little change in actual volume. However, the value of the data was increased considerably by the changes. The seminary representatives now possessed the basic skills to continue the project in which they had participatory ownership from the beginning. Their roles had been significant but the journey was only half over. More comprehensive study of the data and implementation of its meaning remained. But it had been a good beginning. OPERATION OF THE RESEARCH TEAM‘ The research team, composed of representatives from the five theological schools, and the author, shared Operational responsibilities. Each of the five institutions xeroxed their own cOpies of the questionnaire and mailed them to their graduates. The mailing had a self-addressed stamped envelope enclosed in which the completed questionnaire could be returned. Also enclosed was a covering letter from the present president of the respective institution. The letters were similar in content and request but reflected the style and personality of each president. Thus, each 51 alumnus received a letter, a stamped (first class) envelope and a questionnaire. Each was to return the questionnaire to the institution from which he had graduated. Each institution sent out two-three reminder post cards to encourage completion and return of the question- naire. All of the completed questionnaires were to be returned to the respective institutions for scoring. Each response on the questionnaire was given a numeriCal value which the scorers transferred to mark sense scoring sheets. The scorers had specially marked questionnaries with periodic check-points to insure maximum accuracy (see Appendix B). The mark sense scoring-sheets were returned to the researcher who had the information transferred from the scoring sheets to data cards in preparation for the computer programming. The researcher, in con- junction with the Office of Research Consultation, wrote the computer programs for the processing of the data. Other particulars regarding the functioning of the research team are detailed in the section "Role of the Research Team". TRAINING OF SCORERS Transferring the data from the returned questionnaires to scoring sheets compatible with the computer was a major undertaking. Estimating 15-20 minutes to score one questionnaire, each seminary set aside the necessary personnel. The researcher made a trip to each school for a one-half day training session in the procedure for transferring the data. Special scoring guides were constructed with built in check points for greater potential for accuracy. (See Appendix B.) After walk-through, with critical points noted verbally and marked on each scorers guide, each scorer scored at least two additional questionnaires each representing different states/categories of alumni The crucial decision focused on which status (e.g., pastor, ex-pastor, etc.) to assign each subject. Because the assignment of status was an interpretative decision taken from the data on page five of the quention- naire (see Appendix A), each session included special drilling on all the ' possible options so understanding was reasonably assured. However, a file folder labeled "problems" was left with each scorer. The problems were returned to the researcher for a final decision. These were minimal since the scorers worked under the supervision of the respective seminary representatives who usually had the background to resolve the problems. CONTENT ANALYSIS The seminary representatives together with the researcher determined the appropriate categories for necessary information. Three basic categoreis were used for purposes of analysis: status which included five sub-sets of peOple called pastor, ex-pastor in ministry, ex-pastor in secular employment, non-pastoral_ministry and secular employment; institution which included five participating theological schools; and "classes" which referred to the five clusters of graduating classes, 1955-1958, 1959-1963, 1964-1968, 1969-1973, and 1974-1978. The seminary representatives and the researcher also determined the items for which percentage tests for significance would be most useful. At the three-day Grand Rapids meeting (reported earlier in the chapter) there was opportunity to review the content analysis results. Several changes were recommended after corporate investigation of the data revealed some gaps and some overlap. It was after seeing 53 the data, for example, that the ex-pastor category was sub-divided into ex-pastor in ministry and ex-pastor in secular employment. The computer program changes were made to insure that the final print-out would be even more compatible with the goals of the project. Several statistical procedures were used in the analysis of the content. The chi-square was used for obtaining frequency counts and measuring significant difference. Analysis of variance was used to determine any significant difference between two or more groups on a particular variable. Multi-analysis of variance was employed as a test for interaction effect between two or more groups and two or more variables to determine the presence of main effect (therefore: general- izability), or the presence of interaction effect (therefore: a group by group interpretation). QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Considering the length of the questionnaire, fourteen pages, the results were encouraging. The use of postage paid return envelOpes and two or three reminder post cards were helpful. A covering letter from the president of each respective institution added a measure of stature and high level importance to the questionnaire. The results are summarized below with breakdowns by institution (Table 2.1) and graduating classes (Table 2.2) Questionnaires returned by the post office as undeliverable numbered about eighteen. Approximately ten questionnaires were returned blank by unidentified respondents. Neither of the figures were counted in the total response of 1211. (Approximate totals based on estimates are reported because not all institutional offices kept these records.) S4 Table 3.1 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY INSTITUTION ~ V Total valid Total valid ’ Institution Alumni Responses Percentage A 755 494 65.4 B 333 179‘ 53.8 c ‘ 82 55 68.8 D 295 156 52.9 E 605 326 53.9 Totals 2LO7O 1.211 58.50 Table 3.2 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE BY INSTITUTION AND GRADUATING CLASSES Graduating Classes Institution '55-'58 '59-'63 '64-'68 '69-'73 '74-'78 A 77 73 103 134 107 494 B 12 16 23 48 80 179 C 12 12 6 7 19 56 D 4 O 2 36 114 156 SUMMARY . The research design and methodology was a cOOperative effort between people who understood the problem and peOple who understood research, and who had access to resources that would allow for responsible gathering of information. The blending of the skills of these resource people generated 55 an instrument which was to provide the five institutions with information from their alumni thereby helping them make informed curricular decisions for the future. The involvement of those who eXpect to use the information has been central to the project. IV FINDINGS The study seeks to listen to those who have experienced graduate theological training and have had from one to twenty-four years employ- ment experience following graduation. There are two ways to listen. One way is to identify significant sub-sets of graduates and discover what each is saying. Another way is to identify significant themes which can become a basis for comparison across institutions and across time. Both methods are used in describing the findings. The latter method illustrates areas in which cross-institutional sharing could be helpful along with the identification of trends in pre-seminary experiences of graduates. Five major points are included in Chapter IV. What are pastors saying to the seminary; what are ear-pastors saying; and, what are the graduates who have gggg£_been in a parish saying? The data will be drawn from three different periods in the career developments of the alumni population: pre-seminary, in-seminary and post-seminary. The last two major points include trends in theological education and areas where the five participating institutions differ and are similar as a basis for sharing resources. PASTORS The primary purpose for each institution is the training of people for the parish ministry. Those who presently serve in that capacity hold a unique position inasmuch as they are the practitioners, the engineers, who translate their training into life situations. Therefore, they are a most important feedback channel into the institutions for 56 57 purposes of affirmation and challenge. Reason for Attending Sem_i_nary. Why had pastors entered seminary? Over 72% went primarily to prepare for pastoral ministry (Table 4.1). Nearly one of five (19.4%) attended for the general purpose of preparing for “whatever service” toward which they may feel directed. Very few (2.1%) anticipated a teaching career and less than lifattended seminary as a basis for further graduate work, for resolution of problems with their personal faith or for "other“ reasons. Table 4.1 PASTORS' REASON FOR ATTENDING SEMINAR! To Enter Pastorate 72.1t N-580 Missionary Service 3.9% Ni 31 Teaching (seminary, college, high school) 2.1t N- 17 Whatever Service 19.4% N-156 Basis for further Graduate work .9‘ N- 7 Resolution of Problems with Personal Faith .9% N- 7 Other * .7% N- 6 Total 100% N-804 Satisfaction with Seminary Training.’ Reflecting upon their seminary training, pastors expressed a relatively high level of satisfaction but not as high.as those in non-pastoral ministry (Figure 4.1). While there was not a great degree of discrepancy between the states, (i=3.30-3.73), the pastors' mean.was second (3.60) behind non-pastoral ministries (3.73) but with a slightly lower standard deviation (.95). When the total population was asked to register its general level of satisfaction with seminary training, it indicated modest satisfaction (i=3.50) but the 1.0 standard deviation suggests considerable dispersion of opinion. The reader may note that the numbers on the vertical axis of the figures do not always begin and end with the lowest and highest possible 58 Pastors = Pastors (N=814) Ex-P-M = fix-pastors in ministry employment (N=128) Ex-P-S = Ex-pastors in secular em loyment (N=50) NPM = Non-pastoral ministries N2130) SEC = Secular employment (N=76) Scale 0 — 5 Very Dissatisfied - Very Satisfied MEAN 3.9 $5 3'8 V\ £6 °-‘ «—1 3'7 a a U) ° 0 3.6 __‘5 ‘9 .4 358-53 H . o\ .4 ,_. “‘8 E: o 3.1» 37.: .51"? {é go 3.3 "‘ "-‘ M 3.2 fl m 3.1 if STATU m ,3 S 5: ‘? H 49 D494 0 3 I 'Eg :: a. as m 8 Figure 4.1 LEVEL OF SATISEACTION WITH SEMINARY TRAINING BY STATUS 59 numbers on the respective scales. Further, standard deviations are given as often as possible since they indicate the degree of homogeneity. Value of Instructional Factors. Figure 4.2 represents the Opinion of the total population of graduates. The data are included in the pastors' section since no breakdown by status was available. Since pastors represent nearly seven of ten respondents, their perceptions prevail on any total population measurement. Figure 4.2 indicates the high value (§=4.l) which graduates assigned to private study. That instructional factor also had the lowest standard deviation (.88). Field experience (§=3.8), classroom lectures (i=3.8) and student interaction/relationships (i=3.7) also ranked high but.with considerable dispersion of opinion. Of modest value were classroom discussions (i=3.2) and instructor interaction/relationships (x-3.l). Chapel and faculty guided study ranked low but even lower were special days and student prayer meetings. The category "other” is disregarded because it was designed for write-ins not listed. About one in ten wrote in the space provided. Pastoral Activities: Importance and Effectiveness. Pastors were asked to rate thirteen pastoral activities on importance and effectiveness. Figure 4.3 reflects the pastors' perceptions. Where the words "very effective" or "very important” are used, they refer to the two highest values on the scale. For example, on a scale of 0-5, anyone marking a "4” or "5" were judging themselves very effective or judging the item very important. Three items received very high importance: ratings on preaching with 95.9% of the pastors rating it a 4 or 5, (scale 0-5):'deve10ping lay leadership (95.3%); and, developing and disciplining oneself personally (95.1%). Of the three, only preaching importance received 60 Scale 0 - 5 Little Value - Very Valuable oénom 15...“... fit. aoafidflfim .aou :4an .F A22: 5-325 3:8 néunm fl amass a :éunm F Sacanoaxe {was 8. new 33% 392m } Hénom Toacmcogdaom cadwownmvfi 225.5 m. Hun—m EHOmQuomHoacH Hosea—Hang N. Tom _ 9.33:0 as 39338 ~4an 1 non—5903 lbonmmma 1‘ h». 3 3 2 2 INSTRUCI’IONAL l . 5 FA cross N=811+ VALUE OF INSTRUCI‘IONAL FACTORS Figure 4.2 PASTORS' OPINIONS: 61 1+ — 5 on Scale of O - 5 = Very Important D = Importance 1+ - 5 on Scale of O - 5 = Very Effective Effectiveness POINT DISCREPANCY BETWEEN manna AND EFFECTIVENESS 35711931223] 48,456,.o}51-9]25_6[36.0118JI12.OM.3[14.4141.1| PERCENT 100 . 95 9O 85 80 75 7o 65 60 55 50 1+5 2+0 35 PESTORAL ACTIVITIES 77g] .8 V30 LAY EVANGELIZING ACHIEVING GOALS PASTORAL SETTING AND UTILIZATION PREACHING _— CONFLICT PASTORAL VISITING _— COUNSELING PEOPLE CHANGE DISCIPLING ONESELF EFFECTING ADMINISTERING AND ORGANIZING COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS DEVELOPING AND LEADERSHIP DISCIPLING DEVELOPING fi 0) H :- Figure 4.3 PASTORS' PERCEPTIONS: IMPORTANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS IN PASTORAL ACTIVITIES 62 comparatively high ratings in effectiveness. Nearly 84% of the pastors rated themselves very effective in preaching. In fact, of the thirteen items, preaching was given the highest effectiveness rating, 6.6 per- centage points over teaching, the next nearest item. Teaching‘was rated very important by 91.7% of the pastors and 77.3% also said that they were very effective in that activity. However, while 88% said discipling peOple was very important, only 36.1% said they were very effective, a discrepancy of 51.9 percentage points. A larger discrepancy (56.0) exists in develOping lay leadership. Developing and disciplining oneself had the third largest point discrepancy (48.2) followed by setting and achieving goals (44.3) and conflict utilization (41.1) . Pastoral evangelizing received the lowest percentage for effective- ness (30.4) and was second lowest in importance even though 66.4% of the respondents said it was very important.” Second lowest in effectiveness rating was building community relationships (30.8%) but it should be noted that the item also rated lowest in importance with only one-half of the pastors marking it very important. Administering and organizing ranked about.mdddle in everything: seventh in point discrepancy (35.7%),tied for eighth in importance (77.5%) and sixth in effectiveness (41.8%). The widest point discrepancies between importance and effectiveness are in order as follows: developing lay leadership, discipling people, developing and discipling oneself, setting and achieving goals and conflict utilization. Preaching, teaching and building community relationships had the lowest point discrepancy suggesting pastors were closer to achieving their aspirations in those areas. 63 Seminary78hould Increase Emphasis. When asked where the seminary should increase its emphasis in the thirteen pastoral activities, I the pastors scored highest the items which had the largest point dis- crepancy between importance and effectiveness (see Table 4.2). The largest mandate for increased emphasis were: developing lay leadership, discipling people, developing and disciplining oneself and conflict utilization. Table 4.2 PASTORS' OPINIONS: SEMINAR! SHOULD IMPORTANCE EFFECTIVENESS INCREASE EMPHASIS-FOUR LEADING ITEMS POINT DISCREPANCY Pastoral Activity ' Mean SD Rank Rank Point Discrepancy Developing Lay Leadership 4.20 1.00 l 1 56.0 Discipling People 4.02 1.12 2 2 51.9 Developing & Dis. Oneslef 3.91 1.22 3 3 48.2 Conflict Utilization 3.82 1.16 4 4 41.1 Scale 0-5 Not at all—-Very Much (From Figure 4.3) Agreement exists on the major items which should receive increased emphasis in the seminary training program, but Figure 4.4 also reveals that preaching and teaching skills are to be given continued importance even though pastors say they are most effective in those two areas. 0n the Opposite side of the scale, counseling and effecting change ranked ninth and tenth respectively in importance and are ranked eleventh and twelfth by pastors on where the seminaries should increase their emphasis. Reasons Might Leave Pastorate. Pastors responded to a list of twenty-five items assigning a relative weight to each item indicating how much it would influence them to leave the pastorate. At this point 64 Not At All - Very Much Scale0-5 0H.Hnnm Ne.m oméuam Ema 0N.Huom cm.m as. Tom ea. m 8.?le EA améunm Tana améuom 738 NETS _M; oo.Han ON.: mméunm Ema an. Tam Fawn . an. Tam Nam ZOHB< AHBD BU Ahzoo oszocfia mice ufi>fl§< a: 65.2% 1 qufiHmH> A3 QHn hqfimmzo UszHQmHUmHQ nzHQ ozSemzsoo mmemZOHB882 B mmHBHz535... ca whoamemnxm n tumuxm meéoamfim we Aaawuzv mmopmmm u anovmmm magm— 528mg Satisfaction with Seminary Training. Figure 4.1 indicates that ex-pastors (sec) were least satisfied of all the alumni with their mflmqtmhhgfifldh mwumm(MMwuemmsunfiw (§-3.42), but pastors expressed a still higher level of satisfaction (E—3.60). Pastors also had the lowest standard deviation (.95). Grad- .uates indicated overall satisfaction with their seminary training though the standard deviations suggest some were dissatisfied while others A were very satisfied. (Again, the remaining data in Figure 4.1 is considered later in the section entitled "Never a Pastor".) Pastoral Activities: Importance and Effectiveness. What do pastors and ex-pastors believe are the most important pastoral activities? How effective are they? Where are the gaps between importance and effectiveness the greatest? Answers to these questions should provide guidance for curriculum development and may also offer some preliminary insights into the reasons why ex-pastors left the profession. I Figure 4.7 represents the findings of pastors‘ and ex-pastors' opinions in thirteen pastoral activities-importance and effectiveness. The percentages represent the number of those who scored a "4" or "5" on an item indicating "very important" or "very effective". The numbers in the clear space of a bar represent the percentage of those who indicated a given pastoral activity was "very important". The numbers in the shaded space show the percentage who rated themselves 'vererffective" on a given pastoral activity. The "D" represents the point discrepancy between ratings in importance and effectiveness. Figure 4.7 reveals that in most pastoral activities, ex-pastors (sec) generally scored items lower in importance and themselves lower Eat-pastors in ministry employment Ear-pastors in secular employment Pastors Pastors Ex-P-M Ex-P-S Importance El Very Important h-5onScaleof0-5 m D § > .4 .p O «.3 H [:7 II it — 5 on Scale of 0 - 5 == Very Effective D = Discrepancy 73 21.9% 5 '09:0 17'I1‘7=CI 6‘€I=CI '9 '6 =c1 -17"Y7I=(I 2'3?“ ' =0 . ammv C ”’7‘“ cm Dallas z. 3: summer 2'§z=cr 8'ZI=CI DNIIISIA €‘8I=(I Tvuotsva 8.2%: DEIZI'IEDNVAE 0.9g=a wantsva A'oz=c1 A'8I=o~u>uwzrcxogr4c>oxm>o~ Edddssmmmmmmmmmmmmm PASTORAL IDITJNOO DNIZITIIH DNIHDVBI STVOO ONIAHIHDV QNV DNIIIHS ONIHDVHHd DNIIISIA TVHOISVH ONIZITHDNVAB TVHOISVH HDNVHD DNIJDEHHE HTdOEd DNITEIDSIG dIHSHHGVHT IVT DNIdOTHAEG dTESENO DNINITJIDSIG GNV DNIdOTflAHG DNITESNHOO SdIHSNOIIVTHH IIINHNNOD ONIZINVOHO GNV “PNIHEISINIMGV .ACTIVITIE SEMINARY SHOULD INCREASE EMPHASIS ( PASTORS' OPINIONS ADDED FOR COMPARISON VALUE) Figure 4.8 EX-PASTORS' OPINIONS: 78 should most increase its emphasis. "Developing lay leadership” received the highest mean score (Ei4.02) but "developing and disciplining oneself personally” came a close second (i=3.94). Ex-pastors (sec) expressed similar views though in a slightly different order. They ranked "setting and achieving goals" fourth (i=3.76). Exepastors (min) intimated several pastoral activities in which the seminary may not need to increase its emphasis. The low scores on ”pastoral visiting" (§-3.37) and “building community relationships” (i=3.39) indicated little or no need here for increased emphasis. The same two pastoral activities had a low importance-effectiveness discrepancy (Figure 4.7). Pastoral evangelizing ranked third with.a mean of 3.43 but the importance-effectiveness discrepancy was higher-though.not among the highest. To the above list ex-pastors (sec) added "counseling" and "preaching” as not needing much or any increase in emphasis. While the third largest importance-effectiveness discrepancy (Table 4.4) for ex-pastors (sec) was "developing and disciplining oneself", it received only moderately high rating for increase emphasis (i=3.70). "Developing lay leadership" received the highest mean scores with the lowest standard deviations. "Developing and disciplining oneself" and "utilizing conflict” were close behind followed by ”discipling people” and ”setting and achieving goals". The same five keep appearing as prominent. ‘Eath.pastoral activity was tested for significant difference.between groups. Complete tables are located in Appendix C but Table 4.5 summarizes the results. There is a significant difference between groups-~pastors, ex-pastors (min) and exepastors (sec)-on all pastoral activities except developing and disciplining oneself. 