week 5 db

Acomparativeanalysisofleadershipdevelopmentmodelsinpost-baccalaureatetheologicaleducation.pdf

Home >History homework help >Ancient history homework help >week 5 db

All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

MODELS IN POST-BACCALAUREATE

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

A Dissertation

Presented to

the Faculty of

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Thomas Lee Kiedis

May 2009

UMI Number: 3401812

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI' Dissertation Publishing

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

APPROVAL SHEET

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

MODELS IN POST-BACCALAUREATE

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

Thomas Lee Kiedis

Read and Approved by:

Date f A c ^ /S"; '?~&>c)

To the One who began a good work

and promises to complete it.

Soli Deo Gloria

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES x

PREFACE xii

Chapter

1. RESEARCH CONCERN 1

Research Problem 1

Research Purpose 8

Research Questions 8

Delimitations of the Study 9

Terminology 9

Research Assumptions 12

Procedural Overview 13

2. PRECEDENT LITERATURE 15

Theological Foundations of Leadership Development 16

Historical Perspectives of Theological Education 45

Theoretical Perspectives of Leadership Development 58

Chapter Page

Social Science Perspective of Leadership Development 72

Educational Perspective of

Leadership Development 79

Ministry Effectiveness 92

Ministry Satisfaction 99

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN 106

Research Question Synopsis 106

Research Design Overview 107

Population 109

Samples and Delimitations 110

Limitations of Generalizations I l l

Research Method Instrumentation 112

Research Procedures 124

4. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 134

Compilation Protocol 134

Demographic and Sample Data 135

Finding and Displays 137

Research Question 1 Findings and Displays 142

Research Question 2 Findings and Displays 170

Research Question 3 Findings and Displays 175

Research Question 4 Findings and Displays 180

Research Question 5 Findings and Displays 182

Chapter Page

Research Question 6 Findings and Displays 185

Evaluation of the Research Design 192

5. CONCLUSIONS 199

Research Purpose and Questions 199

Research Implications 200

Research Applications 210

Research Limitations 212

Further Research 214

Summary and Closing Thoughts 216

Appendix

1. INITIAL LDM TAXONOMY 218

2. SECONDARY LDM TAXONOMY 219

3. FINAL LDM TAXONOMY 221

4. LIKERT-SCALE SURVEY 224

5. ABHE, ATS, TRACS QUALIFYING INSTITUTIONS 235

6. ABHE, ATS, TRACS PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS 240

7. DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

CODING PROTOCOL 242

8. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 249

9. ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS 254

10. INTERVIEW REQUEST LETTER 256

Appendix Page

11. INSTITUTIONAL CALLING TEAM PROTOCOL 259

12. INSTITIONAL INVITATION 265

13. RESEARCH PROJECT OVERVIEW 267

14. RECOMMENDATION LETTERS 269

15. INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE 273

16. EMAIL INVITATION LETTER 274

17. U.S. MAIL INVITATION LETTER 275

REFERENCE LIST 277

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABHE Association for Biblical Higher Education Commission

ATS Association of Theological Schools

CAO Chief Academic Officer

CDEL Center for the Development of Evangelical Leadership

CEI Clergy Evaluation Inventory

CHEA Council for Higher Education Accreditation

CEO Chief Executive Officer

DCE Director of Christian Education

DTS Dallas Theological Seminary

FESP Fellowship of Evangelical Seminary Presidents

GFES George Fox Evangelical Seminary

HJB Hoppock Job Blank

ISRR The Institute for Social and Religious Research

JSB Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank

KJV King James Version

LDM Leadership Development Model

LDMS Leadership Development Model Survey

LPI Leadership Practices Inventory

MA Master of Arts

viii

MACE Master of Arts in Christian Education

MARE Master of Arts in Religion and Education

MAS Ministry Activity Scale

MCE Master of Christian Education

MDiv Master of Divinity

MEI Ministry Effectiveness Inventory

MFS Ministry Function Scale

MHGS Mars Hill Graduate School

MM Master of Ministry

MRE Master of Religious Education

PCUSA Presbyterian Church United States of America

POM Profiles of Ministry

SBTS The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

TEDS Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

TFM Ten Faces of Ministry

ThM Master of Theology

TRACS Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Accreditation Commission

VEI Vicar Evaluation Inventory

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table Page

1. Participation and response 136

2. Survey Summary 136

3. 2004 graduates grouped by age 138

4. Graduate gender response comparison 138

5. Post-baccalaureate degree received 139

6. Distribution of Non-M.Div. degrees 140

7. Graduate response by institution 141

8. Distinctions of classic and applied models 153

9. Relationship between LDM and time-to-hire 170

10. ANOVA for relationship between LDM and

first hiring 171

11. Relationship between LDM and employment 171

12. ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment 172

13. Post-hoc Tukey test for ANOVA relationship between LDM and ministry employment 172

14. Relationship between LDM and number of employers 174

15. ANOVA for relationships between LDM and and number of employees 175

>le

16.

17.

18.

19.

2 0 .

2 1 .

2 2 .

23,

24,

25,

ure

Page

Descriptive statistics for leadership effectiveness across LDM models 175

ANOVA for leadership effectiveness across

LDM models 176

Descriptive statistics for LPI subscales 176

ANOVA for LPI subscales 178

Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests for significant LPI subscales 179

Descriptive statistics for ministry satisfaction

across LDM groups 181

ANOVA for ministry satisfaction across LDM models 181

Relationship between LDM and ministry tenure 182

ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment 183

Post-hoc Tukey tests for ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment 183

Relationship between LDM and employment by the same church 185

ANOVA for relationship between LDM and employment by the same church 185

Multivariate tests for MANOVA for employment, LPI, JSB, and tenure 186

Tests of between-subjects effects for MANOVA for employment, LPI, JSB, and tenure 187

Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests for MANOVA

for significant variables 188

Page

Leadership Development Model Taxonomy 143

PREFACE

Solomon's words "two are better than one" are fitting for this research project.

My "two" is actually an incredible band of traveling companions on this Ph.D. journey. I

could not have made the trip without them.

To my friends in Ph.D. Cohort 01, Ken, Casey, Dondi, Mark, Gayle, Rod,

Blake, Travis, Doug, Fran, and Teresa, it has been great taking this journey with you.

You have defined "learning community," demonstrated love and made learning a lot of

fun. It is my privilege to call you friends.

Dr. Gary Bredfeldt, you were the first person I met at Southern Seminary.

From our first conversation over coffee at Panera Bread, to seminars where you taught

me, to multiple discussions where you mentored me, you have been gracious,

encouraging, and demanding in all the best ways. You are a scholar with a shepherd's

heart. Thanks! Dr. Wilder, I am grateful for your keen attention to detail, for helping me

navigate the process, and for opening your home to us.

Dr. Bill Stepp and friends at Memorial Presbyterian Church, thank you for the

delight of serving with you. I am convinced that our time with you was God's gift to us.

Dr. David Nicholas, Ron Tobias, and the Spanish River Church family, your

willingness to flex with the deadlines and demands of this program and to do so with

such kindness and care for me has been a huge act of love. Thanks! I am looking forward

to the days ahead. To the calling team of Spanish River Church - John Abraham, Joyce

Boor, Jerilyn Ewton, Diane Frye, Sandy Goodnough, Anna Hollingsworth, Shannan

Kiedis, Pat McKay, Diane Parks, and Susie Scribner - all I can say is that there would be

no institutional participation without your tireless efforts to call, email, call and call

again. Thanks!

xii

Dr. Buz McNutt, you have been a great encourager. Your words, "One step at

a time," have reverberated in my mind throughout the final days. I value your friendship!

Thank you. Kim Martin, your assistance in the prospectus days was invaluable. Thanks!

Dr. Allen Nauss, thank you for expanding my understanding of ministry

effectiveness and for graciously giving me so much time on the phone and through email

correspondence. I appreciate your heart for the church and the people who serve it. I

count my time with you one of the true enjoyable experiences of this journey.

Dr. James Kouzes and Dr. Barry Posner, thank you for allowing me the

privilege of access to the premier leadership practices inventory. I am grateful.

Dr. Daniel Aleshire, Dr. Randy Bell, and Dr. Russell Fitzgerald, I am grateful

for the support, encouragement, and time you invested in this project and me. Thank you.

Diane Frye, you have a God-given gift for friendly, gentle persuasion! Thank

you for a myriad of phone calls, unceasing proofs, and practical expressions of service.

Daniel and Katrina and Asher, Joel, Paul and Sarah and Summer, Bethany,

David, and Zachary, thanks for putting up with your pops who has been absent while

present far too often. I am grateful for your prayers, for your patience with me, and for

your encouragement. All of you make me very proud to be called your dad. I love you

and am looking forward to more time together. Dolly, thanks for serving as my research

assistant. Mom, thanks for praying and for still delivering hot chocolate chip cookies

while I work.

Shannan, life with you is a joy. I wouldn't want it any other way. You are my

life partner, my confidante, my best friend, and my biggest encourager. I love you!

Thomas L. Kiedis

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

May 2009

CHAPTER 1

RESEARCH CONCERN

This research study is concerned with higher education, leadership

development, and understanding and examining the training models that are employed to

prepare men and women for Christian ministry. The study examines the growing number

of leadership development models in Christian higher education and considers their

relationship to the employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure of the

graduates who were developed as a result of them.

Introduction to the Research Problem

The seminary is experiencing unprecedented change in the way it equips

people for ministerial leadership. Leaders in theological education have both predicted

and called for this change. This year Joseph C. Hough, President of Union Theological

Seminary, will retire after forty years of experience as a teacher and administrator in

theological education. At the annual meeting of the Auburn Center for the Study of

Theological Education, Hough noted six signs that theological education is facing

challenging days ahead. These signs included a declining pool of traditional Master of

Divinity applicants, financial challenges for both students and institutions, shrinking

church memberships, and major theological debates with concomitant impact on the

seminary (Hough 2001, 101-05). In his conclusion, Hough stated, "If my concerns prove

to be justified, then the next twenty years of theological education . . . will be ones of

continuing change" (Hough 2001, 106). As he notes, these changes will impact the way

seminaries equip people for ministerial leadership (Hough 2001, 106).

Both Richard Mouw and Robert M. Franklin echo the conclusions of Hough.

Richard Mouw has four decades of service in Christian higher education. He has served

as president of Fuller Theological Seminary since 1993. Mouw examined cultural

changes and commented on the implications for theological education. Two implications

noted by Mouw concerned seminary curriculum and the seminary model for developing

ministerial leadership (Mouw 2001, 109-10). Robert Franklin is former president of the

Interdenominational Theological Center, and current Presidential Distinguished Professor

of Social Ethics at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. Franklin also

commented on trends in theological education. He noted that the "traditional, classroom-

based, professor-centered educational delivery model may be eroding more rapidly than

we realize" (Franklin 2001, 113). Franklin also pointed out the need for the seminary to

do a better job of educating students for ministerial leadership (Franklin 2001, 114).

Two recent case studies confirm the observations of Hough, Mouw and

Franklin about the changing nature of theological education. The InMinistry Program of

Bethel Seminary is a distributed model of theological education that combines

"instructional technology and online learning with face-to-face on-campus intensive

instruction" (Anderson 2007, 67). Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, with the help of a

$300,000 grant from the Lilly Endowment, is developing a collaborative engagement

learning model between students and faculty. This model is a shift from a transmissive to

transactive form of teaching (Mahfood 2007, 79). Other trends add weight to the words

of Hough, Mouw, and Franklin. These include the increasing number of satellite

campuses, church-seminary partnerships, and the growing use of technology in the

seminary environment (Morgan 1994; McNeal 1998; Trammel 2007).

There are other factors that signal the changing nature of theological education

and point to the need for the present study. These include a growing body of critique of

the seminary, the trend toward alternative educational models, and the lack of research

regarding how we train leaders in the seminary.

Signs of Unsatisfactory Performance in the Seminary

Signs of dissatisfaction with the seminary in general and leadership

development training models in particular have been appearing in educational research

for the last twenty-five years. Research on seminary curriculum (Ferris 1982; Buzzell

1983) raised doubts about the ability of the traditional academic model to provide

adequate leadership development. Simpson has noted the concomitant negative impact on

ministry readiness created by the academic training model. Simpson's research reveals an

overabundance of cognitive educational outcomes that focus on information rather than

synthesis (Simpson 1992, 225). Barna noted that a "world of difference exists between

training people to be theologians and training people to be pastors or leaders" (Barna

1993, 142). Barna's comments spawned the research efforts of Nelson who analyzed the

leadership training of ministerial students in Christian institutions of higher education and

worked to develop "an optimum leadership training program" (Nelson 1994, 10). At the

conclusion of his research. Nelson asks, "Do evangelical institutions of higher education

effectively prepare pastors to lead? The unequivocal answer from this research is that

most institutions do not effectively prepare pastors to lead" (Nelson 1994, 165).

Nelson's findings corroborated, in part, the research efforts of Lawson.

Lawson searched for casual relationships in the pattern of short tenures among directors

of Christian education in American Baptist churches with a view to "what can be done to

improve the situation" (Lawson 1992, 9). Lawson comments:

Both current and former DCEs reported difficulties with conflict situations, inadequate lay leadership involvement, and the need for a better support system. The academic preparation of DCEs needs to include coursework and fieldwork in Christian education. Within this preparation there needs to be learning opportunities addressing how to resolve conflicts with superiors and others, recruiting and motivating lay leadership for educational ministry, and how to develop a support system for the DCE. (Lawson 1992, 145)

Hopwood explored faculty perceptions of the competencies needed by a pastor and the

task of the seminary (Hopwood 1993). She discovered that the faculty at Trinity

Evangelical Divinity School showed greater responsibility for development of cognitive

competencies over affective or behavioral competencies.

Turner and Barnett have echoed issues raised by these researchers. Turner

identified a gap between the needs of the minister and the curricular offerings of mainline

seminaries (Turner 2001, vi). Barnett conducted extensive research on The Southern

Baptist Theological Seminary. The results of his research demonstrated incongruence

between the purpose and outcome of the institution when it came to equipping students

for ministerial effectiveness. He concludes, "Unfortunately, most graduates could not

report that they received a high degree of competency development in leadership skills

through their degree program" (Barnett 2003, 232). This is a pertinent matter. The

research on leadership competencies demonstrates that there are competencies specific to

ministers, therefore, one would expect that how these competencies are taught is critical

(Ellington 2004). Furthermore, Butler, who examined ministerial effectiveness among

pastors from the Church of the Nazarene denomination, identified a correlation between

education and effectiveness (Butler 1994). In distinguishing the effective and ineffective

pastors in his study, Butler writes, the "most striking differences were size of

congregation . . . and educational level. The achieved sample comparison revealed that

the more effective pastors were more highly educated . . . than the comparison group"

(Butler 1994, 151). It would seem that if education makes a difference in ministerial

effectiveness, how one is educated is at least equally important.

Are some leadership development training models better than others when it

comes to helping graduates get hired, lead effectively, find satisfaction in their work and

continue in ministry? Can the traditional campus-based model of professor, student and

classroom, adequately equip men and women to lead in the church apart from hands-on

time in the field? Are there other models that provide more well rounded cognitive,

affective and behavioral groundings, and therefore, more adequately equip ministers for

the competencies required on the field of service? In other words, when it comes to

leadership development, does one training model "outperform" the others? If one were to

evaluate seminary leadership development training models relative to their outcomes,

might the findings change the way students are prepared for ministry? Trends toward

alternative models would indicate that the answer to these questions may be "Yes."

A Growing Trend toward Alternative Training Models

"Dissatisfied" is the adjective that might best describe the sentiment of many

who examine leadership and leadership development in theological education in the last

two decades. This dissatisfaction is theological in nature, as described by Farley (Farley

1983), but it is also of a practical bent. Banks writes, "Many pastors and denominational

leaders have asked whether seminaries provide their graduates with the kind of

knowledge and education they need to fulfill their ministry responsibilities" (Banks 1999,

11). Burns and Cervero reveal that the politics of ministry practice is one area graduates

feel ill-equipped (Burns and Cervers 2002, 308). The discontent with the seminary

experience and the increasing demands for leadership are leading to new models for it.

Barker and Martin, funded by a grant from the Lilly Endowment, conducted a two-year

research project on judicatory-based theological education among six denominations: the

Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church

(USA), the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada, and the United

Methodist Church (Barker and Martin 2004). The authors discovered almost 200

judicatory-based programs among this small selection. They report on six alternative

models; models they do not see as replacements for seminary education, but a means to

augment it by making theological education more accessible to a larger number of people

and more finely tuned to the needs of a changing church landscape (Barker and Martin

2004, 10-12).

