But certainly in the months and years following that job rejection, I have come to see God’s hand even in that. Certainly the way that things play out, I see that I would’
ve been a poor fit in that particular seminary setting. Although I never anticipated working in a state school context, I have seen my current position as a more appropriate context for me. During my time at seminary, I developed only one friendship with a faculty member. There was often the sense of a distance between faculty and students, I think a part of the reason was the adversarial nature of those times (1991-95). Faculty could never quite trust the students. There was an institutional fear among faculty (and administration) that a faculty member was only one tape recording away from a call from the trustees.*
And a lack of trust can be a problem. In an ideal setting, a class is conducted more as a dance than a debate. A seminary setting would not allow me the freedom to explore difficult issues from as many directions. Students are always aware of what the right answer is. Since students are generally unaware of my own biases until the end of the semester, I am able to advocate more than one position in order to challenge the student's presuppositions.
Scot McKnight made the (unusual) jump from seminary (TEDS) to college (
Northpark) and has
blogged on this very issue. I follow his thinking in this area. (At least his first three points).
I’m pleased to see God at work in this State University and feel called to be here.
As I’
ve briefly noted before, I do have a sense of sadness in regards to Southwestern. Since Ashley
asked, I do have a few comments:
On the matter of the letter from an
anonymous seminary professor. There are certainly discontents at every university and many people unhappy with their jobs. There are also many who have axes to grind due to real or imagined slights. I have no idea of course, if any of the professor's statements are true, no doubt some of them are. I would simply say that this is not necessarily an indication that any unusual things are going on there. And despite the anonymous nature of this blog, I agree that these charges
shouldn't be hurled from behind a cloak of anonymity. (Although I certainly understand why they were.
SBC seminary professors are afforded minimal protection from capricious dismissals).
As to the women’s home-making
program? I personally don’t see it as a necessary component of higher education. I’m not even sure what degree would credential a person to teach in that field. But ultimately, that is a decision for the
ATS, not for me.
The main argument in favor of teaching it is that wives are
colaborers with their husband in ministry. I certainly agree with that, and have even
blogged about it. But I am unsure of its priority. I think that there are several other areas where our seminaries would better prioritize their efforts in education. For example, additional coursework dealing with any of
these issues would be a start. Combined with the
Klouda dismissal, it
certainty seems to me that the seminary has a clear stance regarding the role of women with which I disagree.
As a sort of post script, several months ago, I ran into
Ken Hemphill. He was in our community leading a workshop on his new endeavor,
Empowering Kingdom Growth. I was tempted to approach him and thank him for not hiring me. But I
didn’t want that come come out as too
snarky, so I just introduced myself among the throngs of others.
He did me and the seminary a favor. (I did however, ask him what he thought of
Ratatouille)
P.S. I neglected to mention that I left my mark at Southwestern. Literally. A few days before we moved out of our Carrol Park triplex, I engraved my initials in a plot of wet cement that is still there, forever connecting me to the institution. (And leading my father to mutter to my brother
Bartolo, “Do you think he’ll ever grow up?)
*Kids, back when I went to school we recorded sound on these things called "tape."