79 Sgpportive Relationships. Nine categories of people were identified as potentially offering supportive relationships to a person in the pastorate. influence of the nine categories are displayed in Table 4.6. Using the mean and rank ordering the strength and relative computing the total mean broken down by status, it was detenmined if any significant differences existed between pastors, ex—pastors (min) and ex-pastors (sec) (Table 4.7). Table 4.6 RANK ORDERING OF SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS DURING PASTORATE Relationship Rania Mean SD Spouse 1 4.47 .86 Lay Leaders in Congregation 2 3.70 1.09 Close Friend(s) (not included in list) 3 3.41 1.43 Fellow Pastors within Denomination 4 3.35 1.39 0ther(s) on Church Staff 5 2.73 1.73 Fellow Pastors in Reformed Tradition 6 2.66 1.48 Pastors not in Denomination or Reformed Tradition 7 2.14 liSS Denominational Executives/Leaders 8 2.02 1.53 Seminary Faculty or Staff 9 1.97 1.47 Using a scale of 0-5, pastors and ex-pastors ranked their spouse as the most supportive person among all the relationships listed. The relatively low standard deviation .( .86) suggests a good consensus. Lay leaders were ranked second indicating reasonably good relations with parish membership but fellow-pastors in the denomination ranked fourth. Seminary faculty and staff and denominational leadership were perceived as providing the least support during the pastorate. High standard deviations indicated that considerable dispersion of opinion existed on most items. Table 4.7 shows the comparison of pastor, ex-pastors (min) and exhpastors (sec) on “support". The mean is drawn from the combined sums of the nine categories listed on Table 4.6. Table 4.7 reveals a statistically significant difference between groups on supportive relationships during the pastorate. ‘The ex-pastor who went into another ministry felt the most support from the various groups of people. Pastors felt slightly less support. The exepastor who went into secular work was considerably lower. Table 4.7 MARISON OF PASTORS AND EX-PASTORS ON SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS 4 Status Nean SD P: Pastor 2.59 .78 Ex-Pastor (min) 1 2.67 .82 .012 ExePastor (sec) 2.22 .99 .A significant difference exists (.012) ruling out the likelihood of chance accounting for the difference between groups. SatiSfaction on Aspects of Pastoral Ministry. When pastors and exepastors were asked about their satisfaction on.eleven different aspects of the parish ministry, their “freedom to preach and act as they saw fit” was rated as most satisfying (x=4.10) (Figure 4.9). They were least satisfied with "members' willingness to carry out their Christian witness in the world".(;:2.64). "Members' willingness to study and be trained" was item which scored next to the lowest (§=2.78). The concern with members' involvement in the ministry of the church may account for the earlier mandate for seminaries to increase their emphasis in leadership development and discipling people skills. Utilizing 81 Scale 0 - 5 Very Dissatisfied - Very Satisfied ooAuom is. m mHmmmoz A¢UHAmHm QDmUZHzomm OH. MBHZDBmommo amp. 00...”an _3.N name: 8.5 2H mmmzfi; zfiemHEB Emma So N520 OB mmHZUZquHz .mmmmfimz some... ass mfizmzumozéfi UZH>HA 92¢ Nm§= one :5032: on» «0 son ecu co punch me unannouo same ones. .OHQMH»m> some so manoum mmosom oocmuomwsp ucuowmwcmsm mouuowpcw osHu> as: one: o.s o.s ..m. m.m o.so loom. ma m m w v mm MOummmlxm ilnln, m.mm o.m~ m;~» m.ss o.m» (a sonsqnn. . masseuse H 0000. mv mm ma we be Hoummmuxm Ho xuoz tonwamsoomm , o.ad m.~m m.mm n.0m m.m» as ou muons auscsuuoamo a» on on» ssm oms ms» cosmos s.o s.o o.o~ o.s» o.oe .iommo ea . m m m m mm noummalxm _ m.v H.ma mqm» m.mMIwo.Hmw .qflac muouumz Hmcuo HO ca Nooo. m we em mm om soummsnxm mowuwawnwmcoaumm non uo>o . . m.~ o.MH c-0m m.m~ m.mm o Anvosmmoaaoo nus: uosamcoo msownmm m» on mo» omm «mm sod -.Iu- u ammo o.m» m.o» o.m» s.m~ m.o~ .Aommw m s o o o» m» scummsuxs H.v m.m H.mm o.mH m.mm saws. mucOEumcmuuc mcw>sq am 0000. m NH vm mm be noumusuxm no shadow onuswooucH rill; m.~ dam -AM oJHM ».s~ mm o» no new ovm osm Noumea « us on: son: meow mauqu ocoz usumum cammom st vim“ HO> 20 mmmzommmm .mmoamdmlxm D24 .mMOEm¢N mDQmu wm OZHMEQMC x2¢m 02¢ mmDOZU meMU¢ mmuzmmwthQ ho NUZ¢UHmH20Hm UZH30mm smfidmoammm flab m>¢mfl 09 DO» mdeu GHQ m0 BEOHS B¢Z3s m.s asses O O OO-ucou 84 s o.ms s.m .m w.ms H.om rooms a e s o om soummsuxs _ m , drum. . ed at: _v.ma Tom A525 hummmooooz osmoom oooo. o» o» m» me so noummsuxs «>02 cons suumecsz I ma mode Nod .33 _o.vm m.mm . cs ouuooaom ou canon: ms oms om» one oss noumms a m.ss o.om m.- jo.ss ~.- .sommc . o m o» o os nonmmsuxm . . q.s o.mm11m«mm s.m» ~.o~ aasaflllli umomon sousno me I o __oooo o mm am am an noummsuxs somoooomcs encamuos uses H s.o~ ».qm m.m~ H.»» m.os mms mom ms» mo so soumms s.m s.- s.- v.»s ».vm looms _ e e o» os m ms soummsuxs m oooo. m m o.m~ o m» m a» s an lasso sssmnco A . as . on o» mm on noummsaxs sassus no use: rill. m.ve snow, v om o.o s-ns m as» sea mos oo mos “comes squ us. “was sons meow canoes mooz msumum commas w> mDQMU Mm UZHmMDMO MZ¢M DZ< mmDQmU memU¢ mmuzmmmhhHQ m0 mUZ¢UHmHZUHm 02H3omm 2m9¢m09m4m MS? m>o seemed mo .12 mém mém .13 cos: uosamcou noesuom 3 2. m3 mom so» we» “Boas it: 92 93 m... of. rooms 5 _ m o S m on soummsuxm v.5 h.mH m.- m.m~ ~.mm Assay o>oz he usuwcom m 0000. m ma hm em on soommsuxm mauuoso 3303 Seems II], To mod a: 13 on; m 2. m3 mmm m3 m2 “Bums x: nm on: non: meow manned ocoz usumum commom uo> @5020 um U2Hmmomo Mz¢m 92¢ mmbomw mmomod mmozmmmhmHD mo 202(UH2H20Hm 02H302m smaflmoamdm was m>¢mq 08 50> mmbdo GHQ 20 BZGHE B¢23= 20 mmmzommmm .mmOBmdmlxm 92¢ .mmoamdm Av.ucoov m.¢ OHAMH 86 C .Oc.u:oo s.s» .o .- «.mu o.mm a .oomo cu m . v 0H 0H mu uz scumumlxm . h.HN h.dv a Assay vauoz sawtoz no ha mamm. 0N cm 92 HOummmlxm headache Cu mocm>ouom ma h.h~ .o.mm a noumom m.cousnu onu cus3 occasmsaasmso sow How «2 ma m.o v.qo » .omm. I e on nz soomssaxs em m.mm M. anwafilll. tumouuo muwuocmm omcsus _ I coco. on (Nmo uz woummmlxm so humuum norms: m.hm m we a mu mom can as saunas s.o o.sn a looms N e vs nz soummsuss I _ v.5H m.mv a ~cHEV shamans: o» cesumoo> CH coco. m ma mu Hm mm uz Monmomlxm :30 no csmuumoca s.o~ o.w~ o.o~ I~.sa o.m~ a Oceans m oma mma ONH mNH and NZ Tana um WM» cos: meow oauusq ocoz msumum comuom 20 wflmzommmm .m209m¢ml2fl 02¢ .mmofim¢m macaw rm UZHKHQfiO 22¢M 02¢ mmDOGO memU¢ mmozmmmthn ho HUZ¢UHQH20HW 02H302m :mB¢MOEm¢m H29 m>¢flfl OB DOM HmD¢U GHQ 20 BZOH: B¢m3= 26.»:00. m.¢ memH 87 O O Ofloucoo a a.m m.m~ o.m ~.~ N.oo N Assasoomv c o G H On "2 uOumcsulxm . auHHfinHmGOn—mwm N coo. «.mu o.m~ m.e~ n.HH c.e~ N Assochqzv sauoouo so“: shamans: I _i_I wan mm m0 n0 on. tmz. scomoeanI saunas you onou< zuacsuuooco NH 0 cs w.ss N.Om m.- m.ms N on ans Omm 0N0 use uz scones m o.m0 m.m~ o.mH H.HH q.qq N Asossoomv Illn. s b L m ow? uz noomosnxs G NA: m.NH N.NH H.m4n1 Nit» N Ahhumwcfia SON HON :uom OOH... mwcfifih. I I coco. n0 ma 0N 04 um uz scomssuxm wcsxmz so o>ox voosooo cousso m0 N.N ».N~ e.om a.- o.m~ N mm awe «mm was one uz scones m.ss N.o N.o N.o «.mo N Assasoommw I m m m m m mm nz soumnslxm a» oooo. a.m ».o» «.ms o.s» o.om N A»numscszo summmouoz N we as «a as nz scumssnxm omcmsu a new: msoanoss guano: wlmna smss m-s~ «oN aims ~¢o~ as com ace no one "2 scones x: am Mon: rugs—meom manage use: manoum commas i so> 00000 #0 02H00020 22¢“ 02¢ mmbcmo wQOU¢ mmuzmmmmmH0 mo 002¢UHOH20Hm 02H300m :NH¢mq OH 00> mm=¢00 09 00> mm=¢o 000 £0 82002 H<=3z zo mumzcmmmx .mmOHm¢mlxm 02¢ .mmoamuumfic02v fiOEflOm AGOHummficmmuo Nov _ I . w HH RN cm N.» "Z uOummmlxm £00550 00:0 U>OHQBH OH. I .e o.w0 m.m~ w.em N.o~ N e» as oss NNN No0 own uz tosses waN0 m.m qqqm o.m0 m.mm N (Asm0soomv o m e 00 N n0 uz soumosuxm uwmm.I m.~ N.o0 a.ss N.oN N.am .N issuancozo I «pass stamens: 0000. n mm mm Illmm mml uz soumcsnxm snow :u03 concuuoucH [Amml o.m N.N0 m.nm «.mm m.0~ N unocO0sm0ucm woos< o0n=oua mm as on 0mm 000 uz scones dfifl! um roe: cos: oaom IO0uu00 ocoz msumom cosmos — >u0> 20 mumzommmm .mmoam<0lxm 02¢ .0208m<0 000.20 20 02500020 22¢“ 02¢ mgQKU mm020¢ mmozmmmhhH0 .00 002¢UHOH20Hm 02:50.3 =NMH<2oam<0 028 m><00 08 00> 0m0<0 000 20 92002 H<23= Av.ucoov 0.¢ 00bmH 9O Cleo-”coo m» o.o ~.N 0.00 0.00 N.oo N sussaumm0 e 0 m m on uz “comes-xs . n w.o0 m.- o.q0 N.m0 m.¢~ N zsom0c0zv vouomuo xuoz coco. «N mm m0 o0 on nz scomosuxm me some u>0uouuou< auu> ll: .3. 000 0.0... 0.2 9% .. . »n so ems Nam osm nz Oceans m.ms ~.on m.s~ o.n» o.mN N sumsauomo I m . s o N0 o 0» uz nonmes-xs N» . qum0w. m.s n4NN, m.o~1 o.mm N sssumsaszo coco m» on ms mN as «2 noomssaxm «outcomes o0 . o.»0. s40NI o-0~, «.ms 0.0m «N, can so sue: «so sascs u.=ono so me» nor es» Nos uz - Immomas N.o a.m N.oN s.s~ m.mm N 0mm0=ummo m 0 N0 00 m0 "2 scummmlxml , . n.m o.m0 N.s0 «.mm m.om N stumscozo »»m=o0umm senescence oooo s as »N »m as nz cosmosuxs use» News uoz ego souaso s.o m.s~ N.s~ ».N» N.N0 N so soN NNN on» an» «2 tonnes Nam :00: £002 050% OH 0 u “A @002 m: a flu m GOOQOM— huo> 00000 >0 020200.20 225 02¢ 900020 mm020¢ mmuzmmmmmH0 .mO 00255002006 UZHSOzm ..~.Hh.¢28m¢m 02.0. 023—..— 00. 002 mm0¢o 0H0 20 0.2652 0.4.23: zo mmmzosmss .msosmesuxs oz< .msosm0o>sn >2 N n.0m «.00 m.m 5.0 m.0m a wow m00 mo mv 0mm n2 sounds gens no nos: no: meow IO0uu0n ocoz mousse (Innsnnseww huo> 00000 00 02H20000 22¢2 02¢ 000020 mm020¢ m00200000H0 00 002¢UHOH20H0 02H300m shflfl¢mOBm¢m 009 0>¢00 09 000 mm0¢U 0H0 00 BSUHS B¢=3s zo msmzosmms .msoemesuxs oza .msoemcs Ac.u:oo. o.e o0sma 92 pastorate", "conflict.with laymen", ”crisis in personal life" and “inadequate salary and/or living arrangements”. Feelings of inadequacy were not Confined to the ex-pastor (sec). The pastor also believed that ”personal inadequacy as a church leader" would be the leading reason for his leaving the pastorate. It was one of the two factors to receive a majority percentage from pastors. However ex-pastors (min). were not quite so strong about the inadequacy factor, ranking it sixth. When computing raw scores across all three groups, the only factor which received an overall majority percentage vote in the "much” and “very much” columns was personal inadequacy as a church leader (50.8%). The comparatively large number of pastors no doubt accounted for that high percentage. Pastors also identified with ex-pastors in "personal life crisis" (ranked fourth) but ex-pastors (min) indicated it was not that influential in their decision to leave (ranked fifteenth). On the other hand, ”conflict with laymen" was a concern expressed by ex-pastors (min) (ranked seventh) but not by pastors (ranked fourteenth). While ”inadequate salary and living arrangements" was a leading concern for ex-pastors (sec), neither pastors nor ex-pastors said it was or would be significant in their thinking, ranking it twenty-third and twenty- first respectively. All three groups listed an "unhappy wife or family" as something that did or would cause them to leave the pastorate. Again, when raw scores were combined to form an overall percentage, an unhappy wife or family rated second as a cause (or potential cause) for leaving the pastorate (47.8%). Several factors were of minimal influence in ex—pastors (sec) deciding to leave the pastorate. On a ranking scale of 1-17 (several 93 ties), "involvement in flagrant sin" and the offer of higher salary and fringe benefits" were lowest respectively. In other words, they tended to be neither forced out of the pastorate by sin nor drawn from the pastorate by increased rewards. Ex-pastors (sec) ranked twelfth the "opportunity for specialized work Or training” and fifteenth“"attractive type of work offered". Ex-pastors (min) appeared to be marching to a different "drummer“ since they ranked the same two factors first and third respectively. Ex-pastors (min) had been wooed from the pastorate by attractive ministry opportunities which were not, it appears, available to those who left for secular employment. Pastors judged that attractive opportunities would play only a modest if not minor, role in a decision to leave the pastorate. All three groups agreed that the ”offer of higher salary and fringe benefits" was or would be a very minor cause in leaving the pastorate.* Pastors said that flagrant sin would be very influential in a decision to leave but only 6.8% of ex—pastors (sec) said it contributed ”much" or "very much" in their decision. The figure rose to 18.5% for ex—pastors (min) indicating that involvement in flagrant sin was part of the decision-making in about one of five who entered another type of ministry and one in four of all ex-pastors. Ex-pastors (min) indicated rather strongly (ranked fourthi that the career change to non-pastoral ministry was part of a long-range career plan. They also displayed more optimism about the church. "Disillusionment with-the church's relevance to the world‘s problems" ranked seventeenth and ”hopeless to improve the church" ranked twentieth. Pastors generally agreed. But ex-pastor (sec) saw it differently, ranking *One may question whether finances were under-rated in influence for career decisions. The data are taken at face value since the denominations represented provide above average ministerial salaries. 94 the factors tenth and ninth respectively. The more positive mood of ex-pastors (min) compares favorably with the fact that they rated themselves higher on 11 of 13 pastoral activities (Figure 4.8). Length of Time_in Pastorate Before Leaving. Nearly 15% of all who entered the pastorate eventually made a vocational change and entered a non-pastoral ministry or secular employment (Figure 4.10). The largest exodus from the pastorate occurred in the first four years when over half (50.8%) left. Almost 26% of the ex-pastors left in the first two years and an additional 24.7% in the second two years. Years five and six saw the figure drop to 16.9%. But, of all who left the pastorate, over two-thirds do so in the first six years (67.4%). During the next six years only 22.5% of the ex-pastors left. Relation to God, Others. Self and Home. A number of items were clustered into categories which were labled relation to God, relation to self, relation to others and relation to home. Figure 4.11 shows . that pastors' rated themselves highest on relation to God i=3.92 and lowest on relation to others (i=3.62). Ex-pastors (sec) scored themselves highest on relation to self (i=3.52) and, like the others, lowest on relation to others (;=3.20). The low ratings on relation to others gives further emphasis to pastoral activities such as developing lay leadership, discipling people on utilizing conflict constructively. In all categories except relation to home, pastors scored slightly higher than ex-pastors (min) and.both scored noticably higher than ex-pastors (sec). inulti-analysis of variance tests revealed significant difference (.05) between grouper-pastors, ex-pastors (min) and ex-pastors (sec)-- on three of the four factors (Table 4.9). Relation to God was not significant at .094. PERCENT :1. m6 meg 6.3 an: QM was: 3-9 mnz ml]: meg NT: Du: Tam mag on Snz 9m mg mum. on": 3.3 meg 9m in: from mag in. oeuz 3.3 mag wro % 3 m U m 5 m N=l78 Figure 4.10 LENGTH OF TIME IN EASTORATE BEFORE LEAVING 96 ScaleO-5‘ m m) 0 We, t( 3 m m mm , m a madam Wind mile W m as. "cm—Nae . fins 8 . . m u no Toads m 338? ) 3 .4. mm Edam _wna mile N SicmFlma . sitar ( mm aphasia gammy m Wm. , Sign Ema mike, mum scion Ea slim .. e .. Horde—m Emma muoammm m u. .... . w . . we a. 8 new mm m mils mm madam Ema ails [8.5m flawm mnovmdm 0.38.7,e #3333 5,... 33 J 3 9man 3332 9 38: 0Q. onBam Em OB onfiam mum—Eb on. ZOHBfi—mm now on. 293.3%— FA CE‘ORS Figure 4.11 PASTORS ' AND FIX-PASTORS ' RESPONSES: IN REIATION T0 GOD, OTHERS, SELF AND HOME 97 Table 4. 9 SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PASTORS AND EX-PASTORS ON FOUR FACTORS: RELATION TO GOD, OTHERS, SELF AND HOME ‘Factor P= Relation to God .09371 Relation to others .02811 Relation to Self .00751 Relation to Home .00088 §EEEE£23 The two types_of ex-pastors were quite different from each other. Ex-pastors who continued in some kind of ministry more closely resembled pastors than their peers who left the pastorate for secular employment. The differences began in college and carried through to the decision to leave the parish ministry. Ex-pastors (min) entered seminary for the purpose of training for the pastorate building off an undergraduate major in either humanities or theology/religion/Bible. They expressed a moderately high degree of satisfaction with their seminary training and reflect very positively on their experience in the pastorate. The ex-pastor (min) judged himself quite effective in his pastoral activities and by comparison, was more consistently successful than his peers. His considerably higher effectiveness rating on "personal development and discipline" may have had a positive influence on his overall performance. Added to this was his general feeling of being supported by a variety of groups during his pastoral experience. The ex—pastor (min) tended to be drawn away from the pastorate by attractive opportunities offering a larger sc0pe of ministry. Coercion 98 did not seem to play a part in most decisions to leave. Ex-pastors (sec) were similar to pastors and ex-pastor (min) on some factors but stood alone on many. While attending seminary for purposes of entering the pastorate, ex-pastors (sec) reflected less satisfaction with their seminary training. Perhaps there is some sense of blame projected on the seminary for not preparing them more adequately for the pastorate or for their present situation. They rated themselves generally lower on effectiveness in pastoral activities, and seemed to be especially ineffective in skills relating to self-discipline and interpersonal relationships. Feelings of inadequacy and uncertainty about their call to the pastorate as a vocation were major factors in his decision to change professions. They tended to have fewer supportive relationships and rated themselves much lower on relation to God, self, other and home. It appeared that ex-pastors (min) sensed a general “fit" in the pastorate but were drawn from it by other attractive ministry Opportunities. Bx-pastors, on the other hand, displayed a general lack of "fit" in the pastorate and tended to be pushed from the parish ministry by internal and external pressures. Pastors and ex-pastors (min) tended to be quite similar. Ex-pastors (sec) were usually different from their counterparts. NEVER PASTOR A minority, 17% , who graduate from seminary never enter a parish ministry. No stigma is attached to peOple who make other career choices but seminaries exist primarily to train for pastoral service. Most entering theological training are interested in some form of Christian 99 service but not all feel directed toward parish ministry. Seminary graduates who have never entered a pastorate are called non-pastors or never pastors for purposes of this section. H Never-pastors are of-two types. Those who entered some form of ministry but not a pastorate are said to be non:pastora1 ministries. The other type is those who are presently in secular employment. Never-pastors obviously will not be able to speak from.psstora1 experience but can speak from their life situation. However, information is consid- erably more limited since they, by design, filled out only one-half the questionnaire. 3 Reason for Attending_seminary. Figure 4.6 demonstrates that over 402 of the never-pastors attended seminary for "whatever service". Only 202 of those in non-pastoral ministries and about 142 in secular employment entered to train for the pastorate. Nearly 202 of the non-pastoral ministry graduates saw seminary as a graduate education base for a teaching career and another 11.81 for a missionary career. About 102 in secular employment had teaching in mind, getting a basis for further graduate work or something "other". The group also had the highest percentage entering seminary for "resolution of problems with their faith" (6.71). Satisfaction with Seminary Training, Figure 4.1 revealed something of an irony. Even though the seminary program.is designed primarily for those planning to enter the pastorate, it was the graduate who went into non-pastoral ministries who expressed the highest level of satisfaction (x-3.73) with his training the standard deviation was .97. Graduates entering secular employment felt less satisfaction ranking second lowest 100 of the five groups. Nevertheless, their 3.37 mean (scale 0-5) stilll indicated more satisfaction than dissatisfaction but the high standard deviation (1.22) indicated a wide range of opinion. Educational History. Like pastors and ex-pastors, the majority of ”never exepastors" had college majors in the humanities or theology/religion/ Bible. However, about 27x had natural science or social science majors compared to 182 for pastors and ex-pastors suggesting a slight tendency for the never-pastors to have under graduate programs in natural science or social science. Non-pastoral ministry and ex-pastor (min) have taken the most post-- seminary formal education with 612 having one year or more of full-time study as contrasted to only 282 of the pastors who have had one or more years of full time study since seminary (see Figure 4.12). Both never- pastor groups did their further study in either the humanities (122 each of theology/religion/Bible (non-pastoral ministry peOple, 302; secular employment peOple, 122). ‘ Type of Pre-Seminarygfimplgyment. Those who had pre-seminary full-time employment were asked whether it was secular employment, Christian employ- ment or both. The results are recorded in Table 4.10. The large majority of graduates who had pre-seminary full-time employment worked in secular jobs. Those presently in secular employment were slightly more likely to have had secular work experience and less Christian work experience than other groups. The inter-group significance was .0827 indicating no significant difference between groups. Table 4.10 PRE-SEMINARX FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCES BY STATUS Secular Christian Both Pastors N9 307 55 1 33 1 2. 77.7 13.9 8.4 Ex-P-M N- 43 13 3 2 72.9 22.0 ‘ 5.1 Ex-P-S fl- l7 4 l , X 77.3 18.2 4.5 NPM # N- 39 16 2 z 68.4. 