Some may call for an educational experience that is more accessible and finely

tuned, but others are crying for an outright revolution. McNeal is one such voice. He sees

the training model as a key factor in improving leadership quality: "Traditional training

methodologies are not producing competent leaders with requisite skills for leading

God's people into the third Christian millennium . . . . a different model will need to be

employed in developing a different kind of leader" (McNeal 1998, 17-18). McNeal, a

Southern Baptist, champions collegial church-based learning communities as the training

model that will effectively equip emerging leaders with the competencies necessary to

serve the church and the world (McNeal 1998, 43-50). Many share McNeal's frustration

with theological education, but not all would adopt his model. Ellington (2004) espouses

strategic church/seminary partnerships; others propose alternative models. All would

agree that there is a biblical mandate for growing leaders for ministry.

The Research Gap

Christian higher education has not failed in its efforts to train people for

ministry. While critics abound, Barker and Martin contend that seminary and divinity

school education, despite being "front-end loaded" and not geared toward lifelong

learning, is at its historical peak (Barker and Martin 2004, 11). Drake also recognizes the

benefit of the seminary. He examined the impact of leadership development training

experiences on senior pastors, and noted a positive relationship between those senior

pastors who had attended higher education classes and the attendance and income

performance of the church (Drake 2003). The seminary is working. Each year graduates

assume leadership positions in ministry and the Christian church makes strides in its

efforts. A critical question, however, is whether or not Christian higher education can do

better? Specifically, do some leadership development models better equip graduates for

ministry in the local church? If so, what bearing should this knowledge have on the way

leaders are trained for Christian ministry? Answers to these questions would add valuable

data to the research base.

If theological institutions of higher education were graded on outcomes, would

they receive a passing grade? Since the early nineteenth century seminaries have been the

garden for budding leaders (Marsden 1994, 74). The word seminary means "a plot where

plants for transplantation are raised from seed" and "an environment in which something

originates and from which it is propagated" {Webster's New International Dictionary 3rd

ed., s.v. "seminary"). While a seminary program of studies is still considered by many as

the standard for theological education, there is a growing body of critique of the seminary

and increasing efforts to consider alternative leadership development training models.

Researchers have examined Christian ministry in an attempt to discover the

necessity of competencies for ministry. Many studies have examined competencies

relative to professional ministry (Boersma 1988; Purcell 2001; Barnett 2003; Coggins;

Cardoza 2005). Barnett, in particular, assessed the ability of the Southern Baptist

Theological Seminary to produce these outcomes. Aukerman examined competencies

necessary for beginning pastors in the Church of God (Aukerman 1991). Butler examined

competencies in Church of Nazarene pastors (Butler 1994). Callahan and Huggins

examined competencies necessary for lay associates in the Roman Catholic Church

(Callahan 1996; Huggins 2004). Thompson and Tucker have identified competencies

necessary for church planters (Thompson 1995; Tucker 2006). The competency research

is vast. The research as to how these competencies are taught to emerging leaders is not.

Researchers have examined or commented on the need for changes to the

seminary curriculum (Wakefield 1983; Buzzell 1983; Simpson 1992; Ellington 1994;

Nelson 1994; Turner 2001). Purcell, Barnett, and Lawson all expressed the necessity for

changes to the core of the curriculum as a result of their research. The what of education

is critical, but the how is equally important to curriculum design (Ford 2002, 210).

Simpson examined learning outcomes of theological education as they relate to ministry

readiness. He discovered incongruence in the prevailing academic model between ATS

educational goals and the actual academic training being offered. Simpson noted that

while ATS educational objectives were at the application and synthesis levels of the

Bloom taxonomy, actual cognitive educational objectives were excessively demonstrated

to be at the knowledge and information level (Simpson 1992, 222).

At the time of Nelson's research, only 6 of the 141 programs he reviewed

actually had two or more leadership courses (Nelson 1994, 165). Happily that is

changing. Leadership as a focus is much more common in the seminary curriculum

today, but how seminaries prepare leaders and whether some leadership development

training models "outperform" others is a subject worthy of research efforts.

There is a need to examine relationships between leadership development

models and select outcome assessment criteria. This need becomes apparent in light of

the changing nature of theological education. It becomes magnified by the perceptions of

graduates and researchers about seminary shortcomings. The growing trend toward

alternative leadership development models, as well as the lack of research on these

models and the outcomes they intend to produce in students is cause for this study.

Research Purpose

The purpose of this research was to understand the relationship between

leadership development models in evangelical post-baccalaureate theological education

and select outcome assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness,

satisfaction, and tenure.

Research Questions

1. What leadership development models for ministry exist in evangelical post- baccalaureate theological (seminary) education?

2. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry employment?

3. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and leadership effectiveness in ministry?

4. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry satisfaction?

5. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry tenure?

6. How do these models compare with respect to the variables of ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure?

Delimitations of the Study

This study examined certain aspects of evangelical post-baccalaureate

theological (seminary) education. The specific focus may impact the degree to which the

findings generalize to other populations. The delimitations of the study include the

following:

1. This research is delimited to examining evangelical post-baccalaureate (master's degree) theological education.

2. The research is delimited to examining evangelical post-baccalaureate theological seminaries accredited by one of the following faith-based accrediting associations: The Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE), The Association for Theological Schools (ATS), and the Transnational Association of Colleges and Schools (TRACS).

3. This research is delimited to examining the leadership development models that are oriented toward equipping people for ministerial leadership.

4. This research is delimited to graduates of those institutions.

5. This research is delimited to examining graduates at the five-year post-graduate mark.

Terminology

The following terms and definitions are given as clarification for this study.

Accreditation. "Accreditation is a process of external quality review used by

higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities, and educational programs for quality

assurance and quality improvement" (Council for Higher Education Accreditation).

Course description. The description of each course in the graduate degree

program, usually located in the institution catalog.

Curriculum. An explicitly and implicitly intentional set of interactions

designed to facilitate learning and development and to improve meaning or experience

(Miller and Seller 1985, 3).

Degree program. An educational program of study leading to a graduate

degree in ministerial leadership from an accredited institution (ATS Fact Book 2003).

Degree program mission statement. A statement of a degree program's "reason

for being" (Ford 2002).

Degree program learning goals. A statement of the intended outcomes of a

degree program.

Educational learning goals and objectives. The overarching statement of

learning intent of an institution or degree program, and the specific cognitive, affective

and psychomotor outcomes relative to them (Ford 2002, 82-86).

Evangelical. Bebbington outlines the key aspects of evangelicalism as

conversionism, emphasizing the experience of "new birth"; biblicism, relying on the

Bible as the ultimate religious authority; activism, sharing one's faith in Christ; and

crucicentrism, focusing on Christ's redemptive work on the Cross (Bebbington 1989, 2-

19). These aspects of evangelicalism are noted by Benne in his treatment of six

institutions that have maintained both academic quality and their Christian soul (Benne

2001, 74). Evangelical institutions of higher education will be defined as those

institutions that are characterized by biblicism, crucicentrism, and conversionism in their

institutional mission, purpose, and documentation.

Graduate. A five-year, post-matriculation student from an evangelical

institution of higher education.

Institutional mission statement. A statement of a theological institution's

"reason for being" (Ford 2002, 53).

Leader. One who is engaged in leadership.

Leadership. There are multiple definitions of leadership. Kouzes and Posner

assert, "Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who

choose to follow" (Kouzes and Posner 2003, 20). For this study the following definition

will be used: "Leadership is an influencing relationship between leaders and followers

who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes" (Rost 1993, 102).

Leadership development. The intentional act of equipping another person,

through a variety of means, to assume leadership (Gardner 1990, 161; Tichy 2002).

Leadership development model. Ford refers to administrative models, which

"brings the design and the target group together in such a way as to achieve the purpose

and objectives of the design and to implement the instructional model" (Ford 2002, 202).

McNeal refers to "methods for development and training" (McNeal 1998, 52) and Banks

speaks of the "forms of theological education" (Banks 1999, 2). For this research a

leadership development model is the primary philosophical and pedagogical bridge

designed to transmit and implement the institutional purpose regarding leadership

development in the life of the student.

Ministry. Ministry is a word with a rich heritage and multiple meanings

depending on the context. In its biblical context it is "the privilege and responsibility of

every Christian" (Anthony 2001, 473). For the purposes of this research, ministry is

vocational service in church and church-related organizations given by Christian leaders

(1 Timothy 3:1-7, 5:17-19; Titus 1:5-9).

Ministry effectiveness. This research will utilize the definition from Frederick

Cardoza II. Cardoza slightly modified the definition of ministry effectiveness of Hunt,

Hinkle, and Malony (1990, 13). Cardoza described ministry effectiveness as, "The

positive degree to which vocational leaders are able to minister in given settings, with

specific resources and certain limitations" (Cardoza 2005, 8).

Ministry employment. A person who has been hired by a church or church-

related organization to carry out its work (1 Corinthians 9:1-14).

Ministerial leadership. The act of leadership carried out in the context of

ministry. It may also refer collectively to a group of leaders within the church (ATS

Factbook 2003; Leith 1997; Hybels 2002).

Ministry satisfaction. The definition of ministry satisfaction hinges on its

theoretical foundations and, therefore, may take many different forms. The following

definition will be used in this research: Ministry satisfaction is "a pleasurable or positive

emotional state resulting from contentment with one's work" (Wilson 1983, 11).

Ministry tenure. The length of time one has been employed in a ministry

setting from the date of seminary graduation.

Seminary. "A graduate school for ministerial training generally offering a

variety of masters degrees and possibly one or more doctoral programs . . . geared toward

the graduate preparation of pastor and other professional church s t a f f (Gangel and

Benson 1983, 361).

Research Assumptions

The following research assumptions are foundational to this study:

1. Seminaries are finding new ways to train and equip people for ministry.

2. There are multiple training models to equip people for ministerial leadership.

3. Leaders are born and made, meaning leadership can be learned.

4. One can measure perceptions of leadership effectiveness and satisfaction in ministry.

5. Five-year post-matriculation graduates will yield a more accurate assessment as to the variables under consideration.

6. There is a distinction between degree programs that are oriented toward basic ministerial leadership and degree programs that are oriented toward general and advanced theological studies in preparation for research and teaching.

7. Five-year graduates can be identified within a taxonomic category despite the development of degree programs since their graduation.

8. The researcher assumes that the intervening impact of post-graduate experience is equal among all respondents so it is not controlled for in this study.

Procedural Overview

This research study will utilize a sequential mixed methods design,

incorporating both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The benefits of this

approach will be discussed in chapter 3.

The researcher will modify a three-phase protocol described and implemented

by Ennis (2002). In the first phase, the researcher will develop a taxonomic classification

of current leadership development training models used in Christian seminaries. The

initial taxonomy will be developed through the review of precedent literature. Using

document analysis, the researcher will examine institutional documents in the research

population with a view to solidifying the taxonomic list of leadership development

models. To complete this phase, the researcher will conduct open-ended interviews with

the appropriate academic administrators who oversee the institutional degree programs.

These interviews will be carried out to corroborate and clarify the data gathered from the

literature review and document review phases, thus triangulating the findings. The end

result will be a taxonomic classification of seminary leadership development models in

evangelical theological education.

The second phase of the research will involve surveying a sample of the

research population. The instrument will be a Likert-scale survey incorporating both the

Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), the Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank and a few

other questions designed by the researcher. This instrument will be used to gather the

perceptions of seminary graduates about the impact their leadership development model

had on the four dependent variables: ministry employment, leadership effectiveness,

ministry satisfaction, and ministry tenure. Procedures will be implemented to ensure the

validity and reliability of the instrument. These procedures are discussed in chapter 3.

The researcher will follow phases 1 and 2 by examining the collected data. The

researcher will look for relationships between the predominant leadership development

models used to equip the graduates for ministry, and the following outcome variables: the

graduates' ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure.

The target population for this study includes all five-year post-matriculation

seminary and divinity school graduates of a leadership development model from

Christian institutions accredited by ABHE, ATS, or TRACS. The sample for this study

will include a minimum of 400 graduates. The graduates will be statistically

representative of all leadership development models in the taxonomic classification (as

explained in chapter 3).

The researcher believes this study will initiate a research conversation

regarding the relationship between seminary outcomes (with respect to graduates) and the

way they were trained. The research will also provide quantitative assessment on the

growing number of educational models in seminary education. This information may

assist those considering seminary as a place of study as well as institutional personnel

who look to improve their programs. This research will build on the research efforts of

Barker and Martin (2004) and others noted throughout this document who are concerned

with theological education and how it can be conducted more effectively.

CHAPTER 2

PRECEDENT LITERATURE

The purpose of this research is to understand the relationship between

leadership development models in evangelical post-baccalaureate theological education

and select outcome assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness,

satisfaction, and tenure. This literature review examines the theological, historical,

theoretical, social science, and educational underpinnings of leadership development in

theological institutions of higher education. It also frames this research in light of the

literature relative to ministry effectiveness and ministry satisfaction.

The review of precedent literature will proceed as follows. The first section

examines the theological foundations for leadership development. It provides a

theological perspective on leadership, leadership development, education, ministry

effectiveness, and ministry satisfaction. The second section examines the historical

underpinnings of leadership development in Christian higher education. It will provide a

historical perspective of the seminary and clergy education. The third section examines

the theoretical underpinnings of leadership development by considering the debate

initiated by Farley and subsequently discussed by a variety of scholars (Farley 1983). The

fourth section will examine the research perspective of the social science community

regarding theological education. The fifth section will examine the educational

perspective, in particular the educational models existent in theological education. It will

examine the literature for theoretical models, current seminary models, and leadership

development models used outside of graduate theological education. The sixth section

will examine literature related to the variable of ministry effectiveness, including

leadership effectiveness as a necessary competency. The literature review concludes with

an examination of the precedent literature regarding ministry satisfaction.

Theological Foundations of Leadership Development

Theology encompasses every subject, including leadership. As Nancy Pearcey

contends, "We must begin by being utterly convinced that there is a biblical perspective

on everything—not just spiritual matters" (Pearcey 2004, 44). This portion of the review

of precedent literature is concerned with identifying the theological foundations that

undergird this research project. It includes theological perspectives on the philosophical

matters of metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and teleology. It also includes biblical

perspectives of leadership, leadership development, education, ministry effectiveness,

and satisfaction in ministry.

Ph ilosoph ical Presuppositions

Stephen R. Covey writes, "The leader of the future, of the next millennium,

will be one who creates a culture or a value system centered upon principles" (Covey

1996, 149). The question one must ask is, "whose principles?" The researcher recognizes

that both the literature reviewed in this research endeavor as well as his views, rest on

philosophical predispositions (Knight 1998, 7). These metaphysical, epistemological,

axiological, and teleological presuppositions will be examined first.

Metaphysical Presuppositions

There is a sharp contrast between biblical and naturalistic metaphysical

presuppositions. Burns as well as Zenger and Folkman establish a concept of leadership

based on metaphysical presuppositions tethered to an earth-bound perspective (Burns

1978; Zenger and Folkman 2002). Burns ponders the origins of leadership values,

Can we trace the origins of the shaping and sharing of values back to various needs of childhood, or is purpose and influence built into the potential leader by social and

political processes only during later years? Is it in some measure independent of psychological need and environmental cause—objectively based in process of mind? How deep are the roots of values held strongly by leaders and the led? (Burns 1978, 34)

Burns considers whether values are shaped by psychological need (childhood needs) or

environmental cause (social and political processes). He makes room for biological,

psychological, social and political tributaries to leadership development, but a positivist

fence limits his metaphysical boundaries. The same can be said for leadership experts

Zenger and Folkman (Zenger and Folkman 2002, xvi, 79-80).

Burns and the Bible are clearly at odds. Whereas Burns argues for a value

formation that is psychological, environmental or biological, the Bible presents a value

system, the gravitational center of which is rooted in God who is both transcendent and

immanent (Matthew 6:9; Isaiah 55:9; Acts 17:24-28), the ultimate reality who is worthy

of all praise, honor and glory (Genesis 1:1; Romans 11:36). The Bible presents a coherent

universe, providentially governed by an omnipotent God, rather than chaos pulled

together through chance occurrence (Palm 148:5; Hebrews 11:3; 1:10-12; Colossians

1:17). It is this metaphysical construct that forms the basis for all leadership development

and which makes a tenable epistemology possible.