28.1 3.5 SEC N- 37 4 1 2 88.1 9.5 2.4 ExeP-M - Ex-Pastors in Ministry Employment Ex-P-S - Hx-Pastors in Secular Employment NPM - Non-Pastoral Ministry SEC - Secular Employment .Summary. The never-pastor graduates, about 152 of the total pOpulation, had been unclear about vocational preference when entering the seminary and were not drawn to the pastorate as a result of their seminary experience. The satisfaction with seminary depended upon their ultimate vocational choice. Those entering some form of ministry employment were very satisfied while those choosing secular employment were relatively dissatisfied. Never-pastors tended to take more additional graduate work. The data revealed that those who went into secular employment from seminary had a 102 much stronger secular employment experience base prior to seminary than did those who chose a from of ministry employment. Since the study focuses largely on those who have had some pastoral experience, little data was gathered on those who did not fit that criterion. However, the data provided will help in advising those who apply to seminary with the above characteristics. INSTITUTIONS The five institutions c00perating in the project are part of a consortium sharing the goal of strengthening theological education. A common objective is the sharing of resources for mutual benefit. Some has been done in the past. ‘Thus, means and channels exist but are in the process of further develOpment. Access to assessment data can allow the respective institutions to make value judgments about relative strengths and weaknesses in the training program. Sharing should resutl in im*. provement. Improvement comes when strength is matched with weakness, the blending of resources and needs. Figure 4,12 shows that the majority of the graduates from each institution are presently in the pastorate though there is a disparity of about twenty-five percentage points. Institutions B and E, which have a lesser prOportion of graduates in the pastorate, have comparably more who entered the pastorate but are in non-pastoral ministry or secular employment. Reasons for Attending,Semina§y. The seminary program serves basically to train for the parish ministry. Thus, it follows that the majority of entering students would share that purpose. Overall, 61.72 of the graduating alumni enter seminary to prepare for the pastorate. However, the institutions do not cluster closely around that average. ) n=128) ployment. ( oyment (N= 50 N=130) §1 (N=76 Pastors (N=811+) Fix-pastors in ministry em Eat-pastors in secular em Non-pastoral ministries Secular employment HZ'UJ 39-491 Easéé 103 0'01 033’ d'flI BEN vwsaeifl: J\ 9 ' II ‘N-d'XE h°6§’[__qd\ sxozssa 6'C 038 2'1. C'I s-a-xs _ \P 9'9 w—a-xs I—O'IB . «ft szossea Z. ' 9 S-d-XIE 2 II w-a-xs_ 9 99 I 1i szoisea PER CENT 9 z ass , o-s m §'£ s-a-xs _ , 2°11 N-a-xs [6'62 ‘ szoesea SJET OWOWOOVNOWOW commxoxoanNr-«H INSTITUTION Figure 4.12 INSTITUTION BY PRESENT STATUS 104 About 782 of the graduates from Institution A indicated that their primary purpose for theological training was to prepare for the pastorate; but,'only 44.32 from Institution B gave that as the primary reason. Insti- tutions C and D had over 60% who intended to train for the pastorate. Institution E was second lowest with 462. For Institutions B, D and E, about one-third of their students entered without any clear vocational choice, coming for "whatever service". But only one of eight attending Institution A seemed uncertain about career choice. Teaching was a distant third highest reason for attending seminary followed by missionary service. Very few, the highest being 3.42,.came to find resolution to their problems of faith. It would appear that once in the seminary program, some students were attracted to the pastorate. While 782 of Institution A's students intended to train for the pastorate, nearly 892 actually entered, though presently 73.9% are pastors. For Institution B, the figures are more marked. Over 442 came to train for parish ministry but 73.52 actually entered pastorate. Presently 55.62 are pastors. The pattern holds true for the other institu- tions (compare Figures 4.12 and 4.13). Institutions were very comparable in the percentage of pastors who had entered another ministry career, i.e. ex-pastors in ministry (Figure 4.12). Institution D was an exception with only 6.5% of its pastors entering a different ministry. It was also relatively low on ex-pastors who have entered secular employment. Institution B had a considerably higher percentage of ex-pastors who entered secular employment. It also had the highest percentage who never entered the pastorate (26.4%). The high figure corresponded with the fact that the institution had the highest percentage of people entering lOS zOHBDBHEmZH Nm wmemm oneanomme zoeeaezaoa .11 .snacfismmv amaonmmez r. quzuame 0 (o rt w .z s FE rm SEER m SE2§ w . 9 (c WOJ II. m We, 9 h. .4 8 Nu TL Because mmaza OB ZOHB .AEHHmZH n S we om mm on an o: m: cm mm ow me 3 mm on 9285a 106 for reasons other than pastoral training. A similar pattern-held true for 'Institution E. Equally as striking as the differences were the similarities. All had the majority of their graduates in the pastorate. Most who left the pastorate-entered another form of ministry. With the exception of one institution, most who never entered the pastorate did become involved in some non-pastoral ministry. Of these never—pastor graduates, about one in eight, at the highest, and one in forty, at the lowest, were presently in secular employment. Figures 4.6 and 4.12 indicate that the more clearly one had identified his vocational choice in keeping with the purposes of the seminary, the greater the likelihood of entering and remaining in the pastorate. Where screening prodecures were not so rigid, larger numbers of graduates left the pastorate or never entered. It was, of course, the seminary's perogative to be as flexible or as rigid in its screening as it wished. It was also helpful to know the out- comes of those decisions as a basis for making future choices. ' Pre-Seminary Employment. Table 4.11 provided a simple breakdown Of the numbers and percentages of graduates who did and did not have pre- seminary full-time employment. Exactly half the respondents to that item had full-time employment before seminary and half did not. But, when comparing institutions, a significant difference occurs. Institution A had the least (45.6%) who had pre-seminary full-time employment, over fifteen percentage points less than Institution D. The difference is significant (.0026). Institution B was also quite high (59.2%) but E quite low. Little more can be said until other comparisons are made. 107 Table 4.11 PRE-SEMINARY EMPLOYMENT BY INSTITUTION AND BETWEEN INSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE Institution Full-time - No Full-time A u- 223 267 2 45.6 54.6 B 'N- 103 I .71 x 59.2 I 40.8 c u- 27 28 2 49.1 50.9 n u- 92 58 z 60.9 38.4 E n- r 152 ' 173 z 4608 ° _ 53.2 I p- .0026 Value of Instructional Factors. Figure 4.14 represents the rating of graduates on "value of instructional factors" computed by institution. On a scale of 0-5, rarely did any institution's scores fall below 3.0 which indicates general satisfaction. In fact, the majority of the scores were 3.5 or better. Again, with the exception of field experience, the institutions were quite similar on how they were rated by their graduates. They tended to be low, moderate or high on the same instructional factors. Private study was valued most and that was true for all but one of the institutions. The dispersion of Opinions (standard deviation range .83-.93) was also the smallest on that factor. Field experience ranked high for ZOHBDBHBmzH mm mmombfim Ao< mommmaofi mo 2&5 amzzommam r58 é- - \Eéo é .ezsfimmfi Es: Em 176'=(IS 98": 8' IO’I=(IS Bra 112 G D 3 C O H V 3 G D 8 win m.H m.H m4 o.N H.N N.N m.m :.N m.~ 9m m.m m.m m.m o.m 2%: :2: age, as van a speed meow 636.3 58> 08'=C[S €9'IE 98'=GS OB'I H 98'=GS CB'I V 96:03 [66'1 66°=asJ€t'z 06'=as Lora 176'=£Is L992 817' Z=CIS LEW z 96'=CSi+7§'Z 96:08 9132 05303199? €0'I=as I99‘z €6'=crs LI6°z n N H .ofioom 113 mHm<=mzm mm I HH< p< 902 n I 0 on0m Scale 0 - 5 Not At All - Very Much 2 E3: 2‘. as. #4? “i :r 3.8 114 3.0 2.8 2.6 l’IIEAIlDflHLSNCD 1311'le DNIZI'IIJH DNII'DVHL S'IVOD ONIAHIHDV CINV ERIE-LES SNIPDVHHd DNILISIA 'IVHOILSVd HDNVHU DNIJDEL’IJEI z: t .53 E U) as E Figure 4 . 17 Con't . 115 the other side of the scale, building community relationships was rated low by all alumni. Pastoral evangelizing also ranked low, though institutions D and E did stand apart from the others. In addition to the general ratings noted above, graduates also indicated the specific activities in which their respective institutions should give particular emphasis. For example, Institution A's graduates called for more emphasis on preaching and, to a lesser degree, teaching. Institutions E's respondents made their voices most forceful on deve10ping lay leadership and discipling people, but gave relatively less exphasis to counseling. Institutions B and D were similar to Institution E; but their graduates also rated high develOping and discipling oneself. Graduates of Institution A rated utilizing conflict constructively disprOportionately high. The graduates of Institution C, usually scoring lower, rated disproportionately high teaching, preaching, and counseling, suggesting increased emphasis in those areas. Effectiveness in Pastoral Activities. Table 4.12 shows that respondents ranked teaching and preaching as their most effective pastoral activities with pastoral visiting a near unanimous third. But, the agreement on rank- ing was not agreement on measure of perceived effectiveness. The signif— icant difference results between institutions were as follows: teaching .0025, preaching .0538, and pastoral visiting .0070. The similarity in ranking but statistically significant difference in two of the above is accounted for by the wide dispersion in percentages. Thus, even when institutional rankings may be similar, it does not follow that graduates rated themselves equally effective or ineffective on a given factor. 116 Table 4.12 EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS IN PASTORAL ACTIVITIES BY INSTITUTION SHOWING RANK ORDERING AND 'SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS Not Very Very Insti- Effective Effective Factor tution 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rank, 1 16 55 149 143 46 ,4 4 . A .2 3.9 13.4 36.4 35.0 11;g_ u Administering 0 9 16 48 44 10 :4 6 and B 0 7.1 12.6 37.8 34.6 7.9 53 Organizing 0 4 ll 13 13 6 Ln 5 c 0 8.5 23.4 27.7 27.7 12.8 4 2 6 18 54 49 6 0 1.5 4.4 13.3 40.0 36.3 4.4 5 4 17 30 93 65 24 ' 7 E, 1.7 7.3 12.9 39.9 27.9 10.3 N- 2 23 82 148 118 49 8 A z .5 5.5 19.5 35.1 28.0 11.6 '3 N- 1 13 32 51 21 9 b 13 Building B 2 .8 10.2 25.2 40;2~__]_.g.5 7.1 o Local u- 0 5 12 17 12 1 8 9 Community 0 z 0 10.6 25.5 36.2 25.5 2%1g Relation- u- 4 9 24 51 35 12 10 ships D 2 3.0 6.7 17.8 37.8 25.9 8.9 N- 11 24 58 81 44 17 2 E z 4.7 10.2 24.7 34.5 18.7 7.2 n- 0 2 45 153 154 55 4 A z 0 .5! 11.0 37.5 37.7 13.5 ~o Counseling n- 4 2 I 14 44 56 5 " 4 B x 3.2 1.6 I 11.2 435.2 44.8 4.0 25 Ne 0 3 12 16 10 6 8 7 c z 0 6.4 25.5 34.0 21.3 12.8 m‘ N- 0 7 21 44 51 12 0 z 0 5.2 15.6 32.6 37.8 8.9 4 N- 2 7 23 78 89 35 - E z .9 3.0 9.8 33.3 38.0 15.0 m 4 , N:TT' 0 6 43 172 164 34 .14 5 A z 0 1.4 10.3 41.1 39.2 8.1 DevelOping N- 0 3 12 59 48 6 l: 7 and B 2 0 2.3 9.4 46.1 37.5 4.7 ° Disciplining N3 0 l 7 18 15 5 ,9 4 Oneself c z 0 2.2 15.2 39.1 32.6 10.9 in Personally N- 0 2 14 50 56 13 0 z 0 1.5 10.4 37.0 41.5 9.6 3 Na 1 4 24 87 97 22 5 E z .4 1.7 10.2 37.0 41.3 9.4 *Rank ordering is based on the sum of columns "4" and "S". Cont'd... Table 4.12 (Cont'd) 117 Not Very Very Insti- Effective Effective R k Factor tution 0 ['1 2 3 4 5 a“ ' N= 1 ' 8 66 179 144 27 A 2 .2 1.9 15.6 42.2 33.9 6.4 E’ 7 DevelOping N= 1 2 12 58 42 10 .[ 9 Lay B 2 .8 1.5 13.1 44.6 32.3 7.7 '34 Leadership N= 0 1 10 17 '12 6 U‘ 6 > c z 0 2.2 21.7 37.0 26.1 13.0 ,1 N= 0 7 26 49 48 5 1 3 n z 0 5.2 19.3 36.3 35.6 3.7 N= 1 15 36 94 66 21 10 E z .4 6.4 15.5 40.3 28.3 9.0 N= 4 8 68 189 124 25 A z 1.0 1.9 16.3 45.3 29.7 6.0 fi’ 10 N= 3 6 22 53 39 6 . 11 Discipling B 7: 2.3 4.7 17.1 41.1 30.2 4.; a People N: 0 l 8 19 14 4 It: 6 c z 0 2.2 17.4 41.3 30.4 8.7 N= 1 6 24 51 45 8 9 0 z .7 4.4 17.8 37.8 33.3 5.9 N= 0 16 33 97 74 13 '1; _1 E z o 6.9 14.2 , 41.6 31.8 5.6 N= 2 9 49 175 160 25 I E; A 2 .5 2.1 11.7 41.8 38.1 6.0 ".F Effecting N= 1 7 19 46 47 8 . Change 8 2 .8 5.5 14.8 35.9 36.7 6.32%: 5 N= 0 2 5 25 11 3 ES 8 c z 0 4.3 10.9 54.3 23.9 6.5 N= 1 4 21 59 38 11 11 D 2 .7 3.0 15.7 44.0 28.4 8.2 N= 0 13 33 91 73 23 E z 0 5.6 14.2 39.1 31.3 9.9 6 N= 6 23 70 159 114 38 A z 1.5 5.6 17.1 38.8 27.9 9.3 fi’ 9 Pastoral N= 2 9 33 52 30 3 . Evangel- B 2 1.6 7.0 25.6 40.3 23.3 2.3 :3 12 izing N= 0 4 13 22 6 1 S 12 c z 0 8.7 28.3 47.8 13.0 2.2 * N= 0 0 0 3 1 1 6 0 z 0 0 0 60.0 20.0 20.0 N= 5 17 58 94 45 16 4 12 E z 2.1 7.2 24.7 40.0 19.1 6.8 Cont'd... Table 4.12 (Cont'd.) 118 Not Very Very Insti- Effective Effective Factor tution o 1 2 3 4 5 Rank N= 1 5 25 108 205 80 3 A 2 .2 1.2 5.9 25.4 48.5 18.9-o ; Pastoral N= 3 9 11 38 47 20 " 3 f Visiting B 2 2.3 7.0 8.6 29.7 36.7 15.6 t: 5 Na 0 0 7 16 17 6 ‘3' "*1 c 2 0 0 15.2 34.8 37.0 13.00 N= 1 5 12 44 52 21 2 0 2 .7 3.7 8.9 32.6 38.5 15.6 N= 0 7 23 75 89 39 3 E 2 0 3.0 9.9 32.2 38.2 16.7 N= 0 0 1 58 219 137 4 ‘1 A 2 0 0 .2 14.0 52.9 33.1 g, 1 ; N= 0 2 1 28 63 32 "I 2 i Preaching B 2 0 1.6 .8 22.2 50.0 25.4 33 g N= 0 1 0 12 22 11 3% 2 I c 2 0 2.2 0 26.1 47.8 23.9 “h 1 N= 0 2 2 26 72 33 i z 0 2 o 1.5 1.5. 19.3 53.3 24.4 1 : N= 0 0 5 33 125 72 l 2 : E 2 0 0 2.1 14.0 53.2 30.6 g_j = 1 10 52 225 120 16 11*] A 2 .2 2.4 12.3 53.2 28.3 3.8‘e, ' setting = 1 5 17 54 44 8 '4 8 and B 2 .8 3.9 13.2 41.9 34.1 6.2 L, Achieving N= 1 2 9 23 8 3 “c3. 11 Goals c 2 2.2 4.3 19.6 50.0 17.4 6.5 5% N= 2 4 19 63 36 11 9 0 2 1.5 3.0 14.1 46.7 26.7 8.1 = 4 7 42 97 69 16 11 E 2 1.7 3.0 17.9 41.3 29.4 6.8 4 N= 1 0 21 103 221 77 2 A 1 .2 0 5.0 24.4 52.3 18.2 7, Teaching = 0 l 2 20 68 37 . 1 B 2 o .8 1.6 15.6 53.1 28.98 N= 0 0 1 9 22 14 33 c 2 o 0 2.2 19.6 47.8 30.4 ,= 1 ' N: 0 0 3 27 60 45 3 1 0 2 0 0 2.2 20.0 44.4 33.3 ! N= 0 o 7 27 119 82 I E 2 0 0 3.0 11.5 50.6 34.9 ' 1 Cont'd... 119 Table 4.12 (Cont'd) l l_NOt Very Very Insti- Effective Effective Factor tution O 1 2 3 4 5 u- 1 10 72 181 134‘ 23 A Z _12 2.4, l]il_ 143,1 31-9 5 Utilizing N- l 7 19 52‘ 37 - lO Conflict B 7. 18 5111 15-L_4l._3__22.4___l.9. Constructive! N- 1 4 7 22 9 2. 1y C 2 L2 819 15 6 48.1 90,9 4,4. I N' 2 S 15 58 41 12 0 2 11.5 3.8 11.3 43.6 30.8 9 ___—II- 3 6 29 105 72 16 E 2 1.3 2.6 12.6 45.5 31.2 6.9 Pastoral evangelizing, utilizing conflict constructively, discipling peOple and setting and achieving goals were ranked relatively low. Futhermore, none were statistically significant (at .05). The combination of factors would suggest two things. One, most respondents did not judge themselves very effective on the above three pastoral activities. Two, none Of the institutions were significantly more or less effective on the above factors. Developing and disciplining oneself personally, develOping lay leadership, effecting change, and administering and organizing all ranked toward the middle suggesting modest effectiveness. None were statistically significant further indicating that no institution stands apart from the Others in those factors. Earlier in the chapter it was noted that pastors and ex-pastors ranked themselves most effective on some activities which were then ranked as modestly effective when computed by institution. The reason was that earlier the importance factor was considered. Some activities may have been done well but were not perceived as relatively important. Another activity may be performed equally well, but when measured against its greater importance the level Of effectiveness was judged prOportionately 1...... Reasons Might or Did Leave the Pastorate. The majority of the twenty-five listed reasons for leaving the pastorate showed no significant difference between institutions, indicating that a good deal of commonality exists on what would and would not precipitate a departure from the parish ministry (Table 4.13). Further evidence of commonality is the fact that rankings tended to be quite similar with some exceptions. Personal inadequacy as a church leader was the unanimous choice as the leading cause which might or did precipitate departure from the pastorate. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between institutions (.3181). Ranked second by all but one institution (which ranked it third) was an unhappy wife or family. Involvement in flagrant sin was next in overall ranking as a likely reason one would decide to leave the pastorate. Even though the rank- ing was similar, a statistical difference of .0096 was recorded in- dicating the institutions disagreed on the intensity of their scoring. A crisis in personal life, uncertainty Of vocation, and the church not taking their leadership seriously followed in ranking. Finances emphatically would Or did not play a part in their decision to leave the pastorate. Higher salary or fringe benefits and inadequatev salary and living arrangements ranked last and near last. Disillusion- ment with the church's relevence to the problems of the modern world and a change coerced by denominational leadership along with a more desirable region or community were also ranked low. Some ranking discrepancies occured between institutions. Institution C ranked "serious conflict with colleague(s)" seventh, but the next closest ranking by the other four institutions was sixteenth. A similar pattern was recorded for "change coerced by denominational leadership" and "church coerced move". Institution A was out of step on "health problems" as Institution B was on "change a planned step in long-range career plan". ...o.osoo .m:E5HOO :nooa hho>: Ono scone: one mo Eon one so comma ma mcfinooao gnome m m.qH N.NH N.HN v.vN N.NN a , Nm on me on mo 12 a NH NN NN mN ON I: o OH thO. m.HH m.HH v.HN m.m~ N.®N a U Ho xho3 vmuddowommm , _ _ m m a NH HH nz m H.~H o.H~ m.- m.o~ N mm m m 06 cu >ufissuuommo mH oN NN HN mm uz o N.WH ”.mm .a4«MHIINo .mcosmooHHoO N NH an mN on nz NN m.w. qum¢I_M1aMIIIm1«MI v.HN «a cqu uoHHucoO nooHuom o No eIoHH NNH mNH nz a HN v.m H.m N.on m.w~1..mInN, _NI NH NH No no He uz m HN m.H m.oH o.vn Hana. aqua. e , _ N NMI1 me No oN uz o NH mmoo. N.N m.oN Nuow m.NNI o.mH. a O mucosoocouua ocH>Ho H m NH NH m «2 oH 3 m.o o.NH m.mm .o.mN N.HN e m ma we an em n2 n no humamm ouoovoooca NN. . 1". into m..N_N_. i.e...lmm . n.mn a m ON oHH NNH mvH 12 a sees no zoo: zoo: m=Om massHa_ mzoz zOHsosHsmzH mosoam Nem> mmuzmmmhth mo mozoz own: .IdAI ONHO. 0.0 H.OH H.OO O.HH N.ON O N O OH O HH n2 O . 3 O _ O.NH O.ON O.ON O.NH N.HN O OOOO Huronuon OO OOOOOO . . , HN OO ON OH -ON nz O O O.HH H.ON. OION O-OH, O OH» O OO OHH OOH OO OO nz O OH 0.0 N.OH O.ON O.ON O.HN O HN HO NO NO OO nz O OH N.O N.HN N.OO O.OMIJOOAMOI, O 1 O ON OO NO ON nz O tosOOO OuOs O NOOO. O.O O.OH O.ON O.ON N.OO O O O O 0H O OH uz OOOHMOOU moowuom 3 OH H.O Imqu O.ON O.ON N.OH O _ _ OH ON OO ON ON uz O NH N.O O.NH H.OO O.ON O.OH O HN ON OOH OO OO uz O N O.OH O.ON O.NN O4NH. .NIOH O _ 3 ON Om OO OO OO uz O OH O.O O.ON .OOOO OOOH O.OH. O O HO Ov 0N om uz a o>oz an uwmocom OH HNOO. O.OH O.N 0.00 O.NH 0.0N. O O O OH O O nz o >Huoouu OOOOS OHOEOO rIqu :m1Mfl._ O.NN O.ON O.OH O.HN O OH ON OO HN ON nz O _.O.H . ...IO1N 1|“le N... .OI1OIO.. .IAN H._ _ N. .O__H_- O HO OOH OOH OO ON «2 O szO «O OOOz OOOO Ozom 3.3.3 382 225335 OOO> . OOOOOO AO.ucoOO OH.O OHOOH 125 ...O.Onoo ON O.O O.OH N.OH O.HN O.OO O 3 O ON OO NO NOH uz O ON O.O O.O O.OH N.OO O.HO O oHuoz nuoooz was No H HH ON OO OO uz O INMI. OOO. H.N 0.0 O.HH .OIHO OIoOI. O msoHOOOO on oooo>OHOO O O O OH NH uz O NN _ N.O O.N H.NH O.ON O.OO O O.OouscO OOOO OonoOmOHHNnOO , N O HN ON HO uz O OH O.O H.OH O.ON H.OO OION O ON OO OO OHH OO nz O ON O N.O H.OH O.HO O.OO O i O O OO OO OOH nz O , ON . O 0.0 H.OH N.NO O.OO O "Z O , OOON. W O.“ O.NM O.NN OAMW O ON O O N OH OH uz O OOOOOOO OOOOOOOO mm O.H m.~ 0.0H 0.0m 0.00 O m omcwum Ho auoaom Honmwm _ _ N O ON NO OO n2 ON O.O N.O O.OH O.OO O.OO O N OH OO OOH HOH uz O O N.OO OIOH O.OH WOO} O-ON O» a , OO OO ON OO NO nz O O O.OH O.ON O.ON O.OH N.ON O O NOOONOOO ou :oOuooo> , _ OH OO ON NH NO uz O NOOO. O.OH O.OH 0.0H O.OMH O.NN, O O ago No nOnusoocO . N O O OH NH uz IIOwI_ _m.Hmll O.OH O.HH 0.0H N.OO O ON OH OH ON NO nz O _ N . 444qu N O-NH OqOM O ON OO NN HN OOH nz O on: I an OOO> OOOO OzOO OOOOHO Ozoz zoOsONOOOzH OOOOOO AO.uooOv OH.O OHOOO . . .ULboo 126 O 0.0H O.OH O.OO 0.0H O.NN I O ,IIII, NOI NO NO NO mm NH N.O O.HN O.NN O.ON O.OH .IIII HH NN OO ON ON O OOOHOOOmOoOOOO nouoouo O ONNO. O.O O.OH OOOO O.OH O-ON .IIII: O N OH O O O OOH: OOOOOOOz OOOOOO O O.NH O.OH O.NN N.OH H.NN O illl. OH mm mm ON ON wow omoua muflcouuommo NH N.NH O.OH O.ON H.ON maqmm O OO OO OOH OO NO NH N.O O.HH O.ON H.ON O.ON ON ON NO NO OO O OH , O.O 0.0N Osmw, 0.0H OiO ,IIIIL . m Om HO mm cm a spam 09H... manage O OHOH. O.HH O.OH O.ON O.N N.NO O O HH O OH O OsOxnz NO o>oz OH O.O O.OH N.ON N.OH O OO O o o 0 O.N O 89 _rIIIe N OH ON ON OO O» o O no OO OH N.O O.NH O.ON O.OH OO.ON O Om” NN NHH1 IO OOH OH O.OH O.NH N.NN _mqmmli N ON O _ 3 OO OO HO ON NO O O.N O.ON N.OO O.OH .Imqqm O _ _ OH OO OO ON NN NH HOOO. H.N O.OH O.HN O.HH O.OO . m O O O NH 0 bommoooz omcocu o I'll o o 0 OH O O O NH N ON O.OH O.OO OH HN ON OH NO O out: OsoHOoOO OOHOOO runw: O-OH O-mulemqmm. .m.m4 0.0N OO HNH OO OO OOH O OZOO IO ”mm” OOOz OzOO OOOOHO Ozoz zOHaOaHeOz OOOOOO OO.OOoOV OH.O OHOON 127 ...O.Onoo ON N.O O.N O.NN 0.0N N.NO O , 3 O OH O: OO NO uz O ON 0.0 0.0 H.ON O.OO H.OO O , m e. om m? m: H? 0 3258500 NO conom OH OOHO. O.N N.O 0.0 0.00 O.OO O rIII._ H N O, HN OH .mm, O OHOOOHOOO ouos ON 0.0 O.OH H.HN 0.0N N.OO O .Ill O OH bN OO OO "2 O ON O.N O.O H.ON O.OO O.OO O . O ION OO NNH OOH “2 O OH OANH IOANH O.NH N.OH O.OO A ON ON NN OO HOH uz O OH OIO O.O O.NN O.NN O.OO O , O. NH mm mm mm uz a con uoouoo H Hooo. m.O O.N O. H O.NN 0.00 O H m .:O NH NH um U omcouIchH o OH w , O.OH O.NH 0.0H IOOHH O.OO O 3 _ mm Hm mH OOH mm 02 m moum «5::on o omcosu OH O.O O.NH O.OH O.NN ON.OO O NO HN OO OO OOH "2 O NN IO.O O.O .OH O.ON N.NO 3N . . OH OH IOO HO OOH uz O NH WOW 0.0 OIOH O.NO OOOOI 1w _ _ N HH ON NO» OH, uz O .IImI HHHO. OOO. N.O. O.OH O.O O.OO. OI O OHOOOOOOOO anoOoucHsOOOO , O, N O OI, HN "z N O IHN m6 O.O. de O.OH m6: a m n noouoou o coco N O ON NN NO "2 3 HO. 3.. dam... _.1dH__O.._nN_ .O...HN_ O.OO W NH HO OO OOH OOH uz O OzOO no OOO> OOOO OzoO OOOOHO Ozoz onaOOHstH OosOOO HO.oooOv OH.O OHOON 00.6.“:09 128 HH O.OH H.HH 0.0 O.OH O.OO O OO ON OH HO r....NOH uz O IN! 114N494 .10 «NH. ....a..O_ N._.. “H._ NqOO u :N NN HH mm m: wflz G 1:14; HOOO. . . “N4w.uulwnw . O Ow O NH N HO O mm an O OOOOOOO OOHOO rill! HH N.NN m6 N.O m6 aim u m Hdcompmm :30 .30» N OH . N OH 4 u w O.NH. n.0N @104 rme r OO OO OO NO NOH uz < . OH O.OH O.OH O.NN O.OH H.NN a ON O HO OO Ow n O Olduw O.N O.OH OOON 0.0N N.NN a . OH ON OO NO ON Omm O a: NmMH. O.N 05W N.NO” N.ON w.wN a o #38 mmmHon: d umfimmm H OH HH «O OH O.N.nwwNN O.ON O.OO N.OH u OOOOOO OOOO.O>oOOsH as O O Ow ON NO NN Inmzw O OH N.O O.OH O.OO O.NN O.NN O OH OO NNH OHH HO uz < OH H4O N‘OH N.ON O-ON O‘NN , O ON OO OO HO uz O 1% O.N N.HH N.OO N.ON OOH W O H N O ON uz a allm! mega. O.N wiuulMH .iN ..l.mIIII.WH Illwlw. N W ipchHz 0:» 39H: cwammumffi - O b OH N H "O O 1.104.. H.O w.HH HéN o.mN sz u mumcoanawm w:oE< OHQHSOB wuLuum “OH OO OO NO uz O ON 0.0 O.OH O.HO N.ON H.Om O . OH OO HOH OHH O nz . .< 225. um OO.ON, OOOz OzOO OOEHO Ozoz .‘ . OOHSOEOE OO.OOOO OO.OcoOO OH.O OHOOO 129 O O .c‘pcoo OH O.O O.OH O.O N.NN N.NO O OH OO NO HO OO "O O NN 0.0 O.N 0.0H O.OO 0.00 O O O O HN OO OO‘ u .Iqu OOO. OqO O.O .OJON N.OH 0.00 O OOOOOOO OO03 Oo N N O O NN n O TIN»! m.O N.O O.ON O.NN O.NO O OE Ergodupg. O.OOS OH O ON NN HO n O uuduw 0.0 :NqOH 0.0N NONN NOON O NN OO OO OHH NOH n O «H O.HH 1H.NH 1W4OH w;OH O.HO O ON OO OO OO OO uz O Id... 0.0H O.OH O.OH O.OH O.HO O OH ON ON ON OO nz O OOOOoOOOO map OO “O NONH. O.OH O.OH O.ON 0.0H N.OO O O N O O OH "2 O OOo: OoHOO O.OOHO IINH. OOOH O.NH O.NH O.OH OOOO O ON OH HN ON HO uz O O O_ O.OH H.ON 0.0N 0.0H O.HN O OO OO OOH NN NO uz O O OaO O.ON O.ON O.OHO H.ON O NN NO OO OO OO uz O _1IIW! N.O N.ON 0.0N m‘wH m‘wH O NH OO NO ON ON uz O _ O _ Nmom. N.Huw O.Omm WWW O.ONOH m.HNONH “O o OHOHSHOOO mHsONOOOOH .30» , H O O.HH N.NN 0.0N 0.0H N.ON O O OOON Ooz OHO OOOOOO OH N OO ON ON nz HH. H.“ .N.ON O.OO ‘wOuON O ON O HN OO ONH OO NO uz O EEO um NOE, OOOz OzOO 3.3.5 .552 zOHSaHNOzH OOOOOO OO.OOoOV OH.O OHOOO 130 O N.OO O.HH OO HO! dOO HO NN ON OH O OO n O. _ N, O.NO O.OH flO 0.0 H.Om O NO OH O O HO n O _O O _OOOO. O.nN O.NH O.N O.N OOOO O OOO OOOOOOHO OH O H O ON n O IIIW: O.mm O.NH m.O O.m N.NO O 29H: pGOEO>Ho>nH a: _ OO OH O O OO n O N.ON H.NH H.NH O.N H.NO O O OOH OO OO OO OOH u < 252 um mmsmw OOOz OEOO OONNHO 58 23.3333 O0.0000 Av.u=oov nH.¢ OHAOH 131 gelation to GodLthhers, Self and Home. Several items on the questionnaire were clustered into categories called "relation to God, other, self and home". Pastors and ex-pastors rated themselves on the items and their responses were computed by respective institutions (Figure 4.18; compare Figure 4.11). Pastors and ex-pastors in ministry were very similar across institutions. They tended to score themselves moderately hign on all four variables--3.6-3.9 (scale O-S). The ex-pastors in ministry from Institution C consistently rated themselves lower than others of that status whereas the same group from Institution D usually rated them- selves higher. Pastors were virtually identical on all variables except relation to home. Graduates from Institutions B and C rated themselves lower in that variable. Ex-pastors in secular employment, with the exception of those from Institution C, tended to rate themselves lower and sometimes considerably lower than their counterparts. However, the ex-pastors in secular employ- ment from Institution C consistently scored themselves highest on all four variables. Those from Institution B rated themselves lowest on all except relation to God. Summa y. The following statements summarize the findings in respect to institutions. 1. Most graduates took theological training either to enter the pastorate or for "whatever service" might be theirs. Institutions were dissimilar on the percentage of graduates who came for either reason . ZOHSBHBmzH Mm mzom 92 5am .méo doc 09 ZOHBSWm «mZOHEmUmmm .mmoemfimnxm Dz< .mmoemfim 31¢ whamflm 132 O O O O < ZOHSEOOOH O O O O < ZOOOOOOOOE O.N x O.N m.N \ 1” m.N O.N \ xx o.m Nom ‘\\0/ I Nam dam m'mnlxm ‘0 II \\ Aden O.N Zlnmlunm X s / 0.M O.N mHOu.deH ( / ®.m 0.: 0.: N.O N5 2.3m: 2.3m: mzom 0.0 onefimm mmmmeo 9H. onejmm a Q o m < onSBHemzH E Q o m < ZOHSBHemzH 9N 9N O.N w.N \\/ Com mlmlunm 'II'J ‘0‘-.. Ooh I a o \ / N.m / \ N.m O-O-xO ./ . , O O , . O O / x . O.O ,, . O.O aiming / III mcm \ mom whoammm I . . anuxm I t . < t o : 98933 a o 3 N.O N.OO 24m: 23m: 5mm 09 2893mm Q00 09 2055mm Aomuzv pcoshoamso HOHOomm :H myopmmmuxm u mnmuxm . Ammauzv pcogoaem >525“: 5” myopmmmnxm u znmnxm Aaamnzv mnopmmm I myopmwm . m I o madam 133 2. The number of graduates who had pre-seminary employment differed significantly across institutions. 3. Private study was the most valued instructional factor for graduates of each institution and special days were general- ly the least valued. Overall satisfaction with the seminary training program was moderate to good. 4. Each institution's faculty gave the most help to students during their training -- more so than administrators or faculty advisors. 5. The graduates of each institution rated themselves relatively effective in preaching, teaching, and pastoral visiting. They indicated further help could be used in people-building skills and in personal development and discipline skills. 6. Institutions were similar in that their respective graduates cited personal inadequacy as a church leader and an unhappy wife or family as leading factors which did or would cause departure from the pastorate. Finances ranked lowest in in- fluence for a career change. 7. 0n the variables relation to God, others, self and home, the pastors and ex-pastors in ministry from all five institutions rated themselves moderately.high. Ex-pastors in secular employ- ment tended to rate themsleves considerably lower with the exception of those from Institution C. TRENDS IN PRE-SEMINARY FACTORS Discernment of trends is another way of talking about perceptions of reality. But trends go further by implying a concept of direction. Some perception about past and present realities coupled with the notion of direction are useful pieces of information not only for curriculum refinements but also for long-range curriculum planning. The data provide information which will sharpen the image of reality and reveal some directions which arerelevant to curriculum development. The study covered twenty-four years which was broken into five clusters of graduates--1955-l958, 1959-1963, 1964-1968, 1969-1973, and 1974-1978. Computing the data by clusters provides a series of images about points in time. Comparing the images across time can reveal any trends. Pre-Seminary Full-Time Employment. What experiences do seminary students bring with them? Are most coming straight from college? Table 4.14 suggests that more students are attending seminary with full-time work experience than ever before. Over ten percent more of the 1974-1978 graduates had pre-seminary full-time employment than did the 1955-1958 graduates. The least number of graduates with pre-seminary employments was recorded between 1969-1973 when the percentage dropped to 40.52. Perhaps the Viet Nam War accounts for part of that drOp. A significant difference existed (.0041) between the five time periods. 135 Table 4.14 PRE-SEMINARY FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT ACROSS TIME SHOWING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRADUATES Graduates Full-Time No Full-Time Employment Employment 1955-1958 N = 62 N - 69 Z - 47.3 Z - 52.7 1959-1963 N - 74 N - 68 Z - 52.1 2 - 47.9 P-.004l 1964-1968 N - 91 N - 96 Z - 48.7 Z I 51.3 1969-1973 N - 122 N - 179 Z - 40.5 2 - 5949 1974-1978 N - 249 N - 185 Z . 57.4 Z - 42.6 While there has been an overall increase in graduates having pre— seminary full-time employment, it is difficult to call it a trend since fifteen years (1959-1973) of decline was followed by a large spurt--up 16.92 in 1974-1978. There may be a trend, but all that can be said from the data is that there has been a recent tendency for more graduates to have pre-seminary full-time employment. College Major. Since a college major indicates the area of study for about four years, it provides help in knowing what peOple bring with them upon entering seminary. Table 4.15 indicates that greater numbers of seminary applicants have natural science and social science backgrounds while fewer have a humanities or theology/religion/Bible base. O.OH O.N N. O.O O.OH H.Om O.OO OLOH N ON. MN m m NH ON and en ce nz ION. N.mH o.H m. c.N H.mH w.m¢ 0.0H 0.0H N MN. OO O H O OO OOH On On 'nz -OO. m.m~ o.a m. m. ¢.m~ . ~.n¢ c.m m.m N we. wm m H A cc mm ma CH nz Ice. O.NH N. o o N.NN o.<¢ N.n o.m N no. «N H o c an No Q N uz Ian. o.ma N.H o m.H m.m~ a.oc o.m m.m N mm. ma N o N am cm OH N uz Imm. mafiaomsnoo manfim Hwfiuo COHUQUfiUH 3H0: HGUfiflF—UQH GOHmddwm GOfiUflGGQ—a: GOCUHUW floflflflom DGUQD—umho . Hmfiuom Hoosdwsm OmoHoosk Hmfioom amusumz HZHB mmomU< mmfiflbgw NMONZHme .mO 203 WOSAOU OO.O «Hana Within the last ten years the percentage of natural science majors nearly doubled from 5.32 to 10%. The trend in social science was more gradual with a low among the 1959-1963 graduates of 5.7% to a present high of 16.82. The shift in the humanities was both sudden and recent. Graduates from‘l9SS-l973 averaged roughly 41-462 of its graduates from a humanities background, but 1974-1978 graduates drapped to 342 even though the actual numbers continued to increase. Nearly 302 of the 1955-1958 graduates had a theology/religion/Bible undergraduate emphasis; but the 1974-1978 graduates had almost half as many (15.92). The decline was gradual until 1969-1973 when it suddenly drOpped over eight percentage points. Other majors were recorded but the numbers reaponding were very small. The "other" column (write-ins) remained relatively stable. The trend is clear. Fewer, but still one in three, are coming from a humanities background, and fewer still, 15.9%, have a theology/religion/ Bible base. The two majors still account for 50% of the college majors of seminarians but that is a decline from over 702 of twenty-three years ago. Natural science and social science now account for nearly 272 of the undergraduate majors, double the 13% of the 1955-1958 graduates. ggasons for Attending#8eminary;_ Changes have occured over time as to why graduates had attended seminary (Figure 4.19). About 721 of the 1955-1958 and 1959-1963 graduates indicated it was to train for the pastorate. The percentage drOpped to 582 and 662 respectively for graduates of 1964-1968 and 1969-1973. The percentage of those who came to seminary intending to enter the pastorate dropped still! further for the 1974-1978 graduates, to 54%. ZI=N A‘z BIO-+74. m €=N Z.I CAI-69I E 17:” 2.2 89l-‘r79l 8 T=N A. €9I'6gI Z=N §°I 8§.-§§. ‘5‘ OI=N E'z 8A.-+7A. Egg: g=N Ant €AI'69I SOEE €=N 9"E 89.479. Sggfih O.O {go-6gI E2 0'0 8§.-§§. (é: [:3 M I 2 840-172” E—I g=N L'I ELI-69a 222% Z=N m 89%- Elf-tag: 0'0 €9.-6§. €=N g ZEBgc'ggI 0€I=N [9'62 94.-fiz. Eé 8§=N I g. 61: €Al-69l g > 217=N FA'zz 89.-479. g a 172411111 €9.-6§. 3 wz=n [Pet 9§.-§§. f? 172=N 17'9 (BO-472.. 52:52. 9I=N +7"; [CO-69. 5g, . OT=N 17'; 89:179. 5 g l'-: 9=N €017 €9I-6gl 5353‘ I=N 8' 8§.-§§. >4 §I=N 17. g ‘ 9A! .17!“ gg 9w 1'9 (gm-69. 3% 9I=N 9'9 ’89-‘179. am 8:15]: &.9 €9t-6gl :: L=N c' |9§.-§§. 6€2=N [3.17; E13 Bél-hAO 80I=fl 17' gg E § 89.479. IOTr—NFI'ZA H g; €9.-6§. 176=N lauté 9" egl-ggi E‘A‘RSSSRO‘SRR‘QSL‘S“ GEMXMHES Figure 4.19 REASONS FOR ATTENDING SEMINARY ACROSS TIME 139 At the same time the "whatever service" category ballooned from a low of 17.1% (1959-1963 graduates) to a high of 29.6% (1974-1978 graduates). One third of those who came between 1974 and 1978 had no clear vocational direction. While considerable less numbers are involved, there has been a sharp decline in peeple attending seminary in preparation for missionary service. Since 1968 there has been a 60% drop, from 8.62 to 3.4%. Those coming to prepare for a teaching career have remained steady at 5.42. There has been a very slight increase in the number of peOple seeing seminary as a foundation for doing graduate work. Roughly the same holds true for those who attended seminary as an attempt to resalve problems with their faith. Summary. Over one-half of the recent 1974-1978 graduates had full-time pre-seminary work experience compared to 40.52 of the 1969-1973 graduates. This represented a shift, but not necessarily a trend. Humanities and theology/religion/Bible as college majors decreased in popularity for seminary graduates over the years. Only 501 of the 1974-1978 graduates majored in those fields, down from over 722 for the 1959-1963 graduates. The majority (54%) of the graduates entered seminary to train for the pastorate, but that was down 11.72 from the 1969-1973 graduates, and down 18.12 from the 1959-1963 graduates. SUMMARY The study was designed to be a means of learning about the career experiences of graduates from five theological graduate schools. Five sub-sets of graduates were identified: (1) Pastors (2) Ex-pastors in ministry 140 (3) Ex-pastors in secular employment (4) Non-pastoral ministry (never a pastor) (5) Secular employment (never a pastor) In addition the data was computed so that the five institutions could learn what their own graduates were saying on a variety of factors. Finally, the study included graduates from 1955-1978. In order to deter- mine any trends, graduates were clustered into the following five sets: graduates of 1955-1958, 1959-1963, 1964-1968, 1969-1973, and 1974—1978. Thus, the findings were reported according to status (pastor, ex-pastor, etc.), institutions, and trends. Pastors, ex-pastors in ministry, and ex-pastors in secular em- ployment were similar on several factors. All attended seminary primarily to train for the pastorate building off an undergraduate major of either humanities or theology/religion/Bible. Pastors and ex-pastors were reasonably satisfied with their-seminary training, but ex-pastors in secular employment registered much lower satisfaction. In rating thirteen pastoral activities, pastors and ex-pastors indicated they were quite effective in preaching, teaching, and pastoral visiting. They also indicated that they needed more skills in deve10ping lay leadership, deve10ping and disciplining oneself, discipling peOple, conflict utilization and setting and achieving goals. Ex- pastors in secular employment generally rated themselves lower on the above than did pastors or ex-pastors in ministry. Ex-pastors in secular employment also ranked significantly lower in supportative relationships. Pastors and ex-pastors enjoyed the "freedom to preach and act as they saw fit" in the pastorate, but were least satisfied with "members' willingness to carry out their Christian witness in the world" and 141 "members' willingness to study and be trained". Of the twenty-five potential reasons for leaving the pastorate as a vocation, ex-pastors in ministry were drawn away from the pastorate by such things as attractive ministry opportunities. Ex-pastors in secular employment left more out of frustration citing such things as personal inadequacy as a church leader. Attractive financial benefits were least influential in departure from the pastorate. Graduates who had never been pastors constituted about 15% of the population. They were less certain about a vocational choice when entering seminary. Those who entered a ministry employment were satis- fied with their seminary training, but those who entered secular employ- ment were more dissatisfied. Never pastors tended to take more graduate work and to have more pre-seminary secular employment. Institutions were more similar than disimilar.. Most of their graduates came to train for the pastorate, but Institutions B and E accepted over half of their graduates who came for other reasons. Private study was the most valuable part of the training for graduates of all five institutions with special days valued least. Graduates from all institu- tions indicated they were reasonably effective in preaching, teaching, and pastoral visiting, but needed more skills in personal discipline and develOpment and in peOple building. Feelings of inadequacy as a church leader and an unhappy wife or family were the leading factors in considering a change or in actually changing vocations. Financial benefits were not influential. The last five years (1974-1978) has seen a 17% increase in the number of graduates who had pre-seminary full-time employment. Humanities 142 and theology/religion/Bible as college majors have seen a 22% decrease since 1963 but still account for one-half of the seminarians college majors. Social science majors and natural science majors have increased 11.1% and 5% respectively during that same period. The majority (54%) of the most recent (1974-1978) graduates entered seminary to train for the pastorate; but that was down 11.7% from the 1969-1973 graduates and down 18.1% from the 1959-1963 graduates. V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Theological seminaries seek to prepare their students for careers in various forms of ministry but primarily for the pastorate. These theological institutions frequently evaluate their curriculum and training in order to prepare students more effectively for their chosen careers. The present research is a follow-up study of 2,070 graduates of five such seminaries of like doctrinal tradition. The major purpose of the study therefore was to assist these five cooperat- ing institutions in curriculum decision-making toward the goal of greater effectiveness. Data was supplied by the graduates' responses to a questionnaire. The data provided information about graduates, institutions and trends. There were five sets of graduates: (l) pastors, (2) ex-pastors who entered a different form of ministry employment, (3) ex-pastors who took secular employment following the pastorate, (4) non-pastors who were in ministry-related employment but never in the pastorate and (5) non-pastors who were in secular employment with no pastoral experience. Data on the graduates is divided into three sections entitled "background experiences", "training experiences" and "ministerial experiences.” A fourth section deals with institutional perspectives. BACKGROUND EXPERIENCES What were the college majors of these seminary graduates? What reasons did they have for attending seminary? Could trends be deduced from this information? Knowledge about these background experiences was essential to discussion on implications and recommendations. 143 144 College Major. Most of the seminary graduates studied had under- graduate degrees in either the humanities or theology/religion/Bible. One might expect that an undergraduate program in theology/religion/ Bible would constitute a more adequate base for continuing parish ministry, but'this was not the case. Those who had a degree in the humanities were more prone to continue in the pastorate. Graduates who had earned degrees in natural science or social science tended §2£_to enter the pastorate; they were slightly more prone toward secular employment. Those who had a natural science degree and entered the pastorate tended to leave for secular employment. Those who entered the pastorate with a social science degree were more likely to continue in the pastorate than those with a natural science degree. Reasons for Attending Seminary. Most pastors and ex-pastors had attended seminary expecting to enter the pastorate and usually did. About 1 in 5 graduates stated "whatever service" as the reason for attending, and among these, there was a strong tendency to leave the pastorate. The graduates who did not specify the pastorate as a career choice when entering seminary were unlikely to choose it as a vocation upon leaving. Evidently pe0ple who attend seminary for reasons other than preparation for the pastorate probably do not become pastors. If they do, they probably do not remain in the pastorate. Over 70% of those who came to seminary to prepare for some form of Christian ministry other than the pastorate, did in fact enter some form of ministry employment. Trends. The college majors chosen by seminary students seems to have shifted, with a gradual decline in theology/religion/Bible and a more 145 recent decline in humanities. Recent increases were noted in social science and natural science majors. Only 1 in 6 now enters seminary with a theology/religion/Bible college major and l in 3 with a humanities major. At the same time there has been a vacillating but generally growing trend for seminary applicants to have no Specific vocational direction. Nearly one-third of the '74-'78 graduates fell in the category of "whatever service". Other reasons for attending seminary such as "to enter missionary service" and "to enter pastorate", have had proportion- ate decreases. Discussion. Knowledge about the background experiences of entering students can assist in making the curriculum refinements that will most effectively prepare the learner for ministry. One might question, for example, the greater degree of stability in the pastorate of those who had a humanities undergraduate major versus the theology/religion/Bible major. In what ways are seminary applicants likely to differ depending upon their college major? How might those differences influence course content, teaching methods, types of field education experiences, faculty guided study and career counseling? Answers to the above questions cannot be generalized since institutions vary in the types of and trends in college majors the graduates had. However, the questions should be asked. Seminaries exist primarily to prepare people for pastoral service and the majority of students come for that purpose: but a significant minority (33%) attend seminary for some ministry other than the pastorate and usually ends up in that alternate type of employment. The trend toward "whatever service" given as the major reason for attending 146 seminary will likely result in fewer graduates entering the pastorate. The seminary will need to assess how that trend will influence the types of courses offered and also the degree of ”fit" between the seminary's purposes in training and the applicant's purposes for attending. The background experiences of seminary applicants and the trends indicated by those experiences have direct bearing on curriculum decision making. Allowing for institutional differences, some recommend- ations are suggested. With the increase in seminary applicants having college majors in social science or natural science and fewer in the humanities, seminaries may wish to include elective courses in english, literature and history perhaps in conjunction with a local college or university. Survey courses in Bible and theology could be offered to compensate for the decline in theology/religion/Bible majors. Career counseling appears increasingly important especially since more are attending seminary to discover their vocational choice and need help in making career decisions. Furthermore, although natural science majors have doubled in the last fifteen years,graduates with that background tend not to enter the pastorate or they leave after they have entered. Again, the need for career counseling as underscored. Summary of Comparative Conclusions.