Epistemological Presuppositions

The literature review that will follow surveys a host of scholars, each of whom

makes truth claims. Oden, for example, has taken issue with the prevailing underlying

assumption of modernity, namely that all truth claims are equally valid. Oden leaves no

doubt as to his thoughts, writing of his own generation of relativists, "who have botched

things up pretty absolutely," and the need "to rescue classic Christianity from the jaws of

compulsive novelty" (Oden 1995, 14,15). Messer responded to Oden. In doing so,

Messer revealed his desire to establish a synthesis of the great faiths of the world (Messer

1995, 64). Furthermore, Messer speaks of a "search for truth" (Messer 1995, 95).

Theological discussions ultimately betray theological presuppositions. Oden

and Messer make truth claims which are at odds with each other and that express their

underlying views about knowledge. The researcher acknowledges he enters this research

endeavor with certain presuppositions regarding knowledge in general and truth in

particular.

The researcher begins with the presupposition that the Bible is the word of

God, that God is the ultimate source of knowledge, and that his word is truth (1 Samuel

2:3; Psalm 119; Proverbs 2:6; John 17:17). As truth, it forms the epistemological

foundation of study and stands over the one who would inquire of it (Psalm 119:9,11,

130). The researcher recognizes a difference between Truth and truth. The word of God,

Truth, governs all other truth claims. Scripture, as Truth, should form and reform all ideas

of leadership and leadership theory. Since Truth governs truth, Scripture—as Truth—

stands over other truth claims. The researcher tests all ideas and theories against Scripture

(Acts 17:11, 22-31; Ephesians 4:11-16; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

This view stands in marked contrast to many scholars. Wood stresses that the

task of theology is critical inquiry, questioning the validity of Christian witness or

tradition (Wood 1985, 26). Wood's critical inquiry harnesses the disciplines of historical

study, philosophical study and the study of practice to ferret out the truth (Wood 1985,

49). Systematic theology "receives the results of historical investigation" in order to

fashion and transmit the product (Wood 1985, 49-59). Rather than follow a pattern

similar to Wood, the researcher embraces a biblically-based epistemology. God, as

revealed in the Scriptures, has made himself known and is knowable through his creation,

his spoken word, written word, and through Jesus who is the Living Word - God in

human flesh (Romans 1:20-21; John 17:17; John 1:1,14; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). As

Gaebelien has written this truth encompasses all truth,

For Christian education, therefore, to adopt as its unifying principle Christ and the Bible means nothing short of the recognition that all truth is God's truth. It is no accident that St. Paul, setting before the Philippian church a charter for Christian

thought, wrote: 'Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true . . . think on these things' (Philippians 4:8). He knew that Christian truth embraces all truth, and that nothing true is outside the scope of Christianity. (Gaebelein 1979, 20)

Common grace enables the leader to consider and embrace ideas, inventions, theories,

and achievements outside of Scripture though Scripture is the touchstone by which they

are evaluated. Educational leaders have a biblical necessity and responsibility to study,

learn from, create, and dialogue on educational theories. This is an inferential teaching of

the cultural mandate (Genesis 1:26-28) and common grace (Acts 14:17, 17:25-28).

Axiological Presuppositions

Returning to the issue of values, Burns asks, "How deep are the roots of values

held strong by leaders and the led?" (Burns 1978, 35). The question of Burns goes to the

heart of the axiological issue. What is the nature of the soil from which the axiological

roots derive their nourishment? Are values relative, shifting with cultural changes, or are

they based on a more permanent footing? The researcher holds to an axiology that is

rooted in God who is transcendent and immanent, benevolent and just, perfect in his ways

and unchanging (Deuteronomy 32:4; Acts 17:24-18; Romans 1:19-20; Colossians 2:6-8).

As such, his ways and his word form the basis for his views about people and ethics.

People have value and are to be valued because they are created in God's

image (Genesis 1:26-28). Since God providentially cares for all people, Christian

leadership is not solely "task driven" (Acts 17:25). Christian leadership, instead,

recognizes that leadership ultimately is about serving people, all of who are valued by

God and should be valued by those who lead them (Mark 10:45; John 13:1-17). At the

same time people are marred image bearers (Romans 5:12), therefore, leadership and

education will be resisted at times and learning will require work.

Ethics, the ought of life, are value judgments regarding actions and attitudes.

Wayne Grudem writes, "The emphasis . . . in Christian ethics is on what God wants us to

do and what attitudes he wants us to have. Such a distinction is reflected in the following

definition: Christian ethics is any study that answers the question, "What does God

require us to do and what attitudes does he require us to have today? " with regard to any

given situation" (Grudem 1994, 26). Ethics are that which govern the character that is so

important to leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-7). Christian ethics find their source in God who

first called things good, and who provides the lens through which we are to make

aesthetic judgments (Genesis 1:31; 2 Peter 1:5-11).

Teleological Presuppositions

Teleological proclamations are common in the literature that will be examined

below. Hough claims that the "theological school is to be understood as a professional

school" (Hough and Cobb 1985, 19). Donald Messer notes three essential purposes for a

theological school: First, to equip effective clergy and lay preachers to proclaim the

gospel; second, to educate the total people of God for ministry; third, to serve as the

intellectual center of the church, with the express purpose of increasing love for God and

neighbor (Messer 1995, 22-26). One would be hard-pressed to disagree with Messer, but

the question as to the biblical warrant for his claims must be examined. John Leith

provided a critical examination of seminary education in general and the Presbyterian

Church (USA) in particular. His discussion is predicated on his ardent belief that the role

of the seminary is to educate and equip pastors in the church's faith (Leith 1997, 40).

Leith writes, "The task of the seminary is not to produce church historians, professional

theologians, or technical scholars. The first task is to prepare preachers who use

theological and biblical knowledge to proclaim the gospel and to nurture congregations"

(Leith 1997, 18).

Precisely what is the teleological foundation for leadership development? The

biblical presupposition is that everything ultimately exists for the glory of God (Matthew

22:34-40; Romans 11:36; Colossians 3:17, 23). God is glorified in the reconciliation of

his creation to himself through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross. As

believers participate in that work of reconciliation they bring him glory and fulfill their

purpose (Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21). Biblical leadership operates with

God—and his purposes—as its ultimate end.

Summary

Philosophical presuppositions undergird the literature regarding leadership

development training models (Holmes 1985, 12-13; Noll 1994; Pearcey 2004, 21; Sire

2004, 10; Newell 2006). This research will be accomplished using a biblically-based

metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and teleology. Max Stackhouse provides an apt

description of both the presuppositional reality and the challenges that occur when such

assumptions are not grounded in the sure Word of God.

But theological education is ultimately based upon something else. It is based upon the presupposition that there are, in the final analysis, some reliable criteria whereby we can know and talk about what is and what is not divine, true, and just. If there are no such criteria, or if we could not know them even if they did exist, or if they cannot be discussed in reasonable discourse even where they are intuited, theological education is a pretense—at worst, the rationalization, of ideologization, of privileged insight or group interest; at best, the poetry of personal or communal imaginings. (Stackhouse 1988, 9)

Mulder and Wyatt demonstrate the change that occurs as a result of shifting

presuppositions. The authors survey Presbyterian seminaries since 1920. In doing so

Mulder and Wyatt trace the movement from creed to credo (I believe), from Old School

Calvinism to neo-orthodoxy, from theology to psychology, from "salvation" to

"reconciliation" (to emphasize the social dimension), and from making a cultural impact

to leaving a cultural imprint (Mulder and Wyatt 1992, 37-70). Assumptions matter. They

impact planning, processes and outcomes.

Theological Perspectives of Leadership

Leadership as a discipline is a sophisticated, varied and often misunderstood

concept (Stogdill 1974; Bennis and Nanus 1986; Rost 1993; Kouzes and Posner 2003).

Stogdill catalogs a variety of leadership theories including great man theories, personal-

situational theories, interaction-expectation theories, humanistic theories, exchange

theories, and trait theories (Stogdill 1974, 17-35). Burns introduces transactional,

transformational and moral leadership (Burns 1978, 4). In light of the abundant and

varied information about leadership, it is not surprising that Burns observes, "Leadership

is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth" (Burns 1978, 2).

Such a diverse understanding warrants a biblical perspective on leadership.

Leadership is a biblical given. The cultural mandate requires it (Genesis 1:26-

28). How is the human race to exercise their God-given call to "rule" and "subdue" apart

from leadership? The biblical record teems with leaders of all sorts: military leaders

(Joshua 1:1-6), political and governmental leaders (1 Kings 1:28-30; Romans 13),

religious or spiritual leaders (1 Samuel 2:27-36), family leaders (Genesis 49:1; Ephesians

6:), and church leaders (Titus 1:5; Hebrews 13:7). Jesus modeled leadership (John 13:14-

15) and leadership development (Mark 10:45; Luke 10:1-3, 17). The necessity of

leadership and leadership development is also in keeping with responsible stewarding of

spiritual gifts (Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12-14). This portion of the paper will

outline a biblical perspective of leadership that includes the elements of role, relationship,

modeling, mission and service.

Leadership Is Role

Leadership as a role is both implicit and explicit in the Biblical narrative.

Genesis displays the activity of a triune Creator, synergistically working within himself

to bring about the creation of the world. The cultural mandate (Genesis 1:27-28)

presupposes leadership from practically any perspective. Leadership is predicated on the

basis of civilization, cultures, and governments, all of which would not exist without the

exercise of leadership. The same implicit view of the role of leadership is present in the

biblical admonition to submit to governing authorities whose influence is meant to do

good for society (Romans 13:1-4). Leadership, however, is not just implicit in the biblical

text, it is explicitly stated as well.

God defines the term, identifies the position, and clarifies the role when it

comes to leadership. Leadership (TrpoicrTr|p.i) is "to put oneself at the head," "to preside"

in the sense of "to lead, conduct, direct, govern," and contextually it always shows a

sense of "to care" (Kittel and Friedrich 1968, 700-01). The picture Paul presents in

Romans 12:8 is one of a person called to a role of standing in the front. It is spoken of as

both a position (Exodus 15:1, 18:25; Numbers 1:16) and an activity (Numbers 33:1; Acts

1:20; Romans 12:8). It is used of leaders of nations (Exodus 15:15), of communities

(Exodus 16:22), of tribes (Numbers 1:16), of political leaders (Micah 3:1), of military

leaders (1 Samuel 14:38), of pastoral and church leaders (Hebrews 13:7; Acts 15:22). It

is a role and an activity, both of which are to be tempered with zeal (Romans 12:8) and a

servant spirit (Mark 10:45).

Leadership Is Relationship

The Bible presents leadership as a relationship—with God and with others.

Leaders of the Bible are called by God and live in relationship with him (Genesis 12:1-3;

Genesis 17:1-8; Exodus 3:1-18; Judges 6:11-27; Psalm 72:1-19; Mark 3:14; Acts 9:1-6).

The general tenor of Scripture, specific examples of biblical leaders, as well as specific

admonitions to those who lead, all demonstrate that leadership is to be exercised in

community (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10; Romans 12:10; Luke 10:1-4; Acts 13:1-3, 13-14; Acts

15:1-6). Leadership in the Old Testament is carried out in community. Point leaders had

trusted "seconds" (Exodus 17:12; Exodus 24:12-13; 1 Samuel 14:1-7); leaders leaned on

advisors (1 Samuel 16-17); leaders had friends (1 Chronicles 27:33); and leaders took

care of their followers (1 Samuel 30:24-25; 2 Samuel 23:14-17).

Leadership in the New Testament was virtually always carried out in

partnership. This is the practice of Jesus who called twelve to be "with him" (Mark 3:14)

and who sent out his disciples "two by two" (Luke 10:1). Paul ministered in partnership.

The Scriptures are replete with examples: Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:46); Paul and Silas

(Acts 16:19); Paul, Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:1-3, 18); Paul and Sosthenes

(1 Corinthians 1:1); Paul and Timothy (2 Corinthians 1:1); "Paul. . . and all the brothers

with me" (Galatians 1:2); Paul and his traveling companions (Romans 16:3-23).

Decisions of the early leaders of the church were carried out in community, not

unilaterally (Acts 13:1-3, 15:1-22). The practice of a plurality of elders in churches of the

New Testament also demonstrates the communal nature of biblical leadership (Acts

20:17; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5). It was that lack of partnership that bothered Paul when

he languished in a Roman prison (2 Timothy 4:9-17). Scripture presents leadership as a

relationship, it calls leaders to partnership and service, and it sets forth leadership as a

communal activity (John 13:14-15).

Biblical leadership is a partnership with people and with God. Understanding

the role of the Holy Spirit is significant to the work of leadership. In the Old Testament

the Holy Spirit was given for leadership (1 Samuel 16:13-14; Psalm 51:11). In the New

Testament the Holy Spirit was promised, in part, to help the early disciples who were the

leaders (John 14:26). The leader has power when operating in step with the Spirit;

without that help, the impact of the leader is diminished at best; dismissed at worst (Acts

1:8; 4:8, 31; Ephesians 4:30). Jesus left his followers with the Holy Spirit, who was given

to them to help them know truth and discern error (John 14; 16). Christian leaders,

understanding the great significance of the work of the Holy Spirit for promoting truth

and avoiding danger of false educational theories, must follow the admonition of Paul to

Timothy and "guard the Spirit" (2 Timothy 1:14). Christian leaders lean on the Spirit in

dependence when evaluating curriculum or educational theory or organizational

decisions. Leaders ignore the Spirit at great peril to themselves, their institutions, and the

people they serve.

Leadership Is Modeling

God expects more from his leaders. This is evident in biblical admonitions

(1 Timothy 4:16), and in biblical examples of great leaders (Psalm 78:72; 1 Corinthians

11:1; 1 Thessalonians 2; 2 Thessalonians 3). It is also evident when observing the

punishment meted out on leaders of the Bible who failed to exhibit it (Numbers 12;

1 Samuel 2; 2 Samuel 12; 1 Kings 18; 1 Timothy 1:20). Leadership and character walk

hand-in-hand in the leadership literature (Burns 1978; Graham 1997; Collins 2001;

Hybels 2002; Zenger and Folkman 2002; Kouzes and Posner 2003b) and in the Scriptures

(1 Samuel 16:7; Acts 6:1-4; 1 Timothy 3:8-12; Titus 1:7-9).

The biblical leader leads an exemplary life worthy of emulation (1 Corinthians

11:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:4-10; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-10). The biblical perspective,

however, differs from most popular and research literature at the point of the foundational

motivation for such character. The underlying base for biblical character is a morality

based on God himself who is holy and who calls both his people and his leaders to

exhibit the same (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:15-16; Psalm 78:72; 1 Timothy 4:16). God

holds his leaders accountable for both character and conduct (2 Corinthians 5:9-11;

Hebrews 13:17). Not only is leadership morality based on God, but the leader also finds

in God the strength to be a model for him. Christian leaders follow the model of God

himself who took time to pause in purposeful rest (Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 31:17), and in

Jesus who regularly took times to withdraw and find the strength for the leadership

journey (Mark 4:1-11; Luke 6:12; Matthew 4:13; 14:23; Mark 1:35, 6:31; Luke 5:16).

Those who practice biblical leadership recognize the significance of living in

relationship with God. They desire to know God and serve him well and are, therefore,

vigilant in their efforts to maintain that relationship (Psalm 78:72; 1 Timothy 4:16). This

intimate relationship with God is essential to modeling a life of Godly character, but the

relationship is not the sum of biblical leadership. The leader must also be aware of and

strive toward the accomplishment of the mission.

Leadership Is Attention to Mission

All leadership moves toward something. The cause of leadership is the finish

line toward which the leader drives (Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; Philippians

3:12-14). For Abraham the cause was a promise (Genesis 12); for Moses the land of

promise (Exodus 3); for David it was a nation to lead (1 Samuel 16); for the disciples it

was a commission to fulfill (Matthew 28:18-20). Christian leadership is unique in that its

end is otherworldly. It has a metaphysical focus; it "proclaims that we have come from

God, that we find meaning in life by being disciples of Jesus Christ, that we find purpose

in his service, and our destiny is to be in his presence permanently" (Root 1985, 144). As

the writer of Hebrews has shown, Christians live for the glory of One whom they never

see, but not seeing still believe (Hebrews 11-12). This is an essential biblical perspective.