- 1. Most of the seminary graduates had undergraduate degrees in the humanities or theology/religion/Bible, with a greater measure of stability in the pastorate associated with the former. Natural science and social science majors were more inclined to enter non-pastoral or secular employment. 2. The majority of the graduates attended seminary to train for -the pastorate. Those who attended for other reasons were less 147 inclined to choose the pastorate upon graduation from seminary. 3. Seminary students who had natural science and social science college majors have nearly doubled in the last ten years. Fewer.have humanities and theology/religion/Bible majors (down 11% and 8% respectively from ten years ago.). . 4. Fewer students (down 12% from five years ago) are entering seminary to train for the pastorate while more (up 10% from five years ago) are attending for "whatever service" might be theirs. 5. Career counseling becomes an increasing necessity in the seminary curriculum to cope both with the changes in students' under- graduate majors and their reasons for attending seminary. TRAINING EXPERIENCES . Shuller (1975) reported that most pastors and ex-pastors believed that their seminary training was inadequate in preparing them for the parish ministry. Others (Wilson 1971: Howe 1964; Fielding 1966) charge that seminary training is out of touch with the realities of the pastorate. The findings in the present study, however, do not indicate such general dissatisfaction. Rather, graduates indicated specific areas of dissatisfaction and specific areas of satisfaction. Satisfaction with Seminarerraining. Those presently in secular employment generally registered low satisfaction, although some indicated moderate dissatisfaction. The latter group, which accounts for only 1 in 10 graduates, may have been better counseled prior to entering seminary so they could have chosen other options. It is 148 evident that students entering seminary with no clear vocational prefer- ence tended not to enter the pastorate. Of those who did, about two- thirds left (Figure 4.5). On the other hand, those who entered seminary with a sense of call to pastoral service did indeed enter the pastorate and generally-reflected positively upon their seminary training. Thus, a clear sense of vocational choice upon entering seminary was a factor influencing the level of perceived satisfaction with the training. Value of Instructional Factors. Private study was valued more, and with a relatively high degree of consensus, than was any other instructional factor. Field education and classroom lectures had about equal value. The three constitute a potential environment for praxis-- a kind of learning which mingles cognitive competence with functional competence, reflection with action, covenant witness with covenant life and knowing theology with doing theology. Two instructional factors which rated moderate in value were classroom discussion and instructor interaction/relationships. More interaction of students and instructor on implications of classroom content vis a vis the realities of the pastorate would increase the reflective dimension of praxis which would in turn increase the level of perceived relevance of the classroom content. In addition, field education experiences need to be coordinated with and debriefed in light of classroom content. Chapel, special days, prayer meetings and faculty-guided study all rate 12! in value. One reason for this may be in the relatively small amount of time each is given in the’curriculum. Another reason may be that their themes do not relate to the sequential flow of classroom or field experiences. Or, they may not be valuable. Seminary Should Increase Its Emphasis. Pastors and ex-pastors also agreed that the seminary ought to give greater curricular emphasis to 149 people-building skills. That these are in high demand was expressed in the two activities, "developing lay leadership" and "discipling people". Next in demand came personal discipline skills as expressed in "personal development and discipline” and also in "setting and achieving goals”. The last strong request was for an increased emphasis in utilizing conflict constructively. All of the above were rated by graduates as important leadership activities within the church. Discussion. In reflecting on responses to training experiences as a whole, it is evident that a closer relationship between the church and the seminary is desirable. MacDonald expresses concern that seminaries may be "training scholars rather than shepherds" and "deve10ping mental wizards who are relational dwarfs" (l977:4). Improvement in pe0p1e building skills may begin with greater course emphasis on interpersonal communication and foundations in human relationships. Existing psychological classes could focus more on personal development and discipline. Leadership development for the church may begin with a knowledge base, but the Hebrew idea of sound doctrine suggests that it not end there. Orthodoxy must be wedded to orthopraxis without the option of divorce. Again, church experience is a necessary climate in which emerging leaders can develop. It is also evident that many who leave the pastorate may have discovered their lack of "fit" during training if the relationship to the church had been closer. The church itself may be the additional curriculum factor that can provide for personal and interpersonal development which cannot be completely accomplished within the present seminary training structure. The importance of the church's role in its relationship to a seminary 150 training program is summarized in the following statements. 1. If the leader is to serve effectively the community of faith, it may be unproductive or even unhealthy to isolate that person from church and community involvement for three or more years. 2. If ministry is reciprocal (i.e., all people gifted to minister to each other) then it follows that active involvement in the local church by the emerging leader can be one of the more positive environments for balanced nurture and growth. 3. If the local church has any role in the identification of those whom God has gifted for leadership and if the local church is to be involved in the develoPment of that gift, a substantial amount of time and a variety of shared experiences is required. 4. If the call to leadership goes beyond the subjective (individual) call to include a corporate affirmation, the person must be known by the local church and have been observed as to the presence or absence of biblical qualifications. 5. If the emerging leader is to incarnate Christ before the world, his presence in the world requires more than brief excursions. In addition to some course changes, and a closer working relation- ship with the church, the seminary can also consider ways to encourage greater instructor-student (learner-learner) interaction. The largely conceptual approach to classroom time must pay more attention not only to the eventual realities of the pastorate but to the more immediate realities of field education experiences. Instructors could join students in select field education experiences. 151 Considering that seminary applicants are college graduates, and the majority of them have had one or more years of full-time work experience, androgogical methods (Knowles 1970) can be more effectively utilized in a seminary program. Learners should be treated as adults with skills and insights rather than repositories for information. The use of androgogical methods may also enhance instructor-student relationships thereby modeling the peeple-building skills necessary for effective service. Summary of Comparative Conclusions. The following statements summarize the conclusions regarding the graduates' training exPeriences. 1. Pastors and ex-pastors in ministry were moderately satisfied with their seminary training whereas ex-pastors who entered secular employment registered low satisfaction with their training experiences. 2. Of the instructional factors listed, private study was judged most valuable for pastoral preparation with field education and classroom lectures next in value. Special days and student prayer meetings were least valuable. 3. Pastors and ex-pastors suggest that seminaries increase their emphasis on pe0p1e-building skills and on personal development and discipline skills. 4. A closer working relationship with the church can contribute toward identifying emerging leaders and helping them develop people-building skills for effective ministry. S. A greater concern for functional excellence will help strengthen academic excellence and encourage praxis. 6. Seminaries need to include courses relating to interpersonal skills, and personal discipline and development skills. 152 7. Employment of more androgogical methods can further strengthen student-faculty discussion and/or relationships. MINISTERIAL EXPERIENCES In the last decade many writers have noted a swing away from role orientation to a more interpersonal orientation of pastors. Roche (1968), for example, believes that pastors are becoming people within the community. Snyder (1975) states that pastors must see people as ends not means. Mead (1977) is more forceful in saying that the pastor as a person is the key factor in his ability to relate personally and deeply with parishners. Pastoral Activities: ‘Importance and Effectiveness. Pastors and ex-pastors were given opportunity to express areas of perceived effect- iveness and ineffectiveness in thirteen pastoral activities. They believe that they need to be more "pe0ple oriented" but lack the skills. They also indicate a need to develop themselves as people. The former relates to helping others and the later to their own development as individuals. When the discrepancy between what is important and the ability to perform widens too far, it becomes intolerable to continue in a vocation. The incompatability between the pastor's ability and the job requirements creates a role conflict. The lack of perceived "fit" pushes the pastor to look elsewhere for more suitable employment. Personal and professional inadequacy this lack of "fit", was one of the significant factors in career change decisions--i.e., for pastors to seek secular employment. Pastors who continue in parish ministry said they also struggle with the same problem but not to the same degree. Supportive Relationships. Jud, Mills and Burch (1970) reported that ex-pastors felt less supported and more isolated from lay leaders, 153 fellow pastors and denominational executives than did pastors. However, the research team did not determine the nature of the career choices (secular or ministry) beyond departure from the pastorate. Mills (1969), however, did differentiate career choices following the pastorate. He found that those who chose secular employment were those who had felt the least accepted (most alienated) in the pastorate. Mills' results thus compare favorably with those in the current study. In the list of nine specified relationships pastors and ex-pastors in ministry expressed an overall moderate satisfaction with the support level they received. Ex—pastors who entered secular employment registered significantly lower satisfaction (P=.012). Supportive relationship is a factor influencing both stability in the pastorate and the vocational choice of those who leave the pastorate. Satisfaction on Aspects of Pastoral Ministry. Results indicate that pastors and ex-pastors are least satisfied with parishioners on two counts: "the parishioners' willingness to carry out their Christian witness in the worldfiand'the parishioners' willingness to study and be trained". Pastors and ex-pastors also rated low their satisfaction with the amount of private and family time. Results from the study of Jud, Mills and Burch (1970) were identical to those in the current study. Pastors and ex-pastors were very satisfied with the freedom to preach and act as they saw fit. They felt moderately high satisfaction on the congregations' appreciation of their work and on their ability to make a significant contribution to the church. Reasons Might or Did Leave the Pastorate. Most career changes result from multiple influences. But the influences tend to differ depending upon the vocational choice following the pastorate. Ex- pastors in secular employment left for three basic reasons: personal 154 inadequacy, professional inadequacy and wife/family reasons. Usually they lacked options for further ministry employment. Jud's findings were similar. Reasons lgagt influential were finances, more attractive opportunities and flagrant sin. Ex-pastors in ministgy left the pastorate largely because of the attractive ministry opportunities available elsewhere. Many felt that the change was part of a long range plan indicating a growing tendency to move away from the pastorate but they did not feel pushed by external forces. Their general effectiveness in the pastorate may have brought Opportunities to continue in non-pastoral ministry. Although pastors were to hypothesize what might cause them to leave the pastorate, their responses do reflect their present perceptions. They believed personal inadequacy to be the most influential factor were they to consider leaving the pastorate. Flagrant sin, perhaps a sub-set of personal inadequacy, also rated high along with unhappiness of wife or family. Pastors said external forces such as finances, location or other job Opportunities would not weigh as heavily in their decision to leave. Length of Time in Pastorate Before Leaving. Jud, Mills and Burch (1970) reported that the mean length of stay in the pastorate for ex- pastors was 3.3 years but that the majority left within five years. Mills (1969) found that those who went into secular employment had a mean length of stay in the pastorate of 3.4 years; but he found that ex-pastors who went into some other ministry averaged 5.9 years in the pastorate before leaving. This researcher found comparable statistics. Fifty percent left the pastorate during the first four years and an additional 20% by the end of the sixth year. 155 It is difficult to build supportive relationships and a sense of oneness with the peOple if within the first few years of ministry there are overwhelming urgings to leave. Since 1 of 4 of them left within the first two years, many must have seen almost immediately that their pastorate was going to be short-term. Bustanoby (1977) says that even institutionalized relationships--for example with a denominational supervisor--produce higher levels of satisfaction and effectiveness in ministry than no relationships at all. Discussion. Perceptions of the ministry by pastors and ex-pastors may provide the most helpful information for the seminary, particularly since the seminary program is concerned largely with preparation for the pastorate, and because the pastors and ex-pastors have spoken about their experiences in that role. Seminaries can make a significant contribution to effectiveness in the pastorate by giving more currichlum attention to interpersonal skill development (people-building skills) and intrapersonal skill develoPment (personal development and discipline). How the two content areas are specifically curricularized will be the decision of each institution but several starting points are offered. One, encourage each faculty member to articulate the implications of his respective discipline for the above two areas. It could be done at the department level as well. Second, involve pastors, students and faculty in dialogue on how intra- and inter-personal skills may be more adequately developed in the seminary program. Third, include field education and/or the local church as contexts in which the skills can be nurtured. Pastors and field education coordinators should give special assistance to skill develOpment that relates to the student as a person and in his relationships. 156 Since a pastor's sense of support aids his continuity in the pastorate, it seems doubly important during the early stages of his pastoral experiences- Several sectors within the seminary and church may provide the pastor's need for support. First, the building of mutually supportive relationships during seminary can provide a base for continuing those skills in the pastorate. Observation and assistance during field education is another means of discussing a potential pastor's capacity to develop the kind of relations which will offer the sustaining support of others. Each of the seminaries c00perating in the research serves one or more denominations. All have some kind of oversight structure (i.e., presbyteries, consistories) for pastors. Special care and attention by these oversight groups of the new pastor provides a third approach. Alerting lay church leaders to the value of their supportive role can be helpful. Lastly, a fraternity of pastors may provide the needed peer support and interaction that encourages positive development. The above suggestions are valid not only for the pastor whose dedication to his pastoral vocation is growing, but also for the pastor who discovers that for whatever reason another vocation may be more compatible. Moreover, the pastor in career transition also needs support from one or more caring groups to make his transition smoothly. The need for people-building skills is evident from the pastors' and ex-pastors' low level of satisfaction with their parishioners' willingness to be trained, and to take their witness into the world. Additional skill develoPment may be one answer to the dissatisfaction. But what about the perceptual vantage point? Do role expectations of the pastor and congregation match, or clash? The closer the match the more likely both will be satisfied, and vice versa. Care is needed at two points. Seminary leaders should be conscious of the images of the pastorate and of the congregation which they convey to the students. Churches and pastors do well to explore early, even before actual employment, their respective images of the pastorate and role expectations. Summary of Comparative Conclusions. 1. Pastors and ex-pastors indicate need for greater skills in interpersonal relationships and personal discipline but are reasonably comfortable with their performance in preaching, teaching and pastoral visitation. Pastors who do not receive support in the ministry or who are unable to build supportive relationships tend to shift to a secular vocation. Pastors who sense support in the ministry or who have been successful in building supportive relationships tend to stay in the pastorate; or, if they leave, seek employment in another form of ministry. Pastors and ex-pastors express greatest dissatisfaction with parishioners' willingness to study and be trained for effective Christian witness. On the other hand, greatest satisfaction is expressed about freedom to act and preach as they see fit. Ex-pastors now in secular employment tended to leave the pastorate out Of a sense of personal and professional inadequacy. Ex-pastors who take other ministry employment are more likely to be drawn away from the pastorate by attractive ministry Opportunities elsewhere. The decision to leave the pastorate comes early in a career, the first or second year for many, but before the sixth year for most. 158 6. Pastors, students and seminary personnel need to bring their combined resources to bear on more effective training in peOple-building skills and personal discipline skills for seminarians. 7. The seminary, working with oversight groups, lay leaders in the church and a fraternity of pastors, can work to provide a stronger support base for the new pastor, the continuing pastor and also for those who choose to leave the profession. 8. Affiliated persons need to be involved in clarifying any existing role discrepancy between pastor and congregation. INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES Conclusions and recommendations are considered at three stages of experience: pre-seminary, in-seminary and post-seminary. Some statements can be generalized for all five institutions while others must be particularized for the appropriate institution. Pre-Seminary Experiences. The pattern of college majors for those entering the five seminaries was considerably dissimilar. The majority at Institution A, for example, had a humanities background. Institution C had less than 18% with that major, but had twice the percentage of peOple from natural science/mathematics backgrounds than did any of the other institutions. Mills (1969) did not find any statistically significant correlation with college major and career decisions. But institutions should be alert to the undergraduate majors of its entering students, for four years of college work at least partially forms the frame of reference of the entering seminarian. 159 The large majority (61-78%) of students who attended Institutions A, C or D did so to train for the pastorate whereas less than half who attended Institutions B or E did so for that reason. The latter two institutions also have prOportionately fewer graduates presently in the pastorate. The two institutions were possibly viewed by applicants as schools having a wider range of students than those drawn to the pastorate. .Whatever the reason, those who did not enter seminary for pastoral training tended not to be drawn to pastoral service as a career. However, the two institutions did not tend to have a higher percentage of ex-pastors, which suggests that the diversity of purpose for studying at seminary does not affect the stability of those who do enter the pastorate. ' Institutions B and E also had significantly larger numbers of their students come with pre-seminary full-time employment. The same two institutions registered considerably higher percentages Of graduates who never entered the pastorate. Those who worked full-time prior to seminary and entered seminary with no clear intention of entering the .pastorate tended not to enter the pastorate. On the other hand, across all five institutions, those who came to train for the pastorate tended to enter that vocation. In-Seminary Experiences. Private study was judged by graduates as the most valuable part of each institution's program. In addition the graduates rated moderately valuable the student interaction/relationships and gave a moderate value to faculty guided study. Thus, according to the ratings of their respective graduates, the institutions performed similarly on the above three instructional variablesv Institution A's graduates indicated that the instructor inter- action/relationship with students was less valuable but rated high 160 the field education. Lecturing was seen as valuable but at Institution B field education was rated lower. Institution C's graduates suggest that faculty-guided study was relatively valuable but they rank general satisfaction relatively low. Lectures and particular events (chapel, special days, student prayer meetings) were rated "high" by Institution D's graduates but they rated its faculty-guided study program "low". At Institution E general satisfaction was rated highest in value and classroom, discussion and field education were rated "low". On personal help received from seminary personnel the responses were similar in agreeing that "some" to ”quite-a-bit" of help was received from faculty members though less help had been received from faculty advisors. A big difference occurred in responses to administrative Officers. The smaller the institution the more personal help had been received by the student from administrators. The larger the school the more difficult it was for the administrative personnel to give adequate personal help. Post-Seminary Experience. The institutions were most similar when the effectiveness of their graduates in the pastorate was compared. While percentages varied, the rankings and lack of statistical differences suggest that all five institutions appeared equally effective in teach- ing, preaching and pastoral visiting. Using the discrepancy rating between importance and effectiveness, the five institutions were judged least effective in the following areas: setting and achieving goals, discipling people, utilizing conflict and developing lay leadership. Since no statistical difference occurred in any of the above four areas, it suggests that none Of the institutions are doing significantly better or worse than any other in those pastoral activities. 161 Institutions were rated similarly by their pastors and ex-pastors . respectively when it came to the various factors which would or did cause them to leave the pastorate. There was unanimous agreement that a sense of inadequacy would cause departure from the pastorate and near unanimity on the second most influential factor, an unhappy wife or family. A case of flagrant sin, too, would cause a career change. Finances and geographic location were not considered influential in changing careers. When computed on an institutional basis, relation to God, self, other and home had an interaction effect and therefore interpretation must be done institution by institution. Generally speaking, pastors and ex-pastors in ministry were very similar in all four variables, the main difference existing with ex-pastors in secular employment. Setting Institution C aside, the ex-pastors in secular employment scored considerably lower than their counterparts in'relation to God, self, and other." In "relation to home" they were also lowest except for Institutions C and E. Institution C revealed no substantial difference between the three groups of graduates and frequently ex-pastors in secular employment rated themselves higher in the variables in contrast to the same group in the other institutions. Institution C graduates who left the pastorate fOr secular employment had better scores in all four variables than their fellow graduates and far better scores than the same pOpulation in other institutions. The reason for the difference was not discernable from the data. Ex-pastors in secular employment had prOportionately lower scores on the variable "relation to God” suggesting that their present employment 162 may be regarded as a failure on their part and that leaving the pastorate resulted in a degree of alienation from God on that account. Institution B's ex-pastors in secular employment ranked low or lowest in all four variables suggesting that they were feeling some alienation in each case. Again, the cause was not discernable. Discussion. The data has shown the importance of discerning the seminary applicant's reason for entering seminary. Those who enter seminary without a clear vocational choice tend to register less satisfaction with the seminary program suggesting that it did not meet their needs or expectations. That is not surprising considering the pastoral orientation of the training. Rather frank counseling with applicants about their career preferences and their expectations from the school can help clarify from the beginning whether the three year program will be mutually beneficial. Graduates were’basically agreed on whether the institutions were effective or ineffective for the pastorate, on the real or potential causes for leaving the pastoral ministry, and on relation to God, self, other and home. Relation to God, self and others warrants further discussion. Seminaries usually have no direct relationship with ex- pastors who have moved to secular employment, yet, it is these peOple who appear to need the most help. Generally, they indicate more alienation from God, others, self and home. Seminaries can help. By talking to graduates who left the pastorate for secular work they could possibly ascertain reasons for any sense of alienation. These reasons could be shared in such classes as pastoral theology. Seminaries could also alert oversight groups, peer groups and lay leaders to the problems, encouraging them to provide extra support and care for the departing pastor, particularly if he plans to enter secular work. 163 Earlier suggestions about interpersonal skills develOpment and supportive groups no doubt apply here as well. The data indicates more similarity than difference for the five institutions. With strengths in common, they could perhaps enter into a mutual sharing that.wou1d minimize overlap and duplication, and lead to pursuing together the resolution of common problems. Where differences exist, the data indicates which institution may be strong in an area where another is weaker. Institution E, for example, could seek the assistance of Institution A to increase the effectiveness of its field education program. Such sharing allows for the benefit of a reciprocal ministry between institutions. Summary of Comparative Conclusions. l. Institutions differ on the types of college majors the seminary applicants bring with them but most are from the humanities and theology/religion/Bible. 2. Those who attend seminary with the purpose of training for ‘the pastorate tend to enter the pastorate. Those who attend seminary for other reasons tend to enter non-pastoral ministry or secular employment. 3. The seminarians valued private study more than any other instructional factor. Institutions differed on the relative strength and weakness of other instructional factors. 4. Seminarians received the most personal help from faculty members, least from faculty advisors and either more or less help from administrative personnel depending upon the size of the school. 5. Graduates across institutions shared similarities in areas where they were most effective (preaching, teaching and 10. 164 pastoral visiting) and where they needed more skills for additional effectiveness (discipling people, developing lay leadership, setting and achieving goals and utilizing conflict). Institutions did not differ on their graduates' potential or real causes for leaving the pastorate. Most would or did leave if a sense of inadequacy became too great or if their wife and/or family were unhappy. Pastors and ex-pastors in ministry were similar across institutions in the variables "relation to God, self, other" and "home". With the exception of Institution C, ex-pastors in secular employment tended to rate themselves lower on the four variables across institutions. Administrative personnel from each of the five institutions may wish to express appreciation to the faculty for the personal help they give seminarians and encourage them to continue. They may also wish to plan additional ways to serve the personal needs of the students. Thus, initiating and nurturing relationships can be modeled in seminary. Cross-instutional sharing of resources can strengthen the respective training programs. For example, the institutions are rated by their graduates on instructional factors. Each institution is able to determine where it is in need of improvement and seek assistance from another institution which is rated stronger. Institutions should begin a cooperative program of continuing education. Graduates of all five institutions indicated a need for developing lay leadership and other such pe0ple- building skills. Each institution need not develOp its own 165 private program to meet this need. Together they could determine the best person to do a workshOp, e.g., on develop- ing lay leadership. The workshop would be offered to all graduates at strategic geographic locations. Another workshop could be held six months later with another person and another tOpic. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Below is a summary list of conclusions which have been detailed earlier in the chapter followed by a summary of recommendations for the respective institutions to consider in building apprOpriate curricular responses from the conclusions. Summary of Conclusions. While most seminarians attended graduate theological school to train for the pastorate, in recent years an increasing number were attending with no clear vocational choice. A growing number of graduates--but still a minority--had a social science or natural science undergraduate major. A declining proportion had majored in humanities or theology/religion/Bible. However, differences existed across institutions. Most who entered seminary to train for the pastorate did enter the pastorate. Those who had no clear vocational choice when entering tended not to enter the pastorate. An increasing number had no clear vocational choice when entering seminary. Most pastors and ex-pastors in ministry employment were moderately satisfied with their seminary training but their experiences in the pastorate revealed felt needs for greater emphasis on pOOple-building skills and on personal discipline and develOpment skills. They felt best equipped for teaching, preaching and pastoral visiting. Agreement existed across institutions. 166 Supportive relationships during a pastorate were important for those continuing in the pastorate or in another form of ministry. The ones who lacked supportive relationships tended to enter secular employment following the pastorate. Pastors and ex-pastors were in agreement that the greatest satisfaction for them in the pastorate was their freedom to preach and act as they saw fit. Their greatest dissatisfaction came in relation to the degree to which parishioners' were willing to be equipped or to participate in the ministry of the church. Seventy percent of those who left the pastorate did so in the first six years, but for different reasons. Ex-pastors who entered secular employment left out of a sense of personal and professional inadequacy. Agreement existed across institutions. Summary of Recommendations. From the summary list of conclusions a number of recommendations can be Offered. They are not intended to be exhaustive but are suggestive and directional. Seminaries need to assess the background experiences that applicants bring with them and be alert to any shifts that may be occurring within those backgrounds. Certain assumptions are made about the entering class regarding their undergraduate training as well as their purpose for being in seminary. Seminaries should re-examine their assumptions and adjust course content and procedures accordingly. Uncertainty of vocational choice is increasing among entering seminarians. Thus, more career counseling may be necessary to help these peOple clarify their goals. The data show that those who had no vocational choice when entering seminary and then chose the pastorate, tended to leave the pastorate in greater prOportion than those who had the pastorate in mind when in training. The seminary environment should 167 not put pressure, implicit or explicit, on these people to enter the pastorate. It may even be appropriate to gently try to dissuade them so that if seminarians chose the pastorate as a vocation it will be a ~ clear, definitive choice of their own. Graduates of all institutions expressed the need for people-building skills as well as personal discipline and develOpment skills. Supportive relationships were also seen to be important. The seminary may respond at several levels. It may need to expand its offering of courses in the areas Of personal and interpersonal development. Use of andragogical methods will allow for greater modeling of interpersonal relationships enhancing classroom effectiveness of that content. Field education should have some goals that relate to inter- personal relationship skills and personal discipline skills. Local pastors who have seminarians in their churches can provide role models by building closer relationships with these seminarians. Seminary personnel may also plan ways to relate more personally with students. Continuing education opportunities can provide, at least in some measure, treatment of topics that relate to the pastor as a person and to the pastor in relationship to his parish. Improvement at these two levels would tend to relieve some of the frustration the pastor feels when the congregation does not fulfill his expectations of their role in the ministry of the church. The early years in the pastorate are the most crucial. Denominational leaders, oversight groups (presbyteries, consistories), peers and lay leaders need to be encouraged to provide a network of supportive relationships for the new pastor. Personal and professional inadequacy problems, faced early by the new pastor, are best resolved in the midst 168 of support groups. The same support groups may also help those not gifted for the pastorate to make the transition out of that ministry with minimum disruption for all concerned. Where institutions are similar they can look for shared ways to maximize their similar strengths or overcome their similar weaknesses. One concrete way of responding to shared weaknesses is to develop a cooperative program of continuing education. Where seminaries are different they can look to one another to develop and build from the wisdom of each other as each has need. In addition, all must be sensitive to the church which they seek to serve. Seminaries exist to provide leadership for the church and the church exists to fulfill the purposes of God. Church and school, therefore, must maintain dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual trust and Openness so both can carryout their purposes most effectively. Both bodies must realize that - Even in its specific task, which is also its primary task, of preparing men and women for ministry in our church, we are involved in a quest for the mind of Christ for our day. And this does not divide us but unites us, for this is the role Of the total Christian community: lay, ordained ministers, scholars of the college. No element of our constituency is rendered superflous by that quest, nor given a secondary role by that quest. We need each other . . . For this quest is a community affair. (Hay 1979:127-128). This research study aspired to further the quest. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ALUMNI QUESTIONNAIRE ALUMNI QUESTIONNAIRE warm. This questionnaire is an opportunity for you to help your seminary do a better job of preparing men to be pastors. Please be frank and clear in answering the questions. We will share with you the findings of this project. 1. YOUR PERSONAL HISTORY 1. 2. 3. 4. Year of birth N ear? The basic degree you received from seminary was a D B.D. a M. Div. :3 ILA. [:1 Diploma :3 Other I: Did not graduate Nationality-at time you received degree a North American: [:1 Other Native language B English D Other Your college major was in D Natural science, math :3 Engineering, technical :3 Social science (psychology: sociologyID Social work, counseling 3 Humanities (e.g. language, history) E Education ’ D Theology/Religion/Bible D Other (please specify) Major field (s) you have pursued since seminary in a serious way . . . a No formal education beyond seminary :3 Engineering a technical D Natural science a math mSOcial work, counseling D Social science (psychology, sociology): Education CZ! Humanities (e.g. language, history) D Other D Theology/Religion/Bible (please specify) D None Your formal education (if any) beyond seminary would be equivalent to 5 Less than one full-time semester of study a One semester to one year of full-time study . a One to three years of full-time study a More than three years Any advanced degree (a) you have earned Degree Date Church you serve in or attend regularly can be described as D Rural: C: Village: D Suburban: D Urban: G Inner-City: 3 Not Attending Church Regularly C3 “110 D Female D I never married D I married during seminary D I married prior to seminary :3 I married after “II-1n“? 169 170 12. Iemnow =3Not Married DSeperated D Married D Divorced :3 Widowed D lie-married 13. My father's occupation was/is D Minister D Other (please specify) As best you recall, what were your major concerns while you were in seminary? that are your major concerns now that you are out of seminary? le all desire to be faithful in the ministry to which God has called us. Iould you briefly define what you mean by faithful ministry? Please give us an example of where you have been particularly effective in ministry in the past year. _ 171 Ias your pre—saninary full-time employment similar to employment you had during saintly (i.e.. the same professional field)? I: Yes D No D Not Applicable. No pro-seminary full-time employment fies your pre-seminary full-time employment similar to employment you have had since suinary (i.e.. the same professional field)? D Yes :3 No D )lot'Applicable. No pre-seminary full-time employment he your employment during seminary similar to employment you have had since seminary (i.e.. same professional field)? D Yes I: No D Rot Applicable Arman SEMINAR? Iota the example below. After graduating from seminary. Smith's first employment was in "secular" work for about one year. followed by full-time doctoral study for two years. (Note: The formal education box is checked and "two years doctoral study“ written on the appropriate line.) The second employment was on a pastoral staff for two years. By following the arrows you eventually come to the present employment. a church where Smith has served for six years thus far. After noting the example. continue to next page. searchers NON-PASTORAL MINISTRIES 'SECULAR' theck 1: (Including Pastoral (Such as Missions, (Agency does not formal Staff) Chaplaincy. Non- exist primarily Education ministerial Church to serve church pursued Staff) comunity) Years Years Years a First Ion-Pastoral mum-em: Church llinistry Secular l Gals W [2] Second ' W Non-Pastoral Hinistry Secular nird , Ion-Pastoral Wt Church Ministry I Secular fourth lion-Pastoral uployment Church 4 ministry Secular fifth Ion-Pas toral bployment Church 6 ministry Secular BEFORE SEMINAR? “.