The Christian mission is driven by the ultimate Christian cause, that of

glorifying God (Romans 11:36) which, for the Christian leader, is expressed in every

facet of life (1 Corinthians 6:9; Colossians 3:17, 23), and especially in the reconciling

work of Christ. This theme of reconciliation is evident throughout Scripture, from the

protevangelium (Genesis 3:15), to the great commission (Matthew 28:18-20), to the

missiological mandate (Acts 1:8), to Paul's soteriological focus (2 Corinthians 5:11-21),

to the culminating visions of Christ in the Revelation (Revelation 5:9-10).

The significance of ultimate cause is a distinguishing mark when examining

precedent literature. Leadership texts are driven by a variety of teleological

presuppositions. The biblical view is echoed by many (Wilhoit and Dettoni 1995, 7;

Pazmino 1997; Richards and Bredfeldt 1998, 14; Thrall, McNicol, and McElrath 1999,

146; Habermas 2001, 8). For others, leadership is best measured in a financial bottom

line (Collins 2001, 192), or by the vision of the organization (Kouzes and Posner 2003,

109), the behavioral whims of the leader or constituents (Zenger and Folkman 2002), or it

may be lacking in a moral base altogether (Rost 1993). No matter what that cause might

be leadership operates with an end in sight.

Leadership Is Service

The biblical record contains many metaphors for how the leader functions, and

consequently how leadership acts. Biblical leadership is like a father (1 Corinthians 4:14-

15; 2 Corinthians 12:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:11); a mother (Galatians 4:19;

1 Thessalonians 2:7); a shepherd (Ezekiel 34:23); a builder (1 Corinthians 3:6-9); and a

farmer (1 Corinthians 3:6-9), but it is the servant nature of leadership that stands out

(Mark 10:45; Titus 1:1). Leadership is ultimately an act of service. Frederick G. Gaiser

writes, "Is there anything the church knows about leadership that nobody else knows?

Only one thing, I think: 'Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all'"

(Gaiser 1993, 3). When a biblical theology drives ideas about leadership, images of CEO

and manager are replaced with those of a father, shepherd and servant (Root 1985, 162).

Leadership becomes pastoral care (1 Thessalonians 2:8,11). This care is held in tension.

Biblical leadership is not service or power; it is service in power; it is not caring or

leading; it is caring and leading a cause (Root 1985, 160).

Authority and Service

Christian leadership is comprised of those who are in authority acting in

service (Koenig 1993, 26; Root 1985,161). Paul speaks of "the authority which the Lord

has given me" (2 Corinthians 13:10). Paul acts with authority. He threatens to discipline

the church on one occasion (2 Corinthians 13:2), and establishes rules on another

occasion (1 Corinthians 7:17). Biblical leadership is authoritative leadership. Perhaps

this is part of the reason the Scriptures do not fault one for wanting to be in a position of

ecclesiastical authority. Paul writes, "If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he

desires a noble task" (1 Timothy 3:1). This is not self-aggrandizement, but an authority

for service in and for the church. It is a service in which one is often led into the

prominence of service (Koenig 1993, 27). Leadership that is at the same time authority

and service is a leadership that lives with a biblical tension, a tension that is present in the

pages of Scripture: authority and service, aspirations and invitation, dependence and

community (Root 1985, 165). Paul had authority, but he was still collegial. He worked

with more than forty traveling companions in ministry. Rather than assert his authority,

"Listen to me!," which was not beyond Paul, he encouraged people to "Imitate me."

More verbs are used than nouns when referring to leadership, which may

insinuate that leadership is more action than position. This truth also sets biblical

leadership apart from other models. Biblical leadership is service-oriented and humble,

but it is a humility that is cloaked in boldness (Joshua 1:1-9; Number 12:3; Acts 4:29-30;

Acts 16; 2 Timothy 1:7-8; 2:24-26).

Competent service

God expects competency among those who would exercise the gift of

leadership. God commends King David in the Psalms for a heart of integrity and "skillful

hands" (Psalm 78:72). Paul says to the one who would lead, "let him govern diligently"

(Romans 12:8). Leadership from a biblical perspective is marked by discipline,

proficiency, excellence, and perseverance (Psalm 78:72; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2

Timothy 1:6; 4:7). Effective leadership focuses efforts on strengths, not weaknesses

(Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4; 1 Peter 4). This is a point at which popular

leadership and management literature coincides with the teaching of Scripture. Marcus

Buckingham summarizes such thoughts with the term, the "manager's mantra": "People

don't change that much. Don't waste time trying to put in what was left out. Try to draw

out what was left in. That is hard enough" (Buckingham and Clifton 1999, 79).

The Bible presents a competent leadership, though the specifics as to which

competencies are essential vary by context. On a macro level biblical leadership mirrors

competencies found in popular research literature (Kouzes and Posner 2003). On the

micro level, however, relative to a variety of ecclesiastical concerns, the competencies

required look different as Root and others have noted (Root 1985; Koenig 1993; Gaiser

1993). Understandably, the New Testament does not give us a totally normative pattern

for ministerial leadership or of ministerial competencies (Root 1985, 157). This is quite

understandable when one considers that the people of God have been constantly in

transition (Boos 1985, 43). Competencies vary for a nation on the move. Moses saw the

challenge of transition in Exodus 18, the apostles in Acts 6, and growing churches are

confronted with it today. Growth and size dictate some leadership competencies. In that

sense leadership is somewhat, if not to a great deal, subjective (Ramsey 1982, 102) and

situational (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2000, 107).

The situational aspect of ministerial competencies is illustrated when

comparing various ideas as to the major tasks of leadership. Hough writes that the

practical theologian is called to four tasks, which includes counseling (Hough 1984, 80).

Driscoll, on the other hand, is adamant that the leader is not a therapist, but a missionary

(Driscoll 2006, 27). If necessary competencies were dynamic rather than static, one

would expect to find competencies both varied and contextual when examining the

Scriptures. This is the case in the biblical record. Moses needed speaking skills at one

point (Exodus 3), and organizational skills at a different point (Exodus 18). The

leadership of David is summed up as character and competency (Psalm 78:72). The New

Testament pastoral epistles isolate some skills that may be different from those necessary

to the apostolic work of Peter and Paul. At the same time there are some competencies

that seem normative throughout the pages of Scripture: teaching (1 Timothy 3:2),

working with and through people (Exodus 18:23), equipping the people of God to serve

(Ephesians 4:11-12), and growing other leaders (2 Timothy 2:2).

Genuine Service

Biblical leadership is marked by a genuineness of life. The biblical record

presents "real people." Biblical leadership is being honest before God and with God.

Moses illustrates this in his hesitant response to God's call (Exodus 3), Job in his

frustrations over his suffering (Job 23), Jonah in his anger over the mercy of God (Jonah

4). Biblical leadership is expressing real emotions (Psalms). Biblical leadership is being

real about the doubts and struggles of faith. John the Baptist, the forerunner to Christ was

not sure if Jesus was really the one (Luke 7:20) and was not afraid to express that

hesitancy. Biblical leadership is being both present and real with people. Jesus was found

at the parties and social gatherings; he did not hide in an ivory tower. Biblical leadership

expresses real passion for Christ and his kingdom as Paul did (Romans 9:3; Philippians

3:11-14; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27). Biblical leadership is real in response to sin. The

confession of David was open, full and evident (2 Samuel 12; Psalm 51). Biblical

leadership is being genuine, authentic, and real!

Leadership Conclusions

Leadership as a role is both explicitly taught and implicitly implied throughout

the Scriptures. Biblical leadership is a relationship; the leader in relationship with God

and with the people of God. The leader models life in Christ and sets an example for the

people he leads. Leaders function with a mission, a mission to glorify God and help

reconcile the world to Christ. Many metaphors describe leadership in the New Testament,

but the predominant metaphor is that of a servant. Authority and service mark biblical

servant leadership. Competency and genuineness of character are normative. Biblical

leadership is focused on multiplying itself to achieve the ultimate mission and those

lesser missions that contribute to it. Biblical leadership could be summarized as the

skillful initiative taken by one or more people in a synergistic partnership to influence

others toward the accomplishment of a shared goal.

Theological Perspectives of Leadership Development

What place does leadership development occupy in biblical thinking? Banks

and Ledbetter provide a model of leadership and identify eight concepts of a leadership

that bears the mark of faith. The authors envision concentric circles—like ripples in a

pond—that include the person of the leader, leader-follower relationships, the leadership

task, and the setting of leadership (Banks and Ledbetter 2004, 55). The authors also

identify eight characteristics of leadership that bear the imprint of faith: intentionality,

reflection, self-evaluation, covenant building, intellectual integrity, ethical integrity,

followership, and perpetual learning and development (Banks and Ledbetter 2004, 55).

Interestingly, their "faith-perspective" does not include leadership development as a part

of their model or their list of characteristics. But the Bible does speak to leadership

development, which the following section will consider.

Leadership Development Is a Biblical Presupposition

Leadership development, like leadership, is a given in the biblical record.

Reproducing leaders is essential to fulfilling the cultural mandate (Genesis 1:27-28),

operating governments (Exodus 18:1-27; Daniel 1:1-7; Romans 13:1-7), carrying out the

Christian mission (Luke 6:12-16; Matthew 9:35-38; Titus 1:5), building effective family

generations (Deuteronomy 6:4-12; Ephesians 6:1-4), and building up the church (Romans

12:8; 1 Corinthians 12-14; Ephesians 4:1-16; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy; Titus).

Reproducing leaders was a normative practice in both the Old Testament and

in the New Testament. This is evident in many places including Moses' leadership

development practices with the people of Israel, and the practice of leadership

development within the church (Exodus 17:14; 24:13; Numbers 11:28; 1 Timothy 3; 2

Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5). The admonition of Paul to Timothy exemplifies this teaching,

"The things you have heard me say . . . entrust to reliable men . . . who will also be

qualified to teach others" (2 Timothy 2:2). Leadership development is predicated on the

priesthood of believers and it is also practiced through formal ordination (Barker and

Martin 2004, 173).

Leadership Development Is a Biblical Mandate

Leadership development is not a mandated normative practice in the Old

Testament though it can be observed and assumed in many relationships such as Joshua

and Moses (Exodus 17:14; 24:13; 32:17; Numbers 11:28); Moses and the leadership of

Israel (Exodus 18:13-27); Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 19:14-18); and the "sons of the

prophets" (1 Samuel 19:18-24; 2 Kings 2:3, 5, 7, 12, 15). Leadership development is,

however, mandated in the New Testament. Paul gave to both Timothy and Titus the

specific charge to reproduce leaders for the church (2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5). Paul

supplied some guidance for this process in letters to both men. While Jesus did not

specifically teach, "reproduce leaders," it is evident in his relationship with the disciples

and implied in the great commission he gave to his disciples (Matthew 28:19-20).

The concept of biblical leadership, as described above, is relational in nature.

The ideas of partnership and team are present (Exodus 18:13-27; Luke 10:1; Acts 13:1-3;

16:1-10, 25; 18:1-5, 18-23). This sense of partnership provides a means of on-the-job-

training for future leaders. Such on-the-job training, while both assumed and evident, is

not specifically taught as normative in the biblical record. Still, the mandate to grow

leaders exists.

Leadership Development Is Modeled in the Biblical Record

There is no normative process of leadership development in the Old Testament

or the New Testament (Gangel 1970, 328). Moses, Elijah, Jesus and Paul, to name a few,

practiced leadership development and observations of that practice yield principles for

how it is conducted. Jesus illustrated several aspects of leadership development in the

actions he took with his disciples. First, biblical leadership is predicated on divine

dependence. Jesus preceded his selection with a night in prayer demonstrating the

necessity of the supernatural work of God (Luke 6:12; Acts 13:2). Second, Jesus

appointed his leaders rather than allowing just anyone to volunteer (Mark 3:14; Luke

6:13; Acts 13:2; Titus 1:5). At the same time it is important to note that the Scriptures do

not prohibit one from seeking pastoral leadership providing that person meets biblical

qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1). Third, joining the leadership ranks required a significant

level of commitment (Matthew 8:20; 20:20-23) as Banks notes (Banks 1999, 122).

Fourth, Jesus called twelve to be "with him" (Mark 3:14). Jesus lived with and ministered

with the disciples. He utilized a living classroom. Moses, Elijah, and Paul also followed a

"with him" approach in their leadership development process (Numbers 11:28; IKings

19:19-21; Acts 16:1-5). As to Paul, the New Testament is replete with "Paul and . . . "

statements. Additionally, the latter parts of the letters of Paul, the most personal portions

in Romans and 1 Corinthians, reflect the custom Paul had of practicing the "with him"

principle. Banks notes different levels of those associated with the key figure including a

core group, an intermediate group and a broader group (Banks 1999, 122). Fifth, Jesus

selected his leaders with a mission in mind and they knew it (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13).

Summary

The Old Testament, the synoptic gospels, and the letters of Paul—particularly

the Pastoral Epistles—leave an indelible mark on the necessity of leaders reproducing

themselves. Leadership development is mandated in 2 Timothy 2:2 and modeled in

several places in the Bible. The example of Jesus provides principles of how that

leadership development process is carried out. The practices of the leaders in both

testaments produced a ripple effect of leadership in Israel, the nations, the twelve, in

Timothy, Silas, and a host of elders in the burgeoning church that followed them.

Theological Perspectives of Education

This section provides a biblical perspective of education following a

framework set forth by Frankena and by Habermas (Frankena 1965; Habermas 2001).

The purpose of education will be examined, followed by the perspectives that give rise to

that purpose. The researcher believes that a biblical view of education works to inculcate

certain overriding principles. The biblical perspective of educational pedagogy, including

the teacher, the learner and the nature of learning will follow this.

The Purpose of Education

What is the aim or purpose of theological education? Burgess traces the history

of religious education from the inception of the church, demonstrating that the aim of

education for the church has changed and changes with the theological and sociological

persuasions (Burgess 2001). As will be shown below there is a marked difference among

theologians as to the nature and purpose of theological education, some viewing that

purpose as divine wisdom (Farley 1983), others the education of practical theologians

(Hough and Cobb 1985), and still others vision and discernment (Wood 1985), or as

Banks would describe, a synthetic model (Banks 1999). If great leadership ultimately

rests on education (Bredfeldt 2006, 13), this portion of the biblical theology of leadership

will set forth a biblical perspective of education.

The apostle Paul teaches that the glory of God is the ultimate end of life, a

teleology that is both the present and future focus (1 Corinthians 6:20; Colossians 3:17,

23; Romans 11:36; Philippians 2:9-12; Revelation 5:9-14). As Hodgson notes, the history

of education has a distinctly religious bent: "Thus religion and education have always,

until modern times, been closely associated. Religious institutions have engaged in

educational activity, and education has been seen to have a religious basis, a sacramental

quality" (Hodgson 1999, 5). Whitehead writes that from the beginning of civilization,

"The essence of education is that it be religious" (Whitehead 1929, 14). The ultimate aim

of education then, as with all of life, is the glory of God. This glory is manifest in the

work of reconciliation, which is the theme of the biblical narrative from the

protevangelium of Genesis 3, to the concluding pronouncement of Christ on the cross,

tetelestai (John 19:30), to the glory song of the entire creation in Revelation. The

overarching purpose of a Christian educator can be summarized as "reconciliation" (2

Corinthians 5:17-21).

The teleological focus of Christian education does not mean it is totally

otherworldly. On the contrary, reconciliation initiates and guarantees a restoration of

people to their original design by God in Genesis. Redeemed by God, all of life becomes

an opportunity to live for his praise (1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Colossians 3:17, 23).

Education becomes a means to help live properly in relation to God, to live properly for

God, and to discover more fully the life of God in Christ (Deuteronomy 6:4-7; Proverbs

2:1-6; 3:1-2; Ezra 7:10; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11-12; 6:1; Timothy 4:6).

George Knight writes, "To be sure, Christian education includes those aspects

of learning, but beyond that it has the more far reaching goals of reconciling fallen

individuals to God and one another and restoring the image of God in them" (Knight

1998, 229). Similar words are expressed by others (Habermas 2001, 34; Pazmino 2001,

37). Christian educational endeavors are ultimately directed toward the target of

reconciliation. It is a reconciliation that results in a renewed relationship with God,

humankind, and the natural world. Put in a slightly different way, it is a restoration of our

original relationship with God in general and a renewed focus on the cultural mandate in

particular (Genesis 1:28-31).

The Perspectives That Undergird Education

Robert Hutchins has written, "Only if we get our philosophy straight can we

think straight about education" (Hutchins 1995, 10). Many others share the view that

philosophical presuppositions are important (Stackhouse 1988; Eisner 2002; Pearcey

2004; Sire 2004; Newell 2006). George Knight places those perspectives into three

categories: metaphysics, what is ultimately real; epistemology, what is true and how that

truth is known; and axiology, what is of value (Knight 1998, 13-34). The researcher has

already outlined a biblical perspective of these philosophical underpinnings, therefore,

only a brief summary with application to education will be included here.

Metaphysics

The biblical metaphysical construct is rooted in God who is transcendent. God

stands above his creation, too magnificent to fully comprehend, yet he is intimately

involved with it. In this respect, Zophar, the critic of Job, was right when he said, "Can

you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is

higher than heaven—what can you do? Deeper than Sheol—what can you know" (Job

11:7-8). The attributes of God have been described as both communicable, those shared

or communicated by God with people, and incommunicable, those that God does not

share or communicate with people (Grudem 1994, 156). "Examples of the

incommunicable attributes would be God's eternity (God has existed for all eternity, but

we have not), unchangeableness (God does not change, but we do), or omnipresence

(God is everywhere present, but we are present only in one place at one time)" (Grudem

1994, 156).

This biblical perspective has significant educational implications. A biblical

perspective of education stands in contrast to the existential leaning exhibited in the

humanistic adult education movement as noted by McKenzie and exhibited in Hudson

(McKenzie 1995, 98). Hudson writes, "What range of abilities should adults obtain to

make their lives full and joyful" and "A concerned, entrepreneurial social force will be

led by successful. . . Americans who believe they can get their act together again in a

new way. While they have no blueprint at this time, they have energy . . . " (Hudson

1999, 241, 251). A biblical view of education will disavow "bootstrap theology" while at

the same time recognizing that people, created in the image of God, are capable of great

good and lofty achievements. The biblical view of education is one grounded in absolutes

rather than constant relativism since its operational base—God—is himself absolute,

above and over all his creation, including the educational principles that operate within it.

The biblical metaphysical construct is also rooted in God who is immanent

(Matthew 6:9). God is intimately acquainted and involved with his creation. Eugene

Peterson captured this biblical construct in his paraphrase of John 1:14, "The word

became flesh and blood and moved into the neighborhood" (John 1:14, The Message).

This too is significant in that both the teacher and learner can be assured that God cares

and wants to help them in every facet of the educational journey (Matthew 6:9; 2

Corinthians 1:3-4; Philippians 4:6-7; 1 Peter 5:6-8).

Epistemology

Epistemology and education walk hand-in-hand. W. Jay Wood writes that

epistemology impacts truth claims and truth challenges; it is, "that branch of philosophy

dedicated to reflecting on our lives as intellectual beings" (Wood 1998, 10). Educational

leadership is rift with ideas, theories, and research; therefore, epistemological issues will

be many. A number of educators and leadership experts, for example, view knowledge as

constructed, tentative, and flexible (Spender 1982, 148-49; Mezirow 2000; Belenky and

Stanton 2000). Mezirow writes, "In this world there are no fixed truths" (Mezirow 2000,

3), an idea repeated by Belenky and Stanton (Belenky and Stanton 2000, 71). James

Michael Lee asserts, "There are no specifically labeled 'Christian teaching processes'"

(Lee 1971, 292). He adds, "Attempts to create 'Christian dentistry' or 'Christian farming'

and the like are no more ridiculous and unchristian than efforts to create 'Christian

teaching-learning processes" (Lee 1971, 292).

The Scriptures present an alternative view based in and upon absolute truth

that provides an all-encompassing perspective on life (1 Samuel 2:3; Psalm 119; Proverbs

2:6; John 17:17). "Nothing in all creation lies outside its purview, for nothing in all

creation is unrelated to the purposes of God" (Holmes 1985, 13), a view recognized more

recently by Sire and Pearcey (Sire 2004, 10-15; Pearcey 2004, 34). Thus, biblical

revelation becomes the lens through which educational ideas and theories are viewed. As

Arthur Holmes has described, biblical revelation provides the "guidelines for thinking"

(Holmes 1985, 83). This thinking includes all ideas about education and educational

leadership. Biblical truth provides both a foundation for educational leadership and

becomes the plumb line to ensure its boundary walls are straight.

Biblical epistemology has implications for every aspect of teaching and

learning, including educational objectives. Simpson has noted this significance. Since a

biblical epistemology is more than just an accumulation of facts, educational objectives

are to encompass more than just cognitive constructs (Simpson 1992, 222).

Axiology

A biblical epistemology drives axiological assumptions including both ethics

and aesthetics. People have intrinsic value since they are created in the image of God

(Genesis 1:27; Matthew 9:27; Acts 10:23-29). Consequently, they are treated with respect

for who they are as image bearers, not for what they do or possess. Since the human race

is fallen (Genesis 3:1-24; Romans 5:12), people exist as marred image bearers - in need

of saving grace, yet not without the marks of common grace. Ethics exist as absolutes

because God exists as absolute and immutable (Romans 1:19-20; 2:14-15). Value and

respect, elements of ethics, are aspects of axiology as is aesthetics. Beauty and worth is

not in the eyes of the beholder; rather God establishes beauty and value (Genesis 2:9).

Goodness, beauty and ethics endure because they stand on a foundation that is both true

and lasting (Psalm 119:160). Gangel notes that a biblical view of education avoids the

pervading sense of "presentism" and instead is eternity-centered (Gangel 1970, 34). A

value system driven by an eternal perspective eschews the relativity of purely pragmatic

and utilitarian ethical systems, and instead educates for today and tomorrow, based on the

certainty of future beyond this life (Titus 2:11-13).

The Principles of Education

The researcher is in agreement with Habermas who identifies four desired

outcomes of teaching (Habermas 2001). These summative principles are encapsulated in

Acts 2:42-47. The principles work from the primary goal of reconciliation (purpose),

which is based on the Bible (perspectives):

1. Living in communion with God. Teaching must help people develop a growing relationship with God through his son, Jesus (John 17:3).

2. Living in community with others. Teaching must help people to learn to live in biblical community (Romans 12:10, 16; 14:1; 15:7; 1 Corinthians 12:25).

3. Growing in Christ-like character. Teaching must help people bear the fruit of the Spirit and grow in Christ-likeness (Galatians 5:22-23).

4. Responding to the calls of God in life. Teaching must help people grow in vocational service to Christ. This is living out the great commandment and great commission in response to the primary call of God to salvation, as well as his secondary call to service, and specific calls of special assignments (Mark 1:17; Luke 10:41; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20; Colossians 3:17, 23; Esther 4:13-14).

These principles become the educational "higher ground." They serve as a reminder that

teachers ultimately teach for God (Romans 11:36), and in the great effort of

reconciliation and restoration. They are an outworking of a "creation, fall, redemption"

paradigm that views every subject through the lens of Scripture (Pearcey 2004).

The Educational Pedagogy

A biblical view of teaching and learning is based on a triune God who is

present, has revealed himself, can be known and who desires his ways to be passed from

one generation to the next (Acts 17:22-31; Psalm 19:1-4; Psalm 78:1-7; 1 Peter 3:18).

Teaching and learning are inextricably linked as evidenced by the Hebrew word lamad\

which is used for both "teach" and "learn."

While Greek uses two different words for "to learn" (manthano) and "to teach" (didasko), each having its own content, goal, and methods, Hebrew uses the same root for both words because all learning and teaching is ultimately to be found in the fear of the Lord (Deuteronomy 4:10; 14:23; 17:19; 31:12,13. To learn this is to come to terms with the will and law of God. (Harris et al. 1980, 480)

Teachers and Teaching

Humankind was created in the image of God, with positive inclinations toward

him. Both the perfect image and the positive inclination were interrupted at the fall

(Genesis 3). Since God's image was distorted at the fall (Genesis 5:1-3), and Christian

teachers operate from a redeemed paradigm as to life and living, Christian teachers

recognize the importance of protecting image bearers (Genesis 6:9; James 3:9).

As a result of the fall, people are conceived inherently corrupt (Mark 7:20-23).

Understanding this, Christian teachers react against assumptions of educational theories

such as Behaviorism and Progressivism that make humans both the locus and focus of all

educational efforts. Christian teachers challenge behavioral assumptions that environment

is the ultimate conditioner of behavior (Mark 7). Christian teachers take issue with

Freudian theory that asserts human personality is fixed at age six, since the grace of God

knows no boundaries. Christian teachers take issue with a progressivism that makes the

child the educational telos, or human understanding the final arbiter of critical thinking

and perspective transformation.

Teachers are models before they are instructors (Luke 6:40). At the same time,

teachers are to model their beliefs (1 Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 3:17). Teachers teach

both people and subjects; they must know and love both (Ezra 7:10; Colossians 3:17, 23;

1 Thessalonians 2:7-12; 1 Timothy 4:16). Christian teachers are guided by the Holy Spirit

in their teaching endeavors (Romans 8:5-9; 2 Timothy 1:14). Teachers are accountable

for their instruction (James 3:1), which finds its ultimate meaning and coherence in a

relationship with the sovereign God who is known in and through Jesus Christ (Proverbs

1:7; Colossians 1:16-17; John 17:3).

The teaching process is directed to both children and adults (Deuteronomy 6:1-

7; Psalm 78:5-6). Teachers, recognizing the all-encompassing nature of biblical

revelation, seek to help learners interpret all of life through the biblical paradigm by both

their lives and their teaching (Proverbs 1:7; Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14; Acts 7; 17). Teachers

help learners recognize, "All truth is God's truth" (Psalm 119:89-96), and to distinguish

truth in all facets of life (Isaiah 28:23-29; Hebrews 5:11-14). The method the teacher uses

may change in this pursuit, but the message remains the same (1 Corinthians 9:19-22).

Learners and Learning

All learners have value since they are created in the image of God (Genesis

1:26-27). As Shields and Bredfeldt note, "As God's final creative act, humans are not

restricted to creature status. We are more than instincts and drives. We possess intellect

and reason, emotion and will, creativity and t a l e n t . . . . Because of this we exist at a level

that is higher than a purely animalistic existence" (Shields and Bredfeldt 2001, 61).

Humans are created in the image of God, yet they are marred as a result of sin (Genesis 3;

Romans 3). Learners, therefore, need instruction and discipline (Proverbs 1:1-9, 22;

Deuteronomy 6:4-7; 30:11-15; Psalm 78:5-6; Titus 1:5). This understanding of the height

of human creation and the depth of human depravity drives implications about learners

and learning.

Created in God's image, people are rational creatures with the ability to

exercise a will (Genesis 1:26-27; 3). They are like God in function so they can evaluate.

As such, learners are to exercise their evaluative nature and counter all false worldviews

such as Existentialism, Nihilism, Marxism, and Behaviorism (Hoekema 1994, 1-4).

Anthony A. Hoekema writes,

Since each of the above-named views of man considers one aspect of the human being to be ultimate, apart from any dependence on or responsibility to God the Creator, each of these anthropologies is guilty of idolatry: of worshiping an aspect of creation in the place of God . . . . We must therefore make a sharp distinction between idealistic and materialistic anthropologies on the one hand, and a Christian anthropology on the other. (Hoekema 1994, 4)

The comment of Hoekema argues for an active, engaged learner, rather than a passive,

disengaged learner.

People are created in the image of the Trinitarian, relational God. As such

learners are made for God and for people (Romans 11:36; 12). Learners are different

physically, intellectually, emotionally, and socially (1 Peter 4:10-11). Learners should

respect their teachers (Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:11-12; Hebrews

13:17). Learners bring God glory through academic diligence (Matthew 22:37).

All learning is ultimately for the glory of God (Romans 11:36), and ultimately

depends on the grace of God for its working (Gangel 1970, 34). Learning, like learners, is

a varied landscape. Learning is formal and informal (Deuteronomy 4:6-7; Proverbs 1:8),

individual and communal (Proverbs 1:8; Luke 24:13-32; Acts 2:42-47). It occurs through

a variety of methods (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:1-3; Psalm 119; Matthew 13:31; 2 Timothy

2:2; James 1:22-25). Learning occurs when information enters the head, penetrates the

heart, and works out in the hands (Acts 2:37). In that sense it is cognition, conviction and

competence (Habermas 2001, 105). Learning should result in transformation of the mind,

heart and life (Luke 24:13-35; James 1:22).

Summary

The Bible presents a holistic picture of education, the purpose of which is the

glory of God, ultimately worked out in reconciliation and restoration. This view of

education is based on philosophical underpinnings that present metaphysically, a God

who is both transcendent and immanent, and can be known; epistemologically, absolute

truth and its accompanying implications; axiologically, perspectives of the worth of

people and a stable rather than constructed ethics. A biblical view of education views all

of life through the lens of Scripture. There are principles that govern the academic

enterprise for the Christian. The principles are summarized as being in communion with

God, in community with others, developing the type of character that pleases God, and

living out the call of God by striving to honor him with excellence in every endeavor. A

biblical educational pedagogy encompasses the teacher and teaching, along with the

learner and learning. All educational endeavors operate out of this biblical paradigm and

ultimately are devoted to bringing God glory.

Theological Perspectives of Effectiveness

A biblical perspective of effectiveness—including leadership effectiveness—

must be seen in the light of purpose. The Bible presents humankind as created in the

image of God and given the task to work in creative activity (Genesis 1:26; 2:5,15; 2:19-

20). "Only in creative activity do we externalize the identity we have as men made in the

image of God. This then is the true basis for work" (Middelmann [2007],

creativityl_Middelmann.html). Any evaluation of effectiveness, then, is ultimately tied to

ones identity as an image-bearer of God, responsible and equipped to be creative agents

of him (Genesis 1:26; 2:5,15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12; Genesis 2:19-20). Identity is

separate from performance, yet uniquely tied to it. Creative activity, as a responsibility of

the person made in the image of God, is subject to evaluation (Proverbs 6:6-11;

2 Thessalonians 3:6-12), while the essential value of ones identity is preserved by virtue

of the creation (Middelmann [2007], creativityl_Middelmann.html).

A biblical paradigm of leadership effectiveness must be measured against

biblical standards and responsibilities. The admonitions of Paul to Timothy and Titus

outline essential character qualities for those serving the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus

1:5-9). Character, an honorable family life, proven lifestyle, love for people, ability to

live the Truth, faithful service, and a good reputation demonstrate that external

achievements without corresponding internal character do not constitute biblical

effectiveness.

A biblical paradigm of leadership effectiveness is marked by responsible

activity subject to accountability. This is consistent in matters of civil service (1 Kings

2:5-7; Proverbs 14:35; Romans 13:1-7), Christian service (Matthew 25:14-30; 1

Corinthians 9:19-27; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 2 Timothy 1:3-9), and personal devotion (James

1:19-25). The biblical concept of effectiveness operates in the realm of the natural world,

but considers the supernatural empowerment of God as a means for improving it (Daniel

1:17; Ephesians 1:19-21; Colossians 1:11), and the impact of sin for limiting it (Proverbs

28:13). Effectiveness or the lack of it is a direct result of hard work or inactivity and

laziness (Proverbs 14:23; 22:29; 28:19). Effective works bring confidence, honor,

promotion, future blessings, and a sense of peace to those who exemplify it and glory to

God who enables it (1 Corinthians 15:58; 1 Corinthians 16:10-18; Philippians 3:12-14;

Colossians 4:7-15; 2 Timothy 4:6-8; Romans 11:36; Philippians 2:1-11).

Theological Perspectives of Satisfaction

The idea of satisfaction in the Old and New Testament is multifaceted,

appearing both as a word, saba, and as an inferential concept derived from the Hebrew

tob and towb (Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, Dictionary of Biblical

Languages with Semantic Domains', Strong's Lexicon, s.v. "satisfaction," "good").

Satisfaction is used as a state of the soul, in the sense of pleasurable contentment or well-

being that comes from purpose and correspondence, as in Genesis 1:4, 19; Deuteronomy

15:16; Esther 5:13; Ecclesiastes 2:24, 3:13, 5:18; Psalm 104:31 (KJVBible Commentary,

Logos Research Systems, Inc.). It is also used for aesthetic and moral goodness in

judgment and evaluation (Genesis 1:10, 31), as a state of physical contentment

(Deuteronomy 6:11), and a general feeling of contentment (Psalm 91:16). In the New

Testament the corresponding concept is the word, contentment (Philippians 4:11-12; 1

Timothy 6:6,8; Hebrews 13:5).

The biblical perspective of work is a positive one, so it would be expected that

one would be encouraged to find satisfaction in it (Genesis 2:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10-20).