— 172 mymmrmugpmxc Nature of full-time employment. was it with a Number of Sumter only work is 39:. considered Secular or Years full-time. (e.g. teacher. drafts- Christian men. etc. If no full time employ- organization? ment before seminary write ”none") . (Specify) wuss SEMINAR! A. Please describe your seminary employment. full or part-time. Note: this item refers to employment/work not required by the seminary. The next item deals with seminary field education/ Qiristian work requirements and should not be included here. Please indicate the nature Secular or Approximate of your work Christian numbers of hours organisation per week I. Seminary Field Education/Christian work experiences (required and voluntary) . . . Describe below. (:1 Religious Service (please specify the nature of the service) a Social Service (please specify the nature of the service) Motion Received a Yes a No a In part Considering the sum total of your work/employment/service experience during seminary, how many hours a week (averaged across your seminary career) were spent in activities which related to helping you prepare for ministry. (Average hours per week during seminary) F ease Read Carefull On this page please chart your full-time work opportunities since suinary using the same method of arrows and numbers in the appropriate spaces. full year (e.g.. 2 years and 6 months becomes 2 years: 2 years and 7 months becomes 3 years). 173 Round off to the nearest If you considered the pastorate as the focus of your work experience even though part of your salary may have come from elsewhere to subsidize your pastoral ministry. check the “pastorate" column. me MOM-PASTORAL MINISTRIES 'SECULAR" Quack if (Including parish/ (Such as non-ministerial (Agency does not formal ministerial staff) . church Staff. Missions. exist primarily education Chaplaincy) to serve church pursued connunity) Years Years Years First . Mon-Pastoral hployment Church Ministry Secular Second Mon-Pastoral Employment Church Ministry Secular Third lion-Pastoral uployment Church Ministry Secular Fourth Mon-Pastoral hployment Church _ Ministry Secular Fifth lion-Pastoral f-ployment Church Ministry Secular Sixth . Mon-Pastoral ”layment Church Ministry Secular Seventh (Ion-Pastoral hployment Church Ministry Secular If more space is needed. use additional sheet 174 11W Ihich of the purposes listed below most nearly represented your principal reason for attending seminary? (Check one) prepare for the pastorate prepare for missionary service prepare for seminary teaching prepare for college teaching prepare for high school teaching obtain theological training for whatever service might be mine obtain theological training as a basis or background for further graduate work in a field other than theology Io seek the resolution of problems confronting my own Christian faith Other (please specify) 3338‘??? Ihile in seminary the degree to which various people helped you with personal matters: (check one space for each item - leave blank if none applicable) V28! HUGE QUIT! A BIT SOME V23! LITTLE President. Dean or Administrative Officer Faculty/Professor (other than adviser) Psychiatrist. Psychologist or Physician Secretary or clerk at Seminary Other employee at Seminary Other adult living in town. not HI llllllll II III IIIIHH II III llllllll II III IIIIHH l I Other (specify) lumber of faculty members I felt I knew personally: O: l: 2: 3: 4 51 6 or more. 175 From the list below circle the number which represents the degree of helpfulness that item has been in your development. V!!! LITTLE VILDABLE VALUE TO ME TO ME Classroom Lectures O l 2 3 ' 4 . 5 Classroom Discussions 0 l 2 3 4 S Instructor Interaction/Relationships O l 2 3 . 4 5 Student Interaction/Relationships O l 2 3 4 5 Private Personal Study 0 1 2 3 4 5 (studying for classes) Field Experience/Christian Service 0 l 2 3 4 5 Chapel 0 l 2 3 .4 5 Special Days ' O l 2 3 4 5 Student Prayer Meetings 0 l 2 3 4 5 Faculty Guided Study 0 l 2 3 4 5 Other 0 l 2 3 4 5 please specify VERY V33! DISSATISFIED SATISFIED My general level of satisfaction with my seminary training 0 l- 2 3 4 S 176 111 XDnBaAIIIIUD£§_AHD_ACII¥IIIES On the following items circle the number that best represents the way you see yourself. murmur warms one 09”! .I sense God has called me to my present station in life 0 l 2 . 3 4 5 Personal study of the Scriptures is a part of my daily activity 0 l 2 3 4 5 Private prayer is a daily practice 0 l 2 3 4 S I meet regularly with God's peeple for worship and prayer 0 l 2 3 4 5 I have close personal friends in the congregation 0 l 2 3 4 5 Daily I am conscious of bringing my life into obedience with the Scriptures O l 2 3 4 5 1 I am pleased with my efforts to share the gospel with others 0 l 2 3 4 5 God's care in my life gives me a sense of freedom from panic or despair O l 2 3 4 5 My relationship with God has been pro- gressively closer over the years 0 l 2 3 4 5 I am satisfied with the vocation to _ which God has called me O l 2 3 4 5 Horld mission-mindedness is one of my strengths 0 l 2 3 4 5 I exercise good stewardship in . . . . . . Myspiritual gifts 0 l 2 3 4 5 ...Hy‘finlncu O 1 2 3 ‘ 5 .OeeWM' 0 1 2 3 ‘ 5 J . ..My lifestyle as a whole 0 l 2 3 4 5 . . . The priorities I demonstrate A O l 2 3 4 5 1§7 On the following items circle the number that best represents the way you see yourself. I make friends easily I feel supported by others in my vocation I am more firmly committed to the historic Biblical faith than ever before My present ministry/vocation gives me fulfillment/satisfaction I feel that I am continuing to grow and develop as a person My skills and competencies as a professional are increasing I would enjoy further educational opportunities I need to evaluate my own limitations more realistically Daily I am aware that my life is to be one of service to my Creator I am.a good listener I am able to handle conflict constructively My relationship to the church lay leaders is friendship. fellowship. and cooperation I am a good enabler - help others to discover and exercise their gifts I work on initiating relationships with non-Christians I feel confident and adequate for my task (omit any of the following if non-applicable) My marriage glorifies God At least one 3-4 hour block of time a week is spent specifically in family activity My spouse is satisfied with the degree to which I meet her (his) personal needs Conflicts with my spouse are recognized and resolved Our family regularly shares together in the scripture and in prayer I have good rapport with my children 0 .Vll! UNTIUE_ 0! MB 0 l O l O 1 0 l O l 0 l. O l 0 l 0 l O l 0 l O l O l O l O l 1 11mm an 4 5 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4 s 4. s 4 5 l78~ You are coming down the home stretch. Your patient help will benefit future generations of seminary students in preparation for ministry. PASTORS AND FORMER PASTORS READ THIS. .If you are serving or at one time served in a church pastorate or on a ministerial staff (meaning you wrote in the “pastorate” column at least once on page 5) please fill out the. peg ges marked in the upper right hand corner as PASTORS I: FORMER PASTORS they include pages ll-l4. NEVER IN THE PASTORATE? READ THIS. If you have never served in a church pastorate or on a ministerial staff (meaning you did not write in the “pastorate" column on page 5) please skip to the last page (page 15) and respond to the remaining questions. . PASTORS nun “9 ' _roamsa PASTORS The following list of skills and activities for pastoral ministry is repeated three times. You are first asked to rate according to importance. secondly. according to your personal effectiveness and. finally. according to needed change. In this first list indicate by circling the apprOpriate number how important these items are for effective pastoral ministry. MOT VERY V28! IMPORIANT IMPORTANT Administering and Organizing . O l 2 3 4 5 Building local community relationships 0 l 2 3 4 5 Counseling * 0 l 2 3 4 5 Developing and disciplining oneself personally O l 2 3 4 5 Developing lay leadership 0 l 2 3 4 S Discipling people 0 l 2 3 4 s Sffecting change 0 l 2 3 4 S Pastoral evangelizing 0 l 2 3 4 S .Pastoral visiting O l 2 3 4 5 Preaching 0 l 2 3 4 5 Setting and achieving goals 0 l 2 3 4 5 Teaching 0 l ' 2 3 4 S Utilizing conflict constructively . O- l 2 3 4 5 This same list is repeated below. we would like for you to indicate ypur effectiveness in these areas from your experience in the pastorate. MDT V23! V23! EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE Administering and organizing o 1 2 3 4 5 Building local community relationships 0 l 2 3 4 5 CDunseling 0 l 2 3 4 5 Developing and disciplining oneself personally O l 2 3 4 5 Developing lay leadership 0 1° 2 3 4 5 Discipling people 0 l 2 3 4 S lffecting change 0 l 2 3 4 5 Pastoral evangelizing O l 2 3 4 5 ‘Pisions AND 18° . FORMER PASTORS Pastoral visiting O l 2 3 4 5 Preaching ,0 1 2 3 4 5 Setting and achieving goals 0 1 2 3 4 5 Teaching 0 l 2 3 4 5 Utilizing conflict constructively O 1 2 3 4 5 Considering the contemporary society and needs in the church. the seminary should igcrease its emphasis on the following. IO! AT V33! ALL MUCH Administering and Organizing O l 2 3 4 5 Building local community relationships 0 l 2 3 4 5 Counseling 0 l 2 3 4 5 Developing and disciplining oneself personally O l 2 3 4 5 Developing lay leadership 0 l 2 3 4 5 Discipling people 0 l 2 3 4 5 Bffecting change. 0 l 2 3 4 5 Pastoral evangelizing 0 l 2 3 4 S Pastoral visiting . O . l 2 3 4 5 Preaching . 0 l 2 3 4 5 Setting and achieving goals 0 l 2 3 4 5 Teaching 0 l 2 3 4 5 Utilising conflict constructively o ‘l 2 3 4 S bnsroas AND ml FORMER PASTORS he a present or former pastor. please indicate your level of satisfaction on the following items ‘ VVER! . V28! DISSATISFIED SATISPIZD Iembers‘ willingness to study and be trained a l 2 3 a s Preedom to preach and act as you see fit 0 l 2 3 4 5 The amount of time you have for famdly and private life - O l 2 3 4 S The congregation's appreciation of your work 0 l 2 3 4 S . Your progress toward life goals 0 l 2 3 4 5 Possibility that you can make a significant contribution to the vitality and mission of ' the church 0 l 2 3 4 5 Your salary and living arrangements 0 l 2 3 4 5 Members' willingness to carry out their Christian witness in the world 0 l 2 3 4 S The opportunity to provide creative leader- ship in the church 0 l 2 3 . 4 5 The degree to which the work utilizes your strengths rather than your weaknesses as a minister 0 l 2 3 4 5 members willingness to enter into meaningful Biblical worship 0 l 2 3 4 5 Among the following. who helped you. gave you support and encouraged you the most during your pastoral experience LEAST HOST . SUPPORTIVE SUPPORTIVE Fellow Pastor(s) within your denomination O l 2 3 4 5 Pellow Pastor(s) in the Reformed tradition 0 l ,2 3 4 5 Pastor(s) outside your denomination and not - in the Reformed tradition O l 2 3 4 5 Your denominational executive(s) or leader(s) 0 l 2 3 4 5 Your spouse 0 l 2 3 4 5 Lay leader(s) in your congregation 0 l ' 2 3 4 5 Other(s) on your church staff (if any) 0 l 2 3 4 5 Close friend(s) not included above 0 l 2 3 4 5 Seminary faculty or staff 0 l 2 3 4 5 132 - you to lease the pastorate? PASTORS AND FORMER PASTORS To what degree might the following factors cause you to leave the pastorate or dis c. l. Inadggggte salarv or living arrangements (Check.one box for each its-l?”m # LITTLE 50H! MUCH “MUCfi 2. Serious conflict with colleague(s) over job respgnsibilities or other matters. 3.- Opportunity arose to do specialized work or training. 4° life or family unhappy. S. Pelt.personal inadequacy as church leader. 6. Unable to relocate in ministry when move became ._;__JIS£IIEIVL 7. Pumily would greatly benefit by move. e, serious conflict with laymen over how to conduct church affairs. 9. crisis in personal life made a move necessary; lo. Uncertain of own vocation to ministry. ll. Higher salary or fringe benefits offered. l2. Disillusioned with the church's relevance to .....nrmhlsms.of_moda=n unxld l3. lealth problems made a change necessary. 14. Church coerced move by making things ”too hot" for you. ls. Opportunity arose for larger ministry with ll. Change coerced by denominational leadership. ~ 17. Change was a planned step in a long-range g.=g.z also- ll. hora-desirable region or community. 19. Trouble among parishioners interfered with 20. To improve that church (or organization) seemed .h___l_hflifllflfls tRSR- 21. Tour own personal faith changed. 22. Church did-not take your leadership seriously. 23. Didn't enjoy the work of the pastorate. 24. very attractive type of work offered. 25. Hy involvement in flagarant sin. 24. Other (please specify) 183 Would you please respond to a few open-ended questions? In recent years. which two publications (books or periodicals)_have been most influential in shaping your shgglggiggl views? (1) (2) which two publications (books or periodicals) have been most influential in shaping your views of public affairs? C1) (2) iflhich two authors or lecturers have most influenced your own ideas? (1) (2) from the standpoint of your career what do you recall from your seminary training as having been: . ‘ . host beneficial? Least useful?’ In one sentence. what would you like to tell students presently in seminary? Share any additional comments you may have. THINK YOU. "Items l-24 on page 14 have been reprinted with permission from Ex-Pastors: Men Leave the Parish Ministry by Gerald J. Jud et al. (New York: Press. .1970) .' Copyrignt©1970 United Church an... Wh The Pilgrim APPENDIX B GUIDE FOR SCORING QUESTIONNAIRE 10. 11. 184 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCORING QUESTIONNAIRE Use only No. 2 lead pencil. Substantially blacken circles but do not become obsessed. Do not fold, bend or tear scoring sheet. Generally, if a question is not answered leave it blank on the scoring sheet. Some exceptions are noted on the first five pages. Note that in each column on the scoring sheet, the first number is I! H a 0 . Anytime 3 date is given (e.g. 1950) only the last two digits will will be recorded; i.e. blacken the "S" and "0" in the respective columns. Only 1 (one) space/circle is ever to be blackened in any given column, never two spaces. A column may be left blank, i.e. none of the spaces blackened. If you cannot solve a problem, paper clip the scoring sheet to the questionnaire and keep it separate for special attention. The first several pages have some tricky spots so use extra care. After you catch on it will go more smoothly. Work quickly but carefully. By observing all the check points errors will be discovered at the earliest possible time. You are now ready to begin with Step 1 on the upper left part of your questionnaire which is your guide in scoring all the question- naires returned. 185 SCORERS GUIDE Steps 1. Your seminary number is . Blacken this number in columns 1, 81, 161. The subject (respondent) number is located in the upper right hand corner. If none is there, find the last to be numbered and continue the sequence. Put the subject number (4 digits) in columns 2-5, 82-85 and 162-165. In column 80 blacken the "1". In column 160 blacken the "2". In column 230 blacken the "3". Leave column "6" blank on the scoring sheet. Now begin with item #1 on the questionnaire. When a year is given, record only the last two digits. For example, the year 1963 would be recorded as a "6" in the apprOpriate column and a ”3" in the next column. When boxes (or blanks) are checked, each box is given a numerical value beginning with the number "1". If the boxes are vertical on the page they are numbered from top to bottom with the tOp box given the number "1". When boxes appear horizontal they are numbered from left to right. Note item 7 on page 1 of the questionnaire. Score as follows: 1=A masters degree ( of any kind) 2=A doctoratal degree (of any kind) 3=Any other degree =no response Note item 13. This item should be scored in column 24. Check for any errors at this point. The balance of page 2 is not to be scored. Column 25 l=Full-time 2=No Full-time 1=Secu1ar 2=Christian 3=Both Column 27-28 Use actual numbers given-if more than one, add and record the total (remember that a number less than ten must be recorded as 03, OS, 08, etc.) Column 29 1=Worked 2=Not worked 186 Column 30 1=Secu1ar 2=Christian 3=Both Column 31. 1: Less than 10 hours 2= ll-20 hours 3= 21 or more hours (Record average if more than one employment recorded) 10. Column 38 should be blacked for the third item on page 4. Check for any error. Proceed to page 5 when ready. 11. For Page 5. Determine status of respondent and score as follows: 1: Pastorate: present employment is pastorate (disregard any previous employment) 2= Ex-Pastor in Ministry: had once served in the pastorate but presently in non-pastoral ministry. 3= Ex—Pastor in Secular Employment: Had once served in the pastorate but presently in secular employment. 4= Non-Pastoral Ministry: never served in a pastorate and present employment is non-pastoral ministry. u: II Secular: never served in a pastorate and present em- ployment is secular. Column 40 1= Formal Education 2= No Formal Education Column 41—42 Record actual number of employments Column 43-44 Record total number of employment years (Add together if necessary) 12. For page 6 Record as follows: l= Very Little 2= Some 3: Quite a Bit 4= Very Much The last item on page 6 should correspond to column 59. Check for any errors. 13. Score pages 7-10 according to the numbers actually circled by the respondent. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 187 Only pastors and ex-pastors scored pages 11-13. If they are a pastor or ex—pastor (by the criteria on page 5) continue scoring. If they do not qualify as a pastor or ex-pastor but completed pages ll-l4 anyway ignore their responses. The scoring for the question- naire is completed. Usually only pastors and ex—pastors will score pages 11-14. Record their responses as given. Score pages 11-13 according to the actual numbers circled by the respondent. The last item on page 11 should correspond to Column 135. The last item on page 12 should correspond to Column 153. The last item on page 13 should correspond to Column 179. Check for any errors. Score page 14 as follows: O=None l-Little 2=Some 3=Much 4=Very Much Item 25 on page 14 should correspond to Column 204. Check for any error. Check Colunn 39. If the "2" or "3" were not blackened the scoring for the questionnaire is complete. If the "2" or "3" were blackened (indicating the respondent was an ex—pastor either in ministry or secular employment) turn to page S of the questionnaire. Total the number of employment years in the church and record in Columns 205 and 206. Remember to use "04" or "09" if the number of years is less than ten. Recheck. Make sure all respective circles are completely blackened. Thank you for your valuable assistance. APPENDIX C PASTORS' AND EX-PASTORS' OPINIONS: EFFECTIVENESS IN PASTORATE SHOWING SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES 188 PASTORS' AND EX-PASTORS' OPINIONS: IN PASTORATE SHOWING SIGNIFICANCE OF D BETWEEN GROUPS EFFECTIVENESS IFFERENCES Ineffective Some Effect Very Effective Scale 0 1 2 3 4 s 3? Administering Pastor N= 6 35 108 307 254 74 and 8 4.5 13.8 39.2 32.4 9.4 . Organizing Ex-Pastor N= 0 8 14 43 45 14 8 Ministry % O 6.5 11.3 34.7 36.3 11.3 ‘4 Ex-Pastor Na 1 9 8 7 15 4 Secular % 2.3 20.5 18.2 15.9 34.1 9.1 Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 Pastor N= 15 62 186 290 179 67 3? Local Community % 1.9 7.8 23.3 36.3 22.4 8.4 , , Ex—Pastor N= 1 6 16 42 42 14 p Ralammsmps Ministry 8 .8 5.0 13.2 34.7 34.7 11.6 B Ex-Pastor N= 2 6 6 16 9 7 t,” Secular % 4.3 13.0 13.0 34.8 19.6 15.2 Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 , pastor N= 2 16 92 286 304 84 1? % .3 2.0 11.7 36.5 38.8 10.7 Counseling Ex-Pastor N= 1 3 13 35 47 22 E: Ministry% .8 2.5 10.7 28.9 38.8 18.2 S Ex-Pastor N= 3 2 10 14 9 7 U Secular % 6.7 4.4 22.2 31.1 20.0 15.6 Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 .U Developing Pastor N8 l 12 82 326 309 63 n and % .1 1.5 10.3 41.1 39.0 7.9 Disciplining Ex-Pastor N= 0 1 11 41 56 15 :23 Oneself Ministry % 0 .8 8.9 33.1 45.2 12.1 4s Ex-Pastor Na 0 3 7 19 15 2 w Secular % O 6.5 15.2 41.3 32.6 4.3 Scale 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Developing Pastor N= 1 25 124 334 258 56 H Lay % .l 3.1 15.5 41.9 32.3 7.0 Leadership ax-Pastor Na 1 4 19 47 45 8 'g Minis % .8 3.2 15.3 37.9 36.3 6.5 51 Ex-Pastor N= 1 4 12 16 9 5 Secular % 2.1 8.5 25.5 34.0 19.1 10.6 189 Cont'd... Ineffective Some Effect Very Effective Scale 0 l 2 3 4 5 H Pastor N= 3 23 128 354 239 48 . Discipling Z .4 2.9 16. 44. 30.1 6.0 8 People Ex-Pastor N= 2 7 16 45 46 5, 8 Ministry Z 1.7 5.8 13. 37. 38.0 4.1 Ex-Pastor N= 3 7 11 10 ll 3 Secular Z 6.7 15.6 24. 22. 24.4 637 Scale 0 l 2 3 4 5 'F Pastor N= 3 24 103 333 266 63 Effecting Z .4 3.0 13. 42. 33.6 8.0 2: Change Ex-Pastor N= 0 3 ll 52 51 6 :9 Ministry 2 o 2.4 8. 42. 41.5 4.9 8 Ex-Pastor N= 1 8 13 ll 12 1 Secular Z 2.2 17.4 28. 23. 26.1 2.2 Scale 0 l 2 3 4 5 .U Pastoral Pastor N= 5 38 145 274 153 49 " Evangelizing Z .8 5.7 21. 41. 23.0 7.4 . Ex-Pastor N= 3 8 20 46 32 7 8 Ministry % 2.6 6.9 17. 39. 27.6 6.0 8 Ex-Pastor N= 5 7 9 10 ll 3 Secular Z 11.1 15.6 20. 22. 24.4 6.7 Scale 0 l 2 3 4 5 _U Pastoral Pastor N= 2 17 65 231 346 136 N Visiting Z .3 2.1 8. 29. 43.4 17.1 . Ex-Pastor N= 1 2 9 36 53 23 8 Ministry Z .8 1.6 7. 29. 42.7 18.5 8 Ex-Pastor N= 2 7 4 14 11 7 Secular Z 4.4 15.6 8. 31. 24.4 15.6 Scale 0 l 2 3 4 5 Pastor N= 0 3 4 120 425 234 T.” Preaching Z 0 .4 . 15. 24.1 29.8 Ex—Pastor N= 0 0 '4 24 58 38 E> Ministr 7. o o 3. 19. 46.8 30.6 8 Ex—Pastor N= 0 2 1 13 18 13 "’ Secular Z 0 4.3 2. 27. 