This is the biblical teaching. Contentment in work and life is possible and commended.

Contentment in work is not, however, the sum of existence (Ecclesiastes 5:18;

Philippians 4:11-12; Hebrews 13:5). This can only be found in Christ (John 10:10).

Summary

This portion of the precedent literature has considered the biblical perspective

on factors pertinent to this study. The researcher has expressed his commitment to a

worldview that interprets life metaphysically, epistemologically, and axiologically

through the lens of the Old and New Testament Scripture. The researcher has set for a

basic theological perspective on leadership, leadership development, education,

effectiveness and satisfaction. The researcher believes that the Scripture provides a

comprehensive view of life and that there is a coherent biblical view to the current study.

The researcher acknowledges this biblical worldview as a presuppositional perspective,

which informs and forms his view on the current research endeavor.

Historical Perspectives of Leadership Development

This section will briefly trace the historical foundations of the seminary and

examine the literature that relates to ministerial education. This line of inquiry is pursued

upon the belief that current trends in theological education do not exist in a vacuum

(Miller 1990; Burgess 2001). Trends that are being felt in Christian higher education

today are either initiations arising from theological and philosophical persuasions, or

reactions to historical impulses. The beliefs that one has as to the nature of theological

education shape the leadership development training models used by that person or

institution to prepare ministers (Brown 1934; Niebuhr 1956). Understanding the

historical roots of theological education, therefore, provides a necessary perspective. This

section will proceed as follows. First, the researcher will trace the rise and role of the

seminary from its earliest days in the United States. Second, the researcher will examine

select pieces of the historical literature regarding clergy education in America. This

literature is vast. Third, this section will examine the historical role of the minister in the

church in America. This review will surface essential issues that relate to this particular

research effort.

The Seminary in Historical Perspective

The seminary is a relatively modern invention. Early colleges in Colonial

America were designed to provide the type of English education that made one "a

gentleman and a scholar" (Miller and Lynn 1988, 1630). These enterprises in higher

education were decidedly Christian (Gambrell 1937; Marsden 1994 ). "The Christian

tradition was the foundation stone of the whole intellectual structure which was brought

to the New World" (Brubacher and Rudy 1968, 6). Colonial Anglicans and Calvinists

established their colleges with the goal of a highly literate, educated clergy (Kelly 1924;

Gambrell 1937; Fraser 1988; Miller 1990; Gangel and Benson 1983, 359). Kelly reminds

his readers of the fact by providing the lines quoted on the Harvard gateway, which

appear below as they did then (Kelly 1924, 23):

After God had carried vs safe to New England and wee had bvilded ovr hovses provided necessaries for ovr livelihood reard convenient places for Gods worship and settled the civill government one of the next things wee longed for and looked after was to advance the learning and perpetvate it to posterity dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the chvrches when ovr present ministers shall lie in the dvst. (Kelly 1924, 23)

The gateway is significant. It signals the dual purpose of colleges in Colonial America,

training for ministry and helping to make functioning members of a civil society.

The Influence of the Great Awakening

The Great Awakening signaled a teleological fork in the pedagogical road of

higher education. Fraser notes the growth of three distinct movements that arose as a

result of the influence of the revivalist movement (Fraser 1988, 3-27). First, "Log

Colleges" and academies developed by the likes of William Tennent were established to

train young men for ministry and maintain the revivalist cause. Second, a new breed of

colleges sprang up after Tennent's Log College closed in 1742. Princeton and other

colleges were established "to train clergy and laity in an atmosphere fully hospitable to

the revivalist movement" (Fraser 1988, 11). Third, the practice of "reading divinity"

grew as many students, distrustful of colleges or as the final preparation for ministry after

college, chose to study theology in the home of a revival preacher. These arrangements

lasted anywhere "from a few months to more than a year" (Gilpin 1984, 86).

The Establishment of Andover Seminary

As the country came out of the revolutionary era, a growing tension developed

between orthodox belief and Unitarianism (Marsden 1994, 74). Harvard, the center of the

more liberal party among the Puritans, demonstrated its Unitarian leaning when they

elected Henry Ware, a Unitarian, the Hollis Professor of Divinity (Fraser 1988, Marsden

1994). That act ultimately led to the founding of Andover Theological Seminary in 1808,

the very first specialized theological school in America, and decidedly conservative in the

Old Calvinism tradition (Kelly 1924, 24; Fraser 1988; Marsden 1994; Miller 1990).

Whereas the training of clergy was the primary reason for the existence of colleges in

Colonial America, by the mid-nineteenth century educating of clergy was no longer the

primary factor for their existence; such education having been shifted to divinity schools

and theological seminaries (Kelly 1924; Marsden 1994, 99). The current model in

theological education of four years of college followed by three years of seminary was

established at Andover. This pattern was essentially the norm in America by the end of

the Civil War (Fraser 1988, xi).

Clergy Education in Historical Perspective

Seminary and clergy education has been examined from several perspectives

though most of those works have been historically summative and descriptive rather than

evaluative (McCloy 1962; Gilpin 1984; Fraser 1988; Miller 1990). This section will

review the literature on clergy education with a view to those works generally considered

seminal to the field of ministerial training. The review will examine clergy education

during the antebellum years, from the Civil War to the Great Wars, and consider

theological education after World War II. The purpose of this review is to gain a

historical perspective on the nature of the leadership development models used since

Colonial times. This perspective will help in establishing a current taxonomic

classification of leadership development models.

Two works that stand out for their breadth are McCloy and Day. The McCloy

study, conducted with Professor George Huntston Williams of Harvard University, is an

extensive bibliographical sketch of theological education in America from the close of

the eighteenth century to the time of their writing (McCloy 1962). Day is a bibliography

of all known works on Protestant theological education in America (Day 1985).

Prominent for their early research perspective were studies by the Institute of Social and

Religious Research (Kelly 1924; Daniel 1925; Brown 1934), and projects launched by

the Association of Theological Schools (Niebuhr 1956; Niebuhr and Williams 1956;

Niebuhr, Williams, and Gustafson 1957).

Antebellum Clergy Education

Early clergy education in Colonial America was predominantly a university

education modeled after Cambridge. Studies that focus on that period (Gambrell 1937;

Fraser 1988; Miller 1990) are generally historical in nature. Gambrell examined

ministerial training in New England, focusing especially among the Congregationalists

from the Great Awakening to the founding of Andover in 1808. Gambrell is a highly

documented historical study that, like Fraser (Fraser 1988), reveals the pattern of

controversy followed by educational reform. Gambrell highlights a significant change of

a practical nature that was brought on by the founding of Andover: "The third year was

devoted to pulpit eloquence, ecclesiastical history, and pastoral duties, in all of which

except the last the old system had been almost entirely lacking" (Gambrell 1937, 146).

Fraser examined Protestant theological education from 1740 to 1875. Fraser

identifies six distinct shifts that precipitated the development of new forms of theological

education during this period. Each shift followed a crisis about the understanding of the

nature of the ministry and each led to the development of new institutions (Fraser 1988,

xii). Fraser notes the importance of historical analysis for theological education. He

writes, "If the primary purpose of theological education is to train ministers for the

churches, then the prime question in theological education must always be, 'what is the

nature of the ministry?"' (Fraser 1988, xiv).

Miller studied the aims and purposes of theological education and then

examined if and how those aims were incarnated in particular institutions (Miller 1990).

Miller provides a clue as to the lack of any careful analysis of the direct impact of

seminary training on those in the field when he writes that the first seminary founders

were interested in a "highly technical and precise type of thought" and assumed that

pastoral skills would simply be worked out in the day-to-day life of parish ministry

(Miller 1990, 3). Miller, unlike some historical studies, focuses on how early ideas were

carried out and the development of ministerial standards (Miller 1990, 7). His work does

not, however, offer any summative analysis of the relationship between the way ministers

were trained and the impact of that training on their ministries. The same can be said for

Gilpin who examined the practice of reading divinity in Colonial America (Gilpin 1984)

In summary, early seminary education was more theological than practical

though Baxter is pastoral in nature (Baxter 1829). As Miller notes, "The most important

achievement of American seminaries was to provide a home for theology" (Miller 1990,

444), which was the same focus as ministerial education prior to the seminary (Gambrell

1937; Gilpin 1984, 97). Theological education was generally more institutional than

field-oriented. When it was oriented to the field, as in the case of the Revivalist

movement and Western expansion were concerned, it was still largely theological in

nature. As such it reflected more the growth of theological and biblical scholarship than

on the means by which such scholarship was accomplished through training efforts.

Clergy Education: The Civil War to the World Wars

The period from the Civil War to the World Wars witnessed significant

changes in leadership development through theological education, induced in part by the

changes impacting the country. These changes included industrialization, urbanization,

secularization, the growth of social sciences, and the continuing threat of war (Brown

1934, 6-9). Harper, Kelly, and Brown were key voices for and to the church during this

period (Harper 1899; Kelly 1924; Brown 1922, 1934).

The Influence of William Rainey Harper

William Rainey Harper was awarded the first Ph.D. in the United States. He

served as president of the University of Chicago and was very interested in the ministry.

Harper called for sweeping changes in both the concept of ministry and how ministers

were trained. He advocated a radically different curriculum, basing his appeal on both the

changing times and the cries of graduates. Brown also noted the changing face of

ministry and the corresponding challenge for training religious education teachers, as

well as those to work with children, music, and the arts (Brown 1922, 222). Harper

provided a cogent analysis of theological education from the perspective of a scholar of

the day, much like Brown. Harper called for psychological and scientific application to

the nature of the education, but his report itself, lacked any quantitative measurements.

Those measurements would come with The Institute of Social and Religious Research

(ISRR), founded in 1921.

The Institute of Social and Religious Research

The ISSR intended to combine scientific method with religious motive. The

ISRR provided three comprehensive reports on theological education (Kelly 1924; Daniel

1925, and Brown 1934). Kelly examined 100 of the 140 seminaries of his day, providing

an overview of the state of theological education from 1870 to 1922 and concomitant

challenges. Kelly, who served as the Executive Secretary of the Council of Church

Boards of Education, decried previous evaluative methods, the diagnoses and

prescriptions of which "were based on guesses" (Kelly 1924, vii). The Kelly report

examined "every phase of theory and practice of the seminaries and training schools" and

included both quantitative and qualitative analysis (Kelly 1924, viii). Kelly noted the

propensity of faculty to use the lecture and textbook method and described much of that

teaching as "frequently puerile and intellectually benumbing" (Kelly 1924, 54, 224).

Kelly also noted the increasing use of methods—by a small number of institutions—that

were more pedagogically advanced, including the seminar, the library, the laboratory, and

the field (Kelly 1924, 57). These methods, however, were not the norm as the notation

from Kelly reveals:

That the functional methods of teaching have not been generally introduced is all the more striking in view of the rather successful development of such methods in other types of professional and vocational schools. Much work of the law school is done through cases, of the medical school through clinics, of the engineering school and the teachers' college through projects. In contrast, most of the seminaries are slowly emerging from teaching methods that are autodidactic. In a few there is an unfortunate tendency for the practice work to have no close relation to the fundamental curriculum activities. (Kelly 1924, 224)

Brown introduced the idea of applying social science methods to the church (Brown

1922). Kelly was the first comprehensive detailed study of the seminary, but Kelly did

not demonstrate any correlation between the predominant leadership development model

and its impact on graduates, except for the anecdotal impressions of the researcher.

Daniel (1925) was a thorough research of all African-American schools in the

United States that advertised theological courses for 1923-1924 (Daniel 1925, 15). The

Daniel study was designed to "ascertain facts on the basis of which deductions might

intelligently be drawn for the better preparation of Negroes for the Christian ministry"

(Daniel 1925, vi). Most aspects of the leadership development training model could be

described as the academic classroom model. Daniel notes mechanical methods of

teaching, "slavish chapter-and-page adherence to a textbook," recitation, and "much

teaching that is far removed from anything vital or practical" (Daniel 1925, 48). Students

were equipped in theology, languages and church history and practical theology. Two of

the three recommendations of Daniel regarding curriculum at the conclusion of his study

bear evidence of the need for revision of the model. First, he recommended that a

constant study of the needs of the minister as a basis for determining curricula. Second,

he commends fieldwork, "Field work by students should be extended and supervised.

Wherever possible, supervised field work should be part of one or more of the required

credit courses in the general field of practical theology" (Daniel 1925, 108).

The Education of American Ministers

In 1929, The Conference of Theological Seminaries, a representative group of

theological seminaries of the United States and Canada, selected Mark A. May of Yale

University, and William Adams Brown of Union Theological Seminary to examine

theological education in the United States and Canada. May was appointed Director of

the project; Brown the Theological Consultant (Brown 1934, vi). The Brown-May study

followed Kelly to pick up where his research left off and address some of the problems

Kelly identified through his study (Kelly 1924; Brown 1934, vi). The research of Brown

and May culminated in four volumes entitled, The Education of American Ministers. The

study examined sixty-six seminaries, which were representative of all seminaries in the

United States and Canada. Brown and May examined the adequacy of ministerial

seminary training to meet the challenges of the world and specifically looked for

correlations between ministry training and effectiveness and hiring (Brown 1934, 53).

The first volume by Brown provided a summary of the findings.

Brown discovered that the success of ministers with both college and seminary

training was greater by 40 to 75% than those who had neither. The criteria he used for

success was size of church, efficiency as judged by number of staff and committees, and

the minister's participation in community action (Brown 1934, 55). While ministers with

seminary training were actually less satisfied with their lifework than non-trained

ministers, the trained ministers did view their training as valuable work, citing

"considerable" value in strengthening their faith and developing their spiritual life, and

"some" value in practical skill, and in the area of knowledge and thinking methods. Of

note are the difficulties the respondents reported in connection with their ministerial

work. Brown evaluated the difficulties experienced across five functions of ministry:

teacher, evangelist, leader of corporate worship, pastor, and administrator. Contrary to

some research today (Buzzell 1983; Nelson 1994), ministers reported their least

dissatisfaction with training given on the administrative side of ministry.

The Brown study is significant to this current research in that Brown went

farther than any who preceded him to conduct social science research regarding ministry.

He provides repeatable constructs for evaluating ministry, especially ministry

effectiveness. The Brown study occurred in a time when the development of new training

models was in infancy stage. While Brown did highlight the need for the development of

specialized training in the areas of educational, missionary, social, and philanthropic

service, he did not provide any taxonomic classification or comparative analysis of

training models for ministry (Brown 1922, 1934). This present research, therefore, would

be building on both Brown's constructs and findings and provide some degree of

longitudinal report on ministerial training.

Clergy Education after World War II

McCoy notes the study by Niebuhr, Williams, and Gustafson was the next

significant analysis of theological education following Brown (McCoy 1962; Niebuhr,

Williams, and Gustafson 1957). The Niebuhr study was a two-part report that culminated

a fifteen-month inquiry into theological education in America and Canada conducted

from 1934-1954 by ATS and funded by the Carnegie Corporation. The Purpose and Impact of the Niebuhr Study

The primary purpose of the Niebuhr study was to examine "the work which the

theological schools do in the preparation of persons for the parish ministry" (Niebuhr et

al. 1957, ix). Niebuhr, Day, and Gustafson combined quantitative and qualitative

assessment. The sample included 36 schools and data was collected from participating

institutions through questionnaires. The data was then corroborated through interviews

with deans, faculty and students from more than 90 theological seminaries that were

visited by the team.

Niebuhr is a reflection or self-examination on the aims of theological education

(Niebuhr 1956). Niebuhr notes two impressions. The first, what he terms "a superficial

impression," is that perplexity and vagueness of purpose plague both the ministry and

theological education. This is recognized in the expansion of the curriculum, which has

been "'enriched'—like vitamin-impregnated bread," and appears as more "a collection of

studies rather than as a course of study" (Niebuhr 1956, 98-99). A second impression is

that the signs of new vitality are emerging (Niebuhr 1956, 102). Niebuhr paints a picture

of theological education that is in need of focus, but he offers no summary of models or

evaluation of them as this research proposes to do (Niebuhr 1956).

Niebuhr, Williams, and Gustafson provide the quantitative assessment from the

earlier Niebuhr study (Niebuhr, Williams, and Gustafson 1957; Niebuhr 1956). The

second part of this work examines, among many things, the course of study and

theological teaching of the seminary. The report takes notice of the major trends in

curriculum content and the problems resulting from it; it also provides proposals for

reorganization. Niebuhr noted the challenges of the curriculum as: alignment between

institutional aims and curriculum, curriculum overloading, requirements, and the loss of

unity with the increasing number of specialty courses (Niebuhr et al. 1957, 80). Niebuhr

considered the role of fieldwork and field supervision, but in the context of a curriculum

appendage. He also examined internships, the rise of clinical training for the pastorate,

and marks of good teaching. The work of Niebuhr demonstrates the existence of nascent

alternative curriculum models. Niebuhr distinguishes these curricular aspects as

programmatic and provides some initial evaluation of them, but he does not categorize

these efforts as separate leadership development models.

Influences after Niebuhr

Three recent research projects have addressed the history of clergy education.

Coalter, Mulder, and Weeks examined American Presbyterianism though part of a larger

series, "The Presbyterian Presence: The Twentieth-Century Experience." The Lilly

Endowment funded this study. The study did not reveal in full the research design,

though it was historical in nature; the historical research serving as a means to help its

members "understand the past as a resource for the future" (Coalter, Mulder, and Weeks

1992, 12). The Coalter, Mulder, and Weeks study provides, among other things, a

quantitative analysis of spiritual formation of graduates from Presbyterian Church United

States of America (PCUSA) from 1948 to 1988. It also identifies attitudes of pastors and

others toward denominational matters and church life, but it does not treat, either

quantitatively or qualitatively, how ministers were trained.

Foster conducted a study of the teaching practices of clergy educators of

accredited seminaries (Foster et al. 2006). This study, funded by the Carnegie Foundation

for the Advancement of Teaching, examined the preparation of many groups of clergy:

Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, evangelical Protestant, Reform and Conservative

Jewish clergy. Teaching practices encompassed "the manner in which teachers—

individually, collectively, and as members of a faculty—reflect on, prepare, and

implement activities for student learning" (Foster et al. 2006, 384). The authors used the

qualitative method known as appreciative inquiry, which builds on the strengths of an

enterprise rather than its weakness. The research examined classroom and communal

pedagogies, the impact of historic traditions on pedagogical experience, the sub-question

as to whether clergy education has a "signature" classroom pedagogy, and how clergy

education emphasizes and integrates apprenticeships (Foster et al. 2006, 384-85). The

study was based on a selective sample of 18 of the 300 accredited seminaries. The work

is a comparative study to create better understanding of clergy education though not

comparative in an evaluative sense to measure how that education is performed.

The authors note several issues for further study, two that bear on this research.

First, the authors noted a "signature pedagogical framework," qualities distinct to

institutions and, by which, they could be described (Foster et al. 2006, 371). This

framework combines pedagogies of interpretation, formation, contextualization, and

performance (Foster et al. 2006, 371). Second, the authors noted "curricular balance"

which included the various clergy education programs as a means "by which institutions

could be described, compared, and contrasted" (Foster, 374). Lawson (2007) examined

the educational ministry preparation programs in evangelical higher education.

The Historical Role of the Minister

Hough traces the history of the "ministerial character," a term he borrows from

Mclntyre to describe the professional minister in the United States. Hough argues that the

concept of the minister has evolved, an evolution brought on as much by socio-historical

influences on the church as it is the theological understanding on the ministerial role

(Hough and Cobb 1985, 6; Mclntyre 1981). Hough describes the changing portrait of the

ministry in the United States from Master to Pulpiteer to Builder to Pastoral Director to

Manager and Therapist (Hough 1984; Hough and Cobb 1985, 5-18).

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, particularly in Reformed church,

the authoritative theological teacher (the Master) was the dominant character. The

Pulpiteer replaced this portrait. The Pulpiteer flourished as an expanding country and

expanding sense of religious freedom created hard ground for the small parish but fertile

soil for revivalists whose oratorical abilities brought about a ministerial paradigm shift.

The Pulpiteer gave way to the Builder whose steady efforts established churches during

the nineteenth century. This picture was replaced by that of the Pastoral Director whose

maintenance functions were both pastoral, i.e., counseling and care and directors, i.e.

institutional managers. Joseph Hough believes that the current paradigm, that of the

Manager and Therapist, is the result of a pastoral roles cut loose from theological

moorings (Hough and Cobb 1985, 15).

The shifting images noted by Hough have created problems for theological

education. The tension that exists between latent ideas of the pastor as Master and current

ideas of pastor as Manager is, in part, the reason "theological schools do not succeed well

by either standard" (Hough and Cobb 1985, 17). The work of Hough is helpful as a

framework for understanding how the content of theological education may have changed

over the years, but he does not demonstrate any measurement with respect to leadership

development training models.

Summary

This review of the literature helps in identifying a number of issues pertinent to

the research at hand. First, historically, leadership development for ministry was in the

classical mode. Ministers received formal classroom training in the classics, logic,

mathematics, history, dogmatics and the biblical languages (Kelly 1924, 63), with little

attention to the development of "practical skills" for parish ministry. Second, there has

been a continued criticism of the classical model by those who feel it does not provide an

adequate means of preparing ministers for the day-to-day life of the minister. Third,

discord more than anything else accounted for new developments in theological

education (Miller and Lynn 1988; Fraser 1988). As Fraser notes, the study of the early

history of theological education in America demonstrates a consistent pattern, namely

that new theological institutions grow out of different understandings as to the nature of

ministry (Fraser 1988, xiii). Fourth, conservative and liberal presuppositions have played

a significant role in the direction of theological education (Leith 1997; Mulder and Wyatt

1992). Fifth, this brief historical analysis demonstrates that seminaries, when they have

taken notice of needed changes, have often focused more on the content (the what) of

theological education than the nature of the leadership development model (the how) used

to deliver that content (Fraser 1988; Hancock 1992). Sixth, while there have been

consistent complaints as to the effectiveness of the leadership development model from

the time of the Great Awakening; with the exception of Kelly, Brown, and Niehbur, there

has been little evaluation of the effectiveness of leadership development models beyond

anecdotal observations (Kelly 1924; Brown 1934; Niehbur 1956). Additionally, there has

been no evaluation as to the relationship between the leadership development model and

the hiring, effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure of the minister. Finally, as Hough

proposes, there is tension in the academy facilitated by socio-historical factors. The

researcher questions if these factors naturally contribute to a diversity of leadership

development training models (Hough and Cobb 1985).

Theoretical Perspectives of Leadership Development

As early as 1899, theological educators have been calling for a remodeling and

in some cases an extreme makeover of theological education (Harper 1899, 45). It was

not until the early 1980s, however, that theological educators began "to establish a

scholarly tradition that focuses on their own practice" (Wheeler and Farley 1991, 8).

Theological scholars have been active since that time evaluating the essence of

theological education and the means to achieve it.

It is generally recognized by scholars (Hough and Cobb 1985; Wheeler and

Farley 1991; Kitagawa 1992; Kelsey 1993; Banks 1999) that the current discussion about

the nature and purpose of theological education as well as important ancillary discussions

began with the publication of Theologia: The fragmentation and unity of theological

education (Farley 1983). Given that generally recognized assumption, this review will

provide a chronological and theoretical overview of the nature and purpose of theological

education in America from the perspective of scholars in the academy. The review will

examine essential voices prior to Farley's Theologia (Farley 1983). It will then provide

an overview of Theologia, and conclude by examining the primary works since Farley's

watershed essay. This portion of the review raises questions and infers implications

regarding leadership development in post-baccalaureate theological education. As Kurt

Lewin has written, "There is nothing so practical as a good theory" (Lewin 1951, 169).

Pre-Theologia

Robert J. Banks is Senior Research and Development Fellow in the Centre for

the History of Christian Thought and Experience at Macquarie University, Sydney,

Australia. Formerly, he served as executive director of the De Pree Leadership Center at

Fuller Theological Seminary. His 1999 work, Reenvisioning Theological Education,

provides a cogent analysis of the discussion regarding theological education. Robert

Wood Lynn served for many years as vice-president in charge of religion for the Lilly

Foundation. Both Banks and Lynn (Kitagawa 1992) cite key scholars prior to Theologia,

which will be examined below.

William Rainey Harper

William Rainey Harper, President of the University of Chicago, wrote a paper for

The American Journal of Theology providing a critique of and proposing solutions for

the seminary (Harper 1899). Harper complained that "the training provided for the

students in the theological seminary does not meet the requirement of the modern times"

(Harper 1899, 45). His critique focused on the need for more science, more psychology,

more literature, more English and less Hebrew, which accounted for one-fifth of the

curriculum of the day (Harper 1899, 54). While Harper primarily addressed "the what" of

the theological curriculum, he also treated some pedagogical aspects; among them "a

certain time set apart for work in a church under the direction of a pastor" (Harper 1899,

62). He also proposed "theological clinics" that would provide real-time practice,

employing means similar to that which is used for students of medicine and law (Harper

1899, 61). Harper proposed a time for instructors and students to retire from "the active

work of the institution, and live together in quiet and solitude for special seasons"

(Harper 1899, 66). Unlike Farley, who would seek to recover the essence of theologia,

Harper wanted to bring the seminary in step with his times by adapting a secular model of

education rather than subjecting the current model to theological evaluation (Banks

1999, 6).

Robert Lynn Kelly

Robert Kelly, Executive Secretary for the Council of Church Boards of

Education, completed a quantitative study for the Institute of Social and Religious

Research that examined 161 seminaries in order to report on the state of theological

education in America. "This study grew out of the widely-held belief that the machinery

and the methods used in educating Protestant ministers was inadequate" (Kelly 1924, vii).

The study sought answers to the following questions (Kelly 1924, vi):

1. Are seminaries as constituted today effective in furnishing the churches with competent pastors and prophets? If not, why?

2. Are seminaries producing a high grade of scholarship such as will fit men for academic leadership as well as for the pastoral office?

3. What is the relation of the seminary to the university?

4. Are the curricula of the seminaries covering the whole field of responsibility of the ministry today?

5. What types of ministerial character do the seminaries create?

The exhaustive research of Kelly into the seminaries of his day demonstrates

the vocational nature of theological education of that period. He writes, "All seminaries

in common with law and medical schools consciously hold to a vocational purpose"

(Kelly 1924, 44). The emphasis on what Farley calls the "clergy paradigm" is evident. At

one point, Kelly examines the changes in course offerings of 7 seminaries over a 50-year

period at 25-year intervals.

While exegetical theology remained "first in importance" in most seminaries

of 1870, the increase of practical theology is noteworthy. Northwestern University is an

example of this shift. The number of semester hours in practical theology increased from

4 in 1870, to 32 in 1895, to slightly over 40 in 1921 (Kelly 1924, 69). A similar pattern is

found among many of the institutions surveyed. Commenting about the increase in

practical theology at Garrett Biblical Institute from 1870 to 1921, Kelly writes, "The shift

in content from that usually composing the body of instruction given in this general

subject is quite as great as the shift in the amount of time devoted to the subject. The

theoretical has given place to the laboratory and 'scientific' method" (Kelly 1924, 69).

Kelly commented on the need to train ministers in ways that more effectively meet the

needs of the unchurched, "Will the seminaries dare to reverse the customary academic

and scholastic attitude to such an extent that the needs, often unanalyzed and

unexpressed, of this unchurched mass may be more fully met?" (Kelly 1924, 227). Kelly

demonstrates the clerical focus, a focus about which Theologia would seek to reverse.

William Adams Brown

William Adams Brown addressed the Theological Seminary of the Reformed

Church, Lancaster, Pennsylvania in 1926 on their one hundredth anniversary (Brown

1926). Brown took the occasion to provide a brief history of theological education in

America and explain how the seminary became differentiated from other parts of the

college and made into a graduate school like law and medicine. In addition to his unique

historical analysis of the factors that contributed to the rise of the seminary, Brown also

clarifies his understanding of the purpose of theological education. He states:

Above all, both research and teaching must be controlled by the practical purpose which both alike serve, which is to make possible a fuller and more effective life. In the case of a professional school like the seminary there is the further control of the

need of the particular profession in question. The seminary exists to train ministers for the Christian Church. All that is studied and all that is taught, therefore, must be related to the practical needs of the church and its higher efficiency. It is feared that this controlling purpose has not dominated theological instruction as consistently as it should. (Brown 1926, 379)

Unlike Harper, who advocated a curriculum change, Brown was pleading for the church,

specifically that institution which trained its ministers, to catch up to changes in cultural

and to speak to their times. In that sense both Harper and Brown shared a common vision

though separated by twenty-five years (Brown 1926).

Mark A. May, Professor of Education and Psychology at Yale, along with

William Adams Brown, completed a follow-up study to Kelly (Kelly 1924), the purpose

of which was "the inclusion in a single research project of a study of the work for which

ministers must be trained and of the institutions in which they receive their training"

(Brown 1934, vii). The Brown and May study clearly sets forth the professional nature

of theological education. Brown, the author of volume 1 of the series, uses terms such as

"professional education," and "profession as a whole." He also discusses the necessity of

the application of knowledge. This is not surprising as Brown describes the changing

social, economic, educational and ecclesiastical milieu that serves as the backdrop to the

study. America was changing and with it the minister would change (Brown 1934, 3-17).

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the functional nature of theological education,

however, is the following:

Before we can judge the success of any institution we must know what it is trying to do. In the case of a professional school like the theological seminary, this is determined in large part by the nature of the profession for which it is training its students. As ministers of the church they must know what the church expects them to do and be able to do it intelligently. (Brown 1934, 21)

Brown proceeds to describe those "professional duties" of a Protestant minister. A

minister should be engaged as "(1) a teacher, (2) a preacher or evangelist, (3) a leader in

worship, (4) a pastor, (5) an administrator" (Brown 1934, 21). Brown will differ from

Farley. Brown asks, "What is the function for which the minister must be trained?"

Farley, on the other hand, argues that the work of the minister is theologia.

Mary Latimer Gambrell

Gambrell traces ministerial training in eighteenth-century New England from

the Great Awakening until the founding of Andover Theological Seminary in 1808

(Gambrell 1937). The author identifies the development of theological education as one

that was, during this period, shaped by the controversies growing out of the mid-century

revivals of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and others of that period. The revivals

elevated differences between Congregationalists and Unitarians to the point that Andover

was started in 1808 as a reaction to the Unitarianism of Harvard. The purpose of

theological education was to develop "a clergy whose duty should be to teach the people

the truth" though ideas for what that preparation entailed varied (Gambrell 1937, 42).

H. Richard Niebuhr

The Niebuhr study of 1956 was an ATS sanctioned evaluation of the aims and

purposes of theological education. This evaluation was necessitated by educational

entropy and the temper of the day that was reconsidering metaphysical inquiry as an

answer to perplexing issues (Niebuhr 1956, viii). The 1956 study and the 1957 study by

Niebuhr, Williams, and Gustafson characterize the nature of theological education as a

preparation for the professional work of preaching, organizing, counseling, and teaching

(Niebuhr 1956, 4). At the same professional education and its evaluation was a dynamic

process; a theological and educational reflective activity (Niebuhr 1956, 5). Niebuhr also

recognizes the "first function of a theological school—the exercise of the intellectual love

of God and neighbor" (Niebuhr 1956, 49), and that the seminary serves as an intellectual

center of community whereby members can exercise the reflective life that leads to love

of God and neighbor (Niebuhr 1956, 108; Niebuhr et al. 1957, 174).

A Summary of the Key Views Prior to Theologia

Theological education in the United States from Puritan New England until

Farley was predominantly functional in nature, that is, the primary duty of theological

education was to prepare ministers for the task of ministry however that ministry was

conceived (Brown 1926, 1934; Kelly 1924; Gambrell 1937; Niebuhr 1956). Gilpin,

however, puts the objective in Colonial America as "the inculcation of saving wisdom"

(Gilpin 1984, 98). The seminary was also an institution under critique for its curriculum

(Harper 1899; Brown 1934; Niebuhr 1956). Despite a functional approach, little

evaluation of that approach was conducted.

This review supports the charge of Farley that theology was fragmented as a

result of the Schleiermacherian effort to ground theology in an empirically based

university system. It also supports the claim of Farley that the clerical paradigm was the

teleological solution to theological unity (Farley 1983, 85). The review also supports

elements of a theory-practice dichotomy, a dichotomy that was prevalent until the

publication of Theologia. That publication ultimately prompted Barbara Wheeler to write

that the literature of theological education "has shifted from the long-standing focus on

narrowly technical questions about how to be effective to theological ones about what

goals should orient the practice of theological education and what shape the practice itself

should take" (Wheeler and Farley 1991, 9). The seminal work of Edward Farley will be

examined next.