38.3 27.7 Cont'd... 190 Cont'd... Ineffective Some Effect Very Effective Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 "n? . Pastor N= 4 21 118 391 220 46 Seumg 7. .5 2.6 14.8 48.9 27.5 5.7 'o and , Ex-Pastor N= 1 3 13 50 50 6 8 AChievmg Ministg z .8 2.4 10.6 40.7 40.7 4.9 o Goals Ex-Pastor N= 4 4 8 21 7 2 Secular Z 8.7 8.7 17.4 45.7 15.2 4.3 Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 Pastor N= 0 1 22 159 408 209 T.’ Teaching 2 o .1 2.8 19rg_ 51.1 26.2 Ex-Pastor N= 0 0 6 18 63 36 a, Ministr 7. 0 o 4.9 14.6 51.2 29.3 8 Ex-Pastor N= 1 0 6 9 19 10 C: Secular z 2.2 0 13.3 20.0 42.2 22.2 Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 __ Pastor N= 5 18 107 351 253 56 'f 1 .6 2.3 13.5 44.4 32.0 7.1 Utilizing Ex-Pastor = 0 6 23 57 31 6 8 Conflict Ministry 2 o 4.9 18.7 46.3 25.2 4.9 <2 Ex—Pastor N= 3 8 12 10 9 1 Secular z 7.5 18.6 27.9 23.3 20.9 2.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY 191 BIBLIOGRAPHY‘ Adams, Jay E. ed. "Design For a Theological Seminary", The Journal of Pastoral Practice, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1979, pp. 1-10. Amirtham, Samuel. "New Styles in Theological Education", Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol. 3, No. 1 (April, 1979), pp. 119-127. Argyris, Chris and Schon, Donald. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1976. Babcock, F. Lawrence. The 0.8. College Graduate. New York: McMillian, 1942 Bartlett, Laile E. The Vanishing Parson, Boston: Beacon Press, 1971. Benjamin, Paul. "The Urgency of the Equipping Ministry", Christianity Today, Vol. 22, No. 22 (September 22, 1978), pp. 20-23. Bentz, W. Kenneth. "Consensus Between Role Expectation and Role Behavior Among Ministers", Community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 4, NO. 4, 1968, pp. 301-3060 Bergevin, Paul. A Philosophy for Adult Education, New York: Seabury Press, 1967. ' Blizzard, Samuel W. "The Minister's Dilemma", Christian Century, Blizzard, Samuel W., "The Parish Minister's Integrating Roles", Religious Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, 1958, pp. 374-380. Boice, James M. "Church and Seminary: A Reciprocal Relationship", Christianity Today, Vol. 23, No. 9 (February 2, 1979), pp 0 14-15 0 Bradshaw, Samuel L. "Minister's in Trouble: A Study of 140 Cases Evaluated at the Menninger Foundation", The Journal of Pastoral Care, Vol. 31, No. 4 (December, 1977), pp. 230-242. Bridston, Keith and Culver, Dwight W., eds. The Making of Ministers: Egsays on Clergy Training Today, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964. Briscoe, D. Stuart, and Bustanoby, Andre, et. al. "The Impossible Dream: Can Seminaries Deliver?", Christianity Todgy, Vol. 21, No. 9 (February 4, 1977), pp. 18-21. Bromiley, G. W. Christian Ministry, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. 192 Brown, William Adams. The Education of American Ministers, Vol. I, Ministerial Education in America, Institute of Social and Religious Research, New York, 1934. Burch, Genevieve, "Source of Occupational Authority and Change from the Church to Secular Occupations: A Study of Ex-Clergymen", Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1971. Bushnell, Horace. Christian Nurture, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947. - Bustanoby, Andre. "Why Pastors Drop Out", Christianity Today, Vol. 21, No. 7 (January 7, 1977), pp. 14-16. Calvin Theological Seminary. "Personal Qualifications for the Ministry", Grand Rapids: 1974. Cardwell, Sue Webb and Richard A. Hunt. "Persistence in Seminary and in Ministry", Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Winter, 1979), pp. 119-131. Carnoy, Martin. Education as Cultural Imperialism, New York: David McKay, Inc., 1974. Carr, John Lynn. "Immersing for Ministry: Education and Evangelism in Church and Seminary", Theological Education, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1979), PP- 146-154. Chao, Jonathan. "Education and Leadership", The New Face of Evangelicalism: An International Symposium on the Lausanne Covenant, Rene Padilla, ed., Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976. Chao, Jonathan. "Foreign Missions and Theological Education", Evangelical Missions Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Fall, 1972), pp. 1-16. Clowney, Edmund P. "The Biblical Pattern of Leadership", Issues, Briefs from Westminster Theological Seminary, March-May, 1979. Cochran, David R. "Theological Education by Extension: What Can It Offer Churches in North America?", Theological Education, Vol, 10, No. 4 (Summer, 1964), pp. 259-265. Coe, Shoki. "In Search of Renewal in Theological Education", Theolggical Education, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Summer, 1973), pp. 235. Coe, Shoki. "Reflections", Northeast Asia Journal of Theology, Nos. 18-19, March-September, 1977, p. 72. Conn, Harvey M. "Theological Education and the Search for Excellence", The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Spring, 1979)! pp. 311-3630 Covell, Ralph R. and C. Peter Wagner. An Extension Seminary Primer, South Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1971. 193 D'Arcy, Paul F. "Current Research on Departure from Ministry", Ministry Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (May 1969), pp. 30-31. DeGraaff, Arnold, H. and Olthuis, James H. Toward a Biblical View of Man, Toronto: The Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship, Institute for Christian Studies, 1978. deVilliers, D. R. "Training the Ordained Minister", in the booklet Traininngor Missions, A compilation of the papers given at the Reformed Ecumenical Synod Missions Conference, Capetown, South Africa, 1976, pp. 51-73. DeVries, Robert C., ed. Supervisor Training Workshop: Intern Unit, publication of Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, 1978. Dewey, John. Erperience and Education, New York: Collier Books, 1963. Doll, Richard C. Curriculum Imporvement Decision Making and Process, Fourth Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978. Douglas, J. D., ed. Let the Earth Hear His Voice: International Congress on Evangelization, Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975. Doyle, Walter. "Education for All: The Triumph of Professionalism", in Perspectives on Curriculum Development: 1776-1976, edited by 0. L. Davis, Jr. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment, 1976, pp. 17-82. Eisner, Elliot W. The Educational Imagination: 0n the Design and Evaluation of School Programs, New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1979. Elias, John L. "Paulo Freire: Religious Educator", Religious Education, Vol.71, No. l (January-February), 1976, pp. 40-56. Fichter, Joseph. America's Forgotten Priests: What are they Saying, New York: Harper and Row, 1968. England, John. "The Recovery of Theological Obedience", The Southeast Asia Journal of Theology, V01. 16, No. 1, 1975, pp. 23-34. Feilding, Charles R. Education for Ministry, Dayton: American Association for Theological Schools, 1966. Fletcher, John. "The Making of a Minister. What's Wrong With the Process?" Action Information, Vol. 5, No. 3, Alban, Washington, DC: The Alban Institute, Mount Street, (June, 1979). pp. 4-6. Fletcher, John. Religious Authenticity in the Clergy; Implications for Theological Education, Washington, DC: Alban Institute, 1975. 194 Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Seabury Press, 1970. Freire, Paulo. Cultural Action for Freedom, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972. Freire, Paulo. Education for Critical Consciousness, New York: Seabury Press, 1973. Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy_in Process, New York: Seabury Press, 1978. Gilchrist, Robert S. and Roberts, Bernice R. Curriculum Development: A Humanized Systems Approach, Belmont, CA: Fearon Publications, 1974. Gillespie, Thomas W. "About Sound Teaching", Theological Education, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1979), pp. 89-91. Gleason, John J., Jr. "Perception of Stress Among Clergy and Their Spouses", Journal of Pastoral Care, Vol. 13, No. 4 (December, 1977), pp. 248-251. Goodykoontz, Harry G. The Minister in the Reformed Tradition, Richmond: John Knox Press, 1963. Grabowski, Stanley M., ed. Paulo Freire: A Revolutionary Dilemma For the Adult Educator, Occasional Papers No. 32, Syracuse University, Publications in Continuing Education and ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Education, 1972. ' Green, Reginald H. " Adult Education, Basic Human Needs and Integrated Deve10pment Planning", Convergence, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1976, pp. 46-47. Gustafson, James. M. "0n the Threshold of a New Age", in The Continuing Quest: Opportunities, Resources and Programs in Post-Seminary Education, James B. Hufrenning, ed., Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1970. Hadden, Jeffrey K. The Gathering Storm in the Churches, New York: Doubleday, 1969. Hahn, Celia A. The Minister is Leaving, New York: Seabury Press, 1974. Hahn, Celia A., ed. Patterns for Parish Development, New York: Seabury Press, 1974. Hahn, Celia A. Inter/Met: Bold Experiment in Theological Education, Washington, DC: Alban Institute, 1977. Ham, Howard M. "Personality Correlates of Ministerial Success", Iliff Review, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Winter, 1960), pp. 3-9. Harris, John C. Stress, Power and Ministryl Washington, DC: Alban Institute, 1977. 195 Harrison, Patricia J. and Patterson, George. "Some Thoughts on Curriculum Design for Theological Education", The Evangelical Review of Theology, No. 1 (October, 1977), pp. 141-157. Hartley, Shirley Foster. "Marital Satisfaction Among Clergy Wives", Review of Religious Research, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 178-191. Havighurst, Robert J. Developmental Tasks and Education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Hay, J. Charles. "The Seminary Speaks to the Church About Trust, Freedom, and Support", Theological Education, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1979). pp. 123—128. Hayes, Edward L. "Educational Strategies in Tehological Education", Theological Education, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 33-47. Holmes, Urban T., III. The Future Shape of Ministry, New York: Seabury Press, 1971. Holmes, Urban T. "The Strangeness of the Seminary", Anglican Theological Review, 1976, Supplement 6: pp. 135-150. Holtrop, Philip C. "A Strange Language Toward a Biblical Conception of Truths and a New Mood for Doing Reformed Theology", Reformed Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2 (February, 1977), pp. 9-13. Hopewell, James F. "Ministry and Training: A Crisis in Idenity", Theological Education by Extension, Ralph Winter, ed., Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1969, pp. 70-79. Howe, Reuel L. "Image of the Ministry", The Making of Ministers: Esspys on Clergy Training Todpy, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964, pp. 207-227. Howe, Reuel L. "Theological Education after Ordination", Making the Ministry Relevant, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1960, Hunter, David R. Christian Education as Engagement, New York: Seabury Press, 1963. Hunter, George F. Theological Field Education, Massachusetts: Boston Theological Institute, Newton Centre, 1976. Johnson, Marvin A., Lohr, Harold, Wagner, Joseph, Barge, William. The Relationship Between Pastors' Effectiveness and Satisfaction and Other Psychological and Sociolpgical Variables: The Growth in Ministry Project Research, Philadelphia:‘ Division of Professional Leadership, Lutheran Church in America, 1975. Johnson, Marvin A. Modules for Appraising Mutual Ministry, Philadelphia: Lutheran Church in America, 1977. .i‘. 196 Jud, Gerald J., Mills, Edgar W. Jr., and Burch, Genevieve W. Ex-Pastors: Why Men Leave the Ministry, Boston: United Church Press, 1970. Kinsler, F. Ross. The Extension Movement in Theological Education, South Pasadena: William Carey Library, n.d. Kliebard, Herbert M. "Metaphorical Roots of Curriculum Design" in Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists, ed. by William Pinar, Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Co., 1975. Knowles, Malcolm 5., editor. Handbook of Adult Education in the United States, Adult Education Association of the USA, Chicago, 1960. Knowles, Malcolm S. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Verses Pedagogy, New York: Association Press, 1970. Knowles, Malcolm 8., "Adult Learning Processes: Pedagogy and Andragogy", Religious Education, Vol. LXXll, No. 2 (March - April, 1977), pp. 202-211. Kromminga, Carl C. "Education at Calvin Theological Seminary as Training for the Ministry", Calvin Theological Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (April, 1977). PP. 3—23 Mac Donald, Gordon, "Some Questions Seminaries Must Face", Evangelical Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 12 (June 17, 1977). Macdonald, James B. "Curriculum and Human Interests" in Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists, ed. by William Pinar, Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Company, 1975. Mac Nair, Donald J. "Documented Course for Dropouts From the Ministry", Unpublished Document National Presbyterian Missions, 1979. Mc Ash, E. Arthur. A Study of Continuiog Education Programs for the Ministry in the Theological Seminaries of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA., Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. Mead, Loren B. Evaluation: Of, For,rBy and To the Clergy, Washington, DC: Alvan Institute, 1977. Menges, Robert J. and James E. Dittes. Psychological Studies of Clergymen: Abstracts of Research, New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965. Mills, Edgar W. "Leaving the Pastorate: A Study in the Social Psychology of Career Change", Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Howard University, 1966. ‘ Mills, Edgar W. "Career Change in the Ministry", in Ministry Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (May, 1969), pp. 5-21. Mills, Edgar W. and John P. Koval. Stress in Ministry, Ministry Studies Board, Washington, DC, 1971. 197 Minutes of the Sixth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, June 19-23, 1978. Munger, Edith M. Personality, Motivation, and Experience--their Effect on Persistence in a Theological Seminary, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, School of Psychology, 1974. Nacipil, Emerito P. "The Quest of Excellence in Theological Education", The South East Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. 16, No. l, 1975, pp. 55-59. Nagy, G. "Theological Education in a World Perspective", The South East Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1975, pp. 52-60. Newbigin, Lesslie. "Theological Education in a World Perspective", Ministerial Formation: Programme on Theological Education, No. 14, World Council of Churches, Switzerland, 1978. Newell, James Altus. "A Strategy for Seminary—Related Continuing Education", Ph.D.dissertation, South Baptist Theological Seminary, 1974. O'Brien, John A. Why Priests Leave, New York: Hawthorn Books, 1969. Padilla, Rene'. "Evangelization and The World", in Mission Trends, No. 2, edited by Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky, Grand Ihpids: Eerdmans, 1975, pp. 46-55. Parten, M. B. Surveys, Polls and Samples, New York: Harper and Row, 1950. Paul, Robert S. Ministry, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Payne, David A. Curriculum Evaluation, Lexington, MA: Heath and Co., 1974. Payne, S. L. The Art of Asking Questions, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951. Pinar, William. Curriculum Theorizing, Berkeley: McCutchan, 1975. Ramirez, Elvira Ester. Critical Analysis of Theological Education Institutions and Churches in Latin America, Unpublished paper written for the Summer Institute of Missions, Wheaton College Graduate School, 1977. Report: "The Advisory Committee on Seminary Program", Publication of Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, 1975. Robbins, Paul D. "The Ministers of Minneapolis: A Study in Paradox", Leadership, Vol. I, No. 1 (Winter, 1980), pp. 118-122. 198 Rossi, Jean J. and William J. Filstead. Pastors in Crisis: An Evaluation of the American Lutheran Church Lutheran General Program, Des Plaines, IL: Behavioral Consultants, Inc., 1977. Rouch, Mark. A Competent Ministry: A Guide to Effective Continuiog Education. New York: Abingdon Press, 1974. Routh, Porter. "Preparation of Ministers Competent to Minister", Theological Education, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1979), Rowen, Samuel F. "Rethinking Ordination", Holt, Michigan: Associates of Urbanus, n.d. Rowen, Samuel F. "The Future of Theological Education", Unpublished paper, 1977. 9 pages. Savage, Peter. "Four Crises in Third World Theological Education", Evangelical Missions Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Fall, 1972), pp. 28-34 Schrotenboer, Paul G. Man in God's World, Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1972. Schuller,David S. Readiness For Ministry, Vol. 1, Vandalia, Ohio: Association of Theological Schools, 1976. Singer, David. "Seminary Goes to Church", Christianity Today. Vol. 22, No. 9 (February 10, 1978), pp. 16-17. Singer, David. "Seminarians: Out of the Classroom, Into the Pulpit", Christianity Today, Vol. 22, No. 9 (February 10, 1978), pp. 1.3-19 o Smalley, William. "The World is too Much With Us", in Readings in Missionary Anthropology II, ed. by William A. Smalley, South Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1978. Smith, Robert M., George F. Aker, and J. R. Kidd, eds., Handbook of Adult Education, New York: MacMillan Company, 1970. Snyder, Graydon F. "Present Trends in Theological Education", Brethren Life and Thought, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Summer, 1978). Snyder, Howard A. The Problem of Wineskins: Church Structure in a Technological Age, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975. Snyder, Howard. The Community of the King, Downers Grove, IL: Inter- Varsity Press, 1977. Solanky, Anil D. "A Critical Evaluation of Theological Education in Residential Training", Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol 2, No 1 (April, 1978), pp. 124-133. 199 Soto, Eriberto. "Biblical Basis For An Integral Ministry", Extension Seminary, No. 1, 1979, pp. 1-11. Southard, Samuel. "Did I Leave The Pastorate or the Ministry?", Theology News and Notes, Vol. 26, No. 4 (December, 1979), pp. 3-4 . Spangenberg, James L. "A Theoretical Model for Role Cluster Analysis Tested with Thirty Ministers' Families", Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1966. Stone, Frank A. "World Minded Learning", International Education, V01. 4, NO. 2, 1975’ pp. 7-19. Taba, Hilda. Curriculum Deve10pment: Theory and Practice, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962. Telfer, Walter A. and Meredith B. Handspicker. "Teaching Parishes-- Partners in Theological Education", Andover Newton Quarteriy, 1976, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 109-117. Theological Education Fund. Learning in Context: The Search for Innovative Patterns in Theological Education, London: The Theological Education Fund, 1973. Thielicke, Helmut. "Telmut Thielichke: Why the Holocaust" in Christianity Today, Vol. 22, No. 8 (January 1978), pp. 8-14. Tyler, Ralph W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. Viewpoints, Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University "Adult Education: The Diagnostic Procedure", Leon McKenzie, John McKinley, eds. Bloomington: School of Education, Indiana University, 1973. Wagner, C. Peter. "Seminaries Ought to be Asking Who As Well As How", Theological Education, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Summer, 1964), Ward, Ted, "Schooling As A Defective Approach to Education", Unpublished paper, Institute for International Studies, Michigan State University, 1978, to be published in a forthcoming book; TEE: With Sugar and Lemon. Ward, Ted. "Public Education and Christian: Traveling the Same Trail?" Unpublished address delivered at the First Annual Education Foundation Conference, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL, November 7, 1975. Ward, Ted. "Facing Educational Issues" in Church Leadership Development, Glen Ellyn, IL: Scripture Press, 1977. Ward, Ted and Samuel F. Rowen. "The Significance of the Extension Seminary", Evangelical Missions Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Fall 1972): Pp. 17-27. 200 Ward, Ted W. and William A. Herzog, Jr. Program of Studies in Non- Formal Education: Study Team Reports-Effective Learning in Non-Formal Education, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1974. Webber, Carlo. The Time of the Fugitive. New York: Doubleday, 1971. Weld, Wayne C. The World Directogy of Theological Education, South Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1973. Wheeler, D. K. Curriculum Process, London: University of London Press, 1967. Whitlock, Glen E. "Role and Self-Concepts in the Choice of the Ministry as a Vocation", Journal of Pastoral Care, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1963. pp. 208-212. ‘ Williams, Colin W. "In Defense of the Academic Seminary", Theological Education, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Summer, 1964): Pp. 275-279. Wilson, J. Christy. Ministers in Training: A Review of Field Work Procedures in Theological Education, Princeton, NJ: The Directors of Field Work in the\Theologica1 Seminaries of the Presbyterian Church, USA, 1957. Wilson, Robert L. Drop-Outs and Potential Drgp—Outs from the Parish Ministgy, New York: National Division of the Board of Missions, the United Methodist Church, 1971. Winter, Ralph, ed. Theological Education by Extension, South Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1969. Wright, Walter C., Jr. "The Church in the '80's", in Theology,_News and Notes, Vol. 26, No. 2 (June, 1979): PP. 6-19. Zais, Robert S. Curriculum Principles and Foundations, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1976.