Theologia

In his book Between Athens and Berlin, David Kelsey asks, "What is the nature

of and purpose of specifically theological education? What sets it off from other

apparently closely related academic enterprises as, precisely, theological education?"

(Kelsey 1993, 2). The question raised by Kelsey has long been a subject of debate in

theological education, but brought to the forefront of theological discussion by Farley.

Farley's Theologia is generally recognized as the watershed work as to nature and

purpose of theological education (Farley 1983).

The thesis of Farley is that theology "has long since disappeared as the unity,

subject matter, and end of clergy education" and its disappearance has been problematic

for that education (Farley 1983, ix). Theologia, the Latin word for theology, follows an

Aristotelian tradition of carrying a double meaning, that of "theology as knowledge," a

personal knowledge or habit of the soul, and "theology as a discipline," a theoretical base

of study (Farley 1983, 32). Farley contends that from the patristic period through the

Enlightenment, theology was primarily a habit of the soul characterized by practical

wisdom (Farley 1983, 35). The Enlightenment marked a significant shift in the idea of

theology; with its coming everything about theology as the unity, subject matter, and end

of theological education was called into question.

Prior to the Enlightenment, theologia was first and foremost a habit of the soul,

sapiential knowledge, salvific in nature. It was also a science; a discipline that when

coupled with the personal, sapiential knowledge formed the unity, subject matter, and end

of theological education (Farley 1983, 44).

The Enlightenment rendered this view of theology obsolete by means of a

worldview that ignored God, and a historical method that called into question those

documents upon which theology rested. With the Enlightenment, theology ceased to be

the queen of sciences, and instead was divided into four sub disciplines, the theological

encyclopedia, in order to justify its place in the burgeoning university environment of the

nineteenth century. This move fragmented theology by making it the domain of

specialists with the ultimate goal of equipping clergy rather than knowing God.

Farley contends that the deepest problem of current theological education is a

fragmentation that would be alleviated if theologia were restored as the unity and criteria

of theological understanding (Farley 1983, 157). Reestablishing theologia would create

"a paideia of theological understanding" and a course of studies to support it (Farley

1983, 153). Establishing such a course of studies does not necessarily eliminate current

patterns of leadership education (Farley 1983, 155). It does, however, ensure that the

leader's primary role is to facilitate theologia with the understanding that doing such in

the context of the ecclesial community requires a special kind of theological education

(Farley 1983, 154).

Post-Theologia

Edward Farley began a discussion about the nature of theological education

that has not subsided. Many scholars (Browning 1983; Wood 1985; Hough and Cobb

1985; Stackhouse 1988; Kelsey 1992, 1993; Banks 1999; Calian 2002) have written

responses that encompass, build upon, or counter the idea put forth by Farley. Six such

responses will be considered below.

Theological Education as Vision and Discernment

Charles Wood (Wood 1985), like Farley, argued that the structure and

movement of theology itself should guide theological education. Wood contended that

theology should not be guided by the paradigm of clergy tasks to be performed (Wheeler

and Farley 1991, 15). Wood defines Christian theology as "a critical inquiry into the

validity of Christian witness" (Wood 1985, 21). Theological education, then, is the

cultivation of theological judgment. It is the acquisition of the capacity and disposition to

carry out the activities of vision and discernment (Wood 1985, 93). Vision is the ability

to understand and frame a general picture of the totality of the Christian witness, whereas

discernment is the ability to grasp the essence of a particular instance of that witness

(Wood 1985,67-73).

Wood views theological education as spiritual formation or habitus. To Wood

theological education is for growing the capacity for vision and discernment as well as

the ability to exercise vision and discernment (Wood 1985, 79). "It is not the mere

possession of a 'theology' that is the measure of a theological education; it is rather one's

ability to form, revise, and employ theological judgments that counts. Vision and

discernment are exhibited in practice" (Wood 1985, 82). Wood makes that habitus or

critical inquiry the "primary and indispensable qualification for church leadership"

(Wood 1985, 94). At this point, he agrees with Farley when he wrote, "The more the

external tasks themselves are focused on as the one and only telos of theological

education, the less the minister becomes qualified to carry them out" (Farley 1983, 128).

The reason for this, asserts Wood, is that ministry takes a judgment that exceeds simple

task competence. Wood, therefore, argues that the entire curriculum is a theological

curriculum, providing opportunity to cultivate an aptitude for theological inquiry (Wood

1985, 94). In this sense, he still differs from Farley in that he makes inquiry, not

theologia, central to theological education.

Theological Education as Preparing Practical Theologians

Hough and Cobb with the help of Association of Theological Schools and the

Lilly Endowment, engaged in a study of theological education with the purpose of setting

forth a proposal for revising the theological curricula for today (Hough and Cobb 1985).

They envisioned a new kind of church leader, the practical theologian (Hough and Cobb

1985, 81). This kind of leadership is such that "practical Christian thinking goes hand in

hand with reflection in practice" (Hough and Cobb 1985, viii). While Hough and Cobb

differ from Farley on the ultimate aim of theological education, they have in mind a

model that is less functionalist and more complex than the prevailing clergy paradigm

against which Farley argues (Wheeler and Farley 1991, 16). Hough and Cobb contend

that the purpose of the seminary is precisely to equip professional ministers (Browning

1989, xi). Such leaders "reflect not only about practice. They also reflect in practice"

(Hough and Cobb, 1985, 85). These kinds of leaders help the church both to think

Christianly and to live Christianly. This differs slightly from an applied theology model

since it is practice that creates the context for reflection and not simply the application of

a theory to context.

Theological Education as Developing Apologia

Stackhouse (1988) seeks to identify an apologia, a rationale or warrant for

theological education today (Stackhouse 1988, xi). Donald Shriver, Jr. writes, "Is there

any formulation of the faith that is at once contextually rooted, globally plausible, and

capable of undergirding the Christian movement with a proper, nonimperialistic sense of

mission?" (Stackhouse 1988, xiii). Stackhouse seeks to surface that understanding. His

apologia is marked by the following (Stackhouse 1988, 9):

1. Entering into dialogue with those who have different thought forms or worldview perspectives than ours.

2. Attempting an account of the essence of one's beliefs.

3. Listening to alternative perspectives.

4. Refuting unsound objections to a "defensible theological perspective."

Stackhouse focuses on the what of theological education, not the how. His three-part

work seeks to establish an apologia by first seeking to identify that which binds

theologians together; second, to dialogue on perceived essentials; and finally to set forth a

proposal for theological education. Stackhouse seeks to identify the core of the Christian

faith in a day when pluralism and conflicting ideologies clash. He has a world context in

mind; and apologia, concerned with orthodoxy and praxiology, is that which contributes

to contextualization, globalization and mission for theological education in this world

context (Stackhouse 1988, 209).

The approach of Stackhouse is unique, as Banks notes, in that Stackhouse

regards apologia, not just dialogia as fundamental to theological discussion. "There is

room for dialogue, but only as the process, not as the essence of the matter. Dialogue can

assist in discovery of truth but should not do so at the expense of fundamental Christian

convictions" (Banks 1999, 148). Stackhouse would agree with Farley's focus on

engaging in critical scientia as essential to theological education, but not apart from truth

in the form of authoritative biblical revelation "whereby the other perspectives are put in

a new framework of meaning and on a new foundation that is . . . more able to unveil the

whole of truth than is that which is encountered" (Stackhouse 1988, 176-83).

Theological Education as "To Understand God Truly"

David Kelsey raises an essential question of theological education, namely,

"What makes a school truly theological and its schooling excellent?" (Kelsey 1992, 14).

Kelsey contends that the answer is not to be found in the curriculum, pedagogical

methods, shared common life, polity or subject matter, but rather "the nature of its

overarching end and the degree to which that end governs all that comprises its common

life" (Kelsey 1992, 161). That overarching end, according to Kelsey, is a "community of

persons trying to understand God more truly by focusing its study of various subject

matters within the horizon of questions about Christian congregations" (Kelsey 1992,

158). Kelsey, like Farley, believes that if "theological schooling" is defined as the

training of ministers, theological schools fragment theology by breaking it into sub-

disciplines. The telos, therefore, is no longer God, but those disciplines that contribute to

clerical function.

Kelsey agrees with Farley as to the potential of fracturing theological

education by means of a clerical paradigm, but differs with Farley in what Kelsey views

as the single overriding goal of a theological school. "The overarching goal of a Christian

theological school is to understand God more truly by way of study of the Christian thing

in and as Christian congregations" (Kelsey 1992, 211). Such a study requires three

questions to be asked: What is the Christian thing in practice? Is it faithful to its own

identity? Is that which is interpreted as the Christian thing true? (Kelsey 1992, 212).

Kelsey contends that organizing theological education by its overarching goal rather than

content (the course taught), structure (the priority given one course over another), or

movement (the order in which the courses are taught), would unify the curriculum and

honor the pluralism of beliefs (Kelsey 1992, 211).

Theological Education as Developing the People of God for Forgiveness

Calian also responds to Farley. Calian proposes a theological education that is

designed to equip and nurture the people of God "to witness faithfully and cogently in the

world to the One who loves us beyond our comprehension" (Calian 2002, xi). In a vein

similar to Kelsey (Kelsey 1992), Calian identifies loving God "truly and passionately" as

the goal of theological education. Calian resembles Farley when he calls for a shift from

the prevailing clerical paradigm. Calian differs from both, however, when he argues for

what he terms a "people of God paradigm" (Calian 2002, xii). Following Miller, he

writes, "The aim of seminary education is not simply to produce an educated clergy, but

even more so to build up the people of God, to become an educated congregation in

Christ" (Miller 1990; Calian 2002, 5).

Calian believes the means for accomplishing the end of becoming a theological

academy of interpretation for and on behalf of the church lies in instituting a forgiveness-

centered curriculum that is creatively integrated (Calian 2002, 45-48). Such a focus will

help to solve the fragmentation created by the clerical paradigm by unifying the people of

God around the biblical message of reconciliation (Calian 2002, 47-53).

Theological Education as Social Science

Lee argued that the social sciences, not theology, provide the right kind of

language for theoretical discussions about teaching and learning (Burgess 2001, 186).

Burgess summarizes the viewpoint of the social science model as follows: (1) an

empirical methodology; (2) an objective orientation; (3) understanding and predicting

religious behavior on the basis of empirically-derived laws; (4) facilitating desired

religious behavior through teaching practices that have been identified and developed by

means of hypothesis-making and testing; and (5) a strong theory-practice linkage

(Burgess 2001, 187).

Summary of the Theologia Debate

The current state of theological education is not one of complete unity.

Scholars differ as to the nature and purpose of theological education. They also disagree

about underlying epistemological presuppositions upon which their education is built.

This portion of the literature review has examined dominant voices in the theological

education debate both before and after Farley. Farley contends that the dominant theme in

theological education has been a "clerical paradigm" that has fragmented rather than

unified the theological curriculum. Surveying the literature relative to theological

education in America prior to Farley seems to verify his critique.

A number of scholars have responded to, built upon, or differed with Farley

since his seminal work (Wood 1985; Hough and Cobb 1985; Kelsey 1992; Calian 2002;

Lee 1971). Wood has argued for the capacity, development, and exercise of vision and

discernment. Hough and Cobb propose a practical theologian engaged in both Christian

thinking and reflection in practice. Stackhouse calls for an apologia rather than just

dialogia. Kelsey argues that the study of the "Christian thing" in and as a Christian

congregation is the ultimate end and aim of theological education and would unify it.

Calian broadens the theological debate by including the entire people of God involved in

a life of forgiveness as the focus. Lee views theological education strictly in a social

science construct.

The purpose of this research is to understand the relationship between

seminary leadership development models and select outcome assessment criteria:

employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure. The preceding review is

essential for three reasons: First, listening to and understanding these voices is essential

to situate theological education in its historical context. Second, if form follows function,

then the form of a leadership development model should follow the function for which it

was designed. To provide an accurate assessment of the leadership development model,

researchers must evaluate any effectiveness of a model relative to its intended design.

Recognizing this is essential to eliminate possible research bias toward any particular

model. Third, the predominant discussion over the previous twenty-five years has been

on the aim of theological education rather than its means. Calian, for example, entitles a

chapter, "Making the World Your Classroom" (Calian 2002, 54). This would seem to

suggest the need for a model that makes such activity possible. If so, the issue of how the

seminary trains its leaders is critical. The lack of such research signifies the need for the

current study.

The Social Science Perspective on Leadership Development

At the conclusion of an exhaustive study of 161 seminaries, Robert L. Kelly

writes, "Too often seminary development has been characterized by shiftings and

concessions made here and there; by subtractions from and additions to the program; by

using new patches on old garments" (Kelly 1924, 221). The words of Kelly illustrate that

criticism of the institutional effort in leadership development is not a new phenomenon.

Researcher George Barna surveyed a different era of leaders, but he offers a similar

critique. In 1993, after concluding a study of 1000 pastors, Barna stated,

During a decade of study, I have become increasingly convinced that the Church struggles not because it lacks enough zealots who will join the crusade for Christ, not because it lacks the intangible resources to do the job and not because it has withered into a muddled understanding of its fundamental beliefs. (Barna 1993, 136)

Barna concluded that a primary contributing issue toward the demise he witnessed was a

lack of leadership in general and leadership development in particular. None of those

interviewed by Barna said the seminary prepared them very well (Barna 1993, 121).

McNeal traces the dilemma facing churches today to the headwaters of

leadership and to leadership development (McNeal 1998). He writes, "Leadership quality

will not improve unless the process for developing leaders is transformed" (McNeal

1998, 17). McNeal believes neither academic institutions nor traditional training methods

are producing the kind of leaders necessary for the challenges the church faces today. His

assertion? A new kind of leader, the apostolic leadership, and a new kind of leadership

development model, the learning community, is necessary (McNeal 1998, 18).

Whether the words come from leaders today, such as Barna or McNeal, or

from one living a century ago (Harper 1899), the need for better leaders and better

leadership development models is pronounced. As James Bolt writes, there is a leadership

crisis that "touches all avenues of society," a crisis that is "in reality a leadership

development crisis" (Bolt 1996, 162-63). This need for better leaders and better

leadership has been addressed by the academy, in particular through a growing body

research studies. In this section the researcher will examine social science research for

related literature on leadership development in the church and higher education. The

review will examine literature related to competencies, seminary effectiveness, and

higher education with a view to establishing the need for the current research effort.

Research on Ministry Competencies

Research on competencies necessary for ministry is extensive. A variety of

studies relating to the pastor and ministerial competencies will be examined below. These

include pastoral competencies that are denomination specific, competencies that are

taught in the seminary, and competencies that relate to people who serve as "second

leaders" in areas of ministerial leadership.

Research on Pastoral Competencies

Aukerman conducted a qualitative and descriptive study. He identified the

competencies needed by beginning pastors in congregations of the Church of God in the

United States. Among these were competencies that could be identified as primarily

cognitively developed: knowledge, the nature and content of biblical literature, and

techniques of exegesis and interpretation. Aukerman also identified other competencies,

however, including knowledge of people in their social settings, leadership, human

relationships, a sense of being called to the ministry, and communication (Aukerman

1991, Abstract). Aukerman did not examine how these competencies were developed or

assess the effectiveness as to how they were taught.

Pastoral Competencies and the Seminary

Barnett, in part, treats that issue. Barnett examined 300 graduates from the

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also studied the entire full-time faculty of the

seminary. Barnett intended to identify the degree to which faculty and graduates affirm

the effectiveness of SBTS in equipping graduates for ministry competencies. Barnett

discovered that the faculty were concerned about graduates, but their training fell short in

equipping students for the competencies they needed on the field of ministry. The report

from graduates echoed the perceptions of the faculty. Furthermore, Barnett discovered

that the seminary faculty could not affirm that either the graduates or the curriculum used

to develop them are regularly assessed (Barnett 2003, 183). Barnett suggests further

research on assessment practices of graduates. He recommends such study be conducted

both within and outside of Southern Baptist circles for the sake of improving theological

education (Barnett 2003, 229).

The research of Aukerman leaves room for assessing how graduates were

taught while Barnett calls for examining other institutions. This present research project

would treat issues not addressed by Aukerman and Barnett.

Hopwood conducted a study similar to Barnett. She examined the perceptions

of the faculty at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with respect to the competencies

needed for pastoring. She also examined the relationship between those perceptions and

the faculty's understanding of the task of the seminary. Here she noted a disparity. Some

faculty identified the mission of the school as equipping students with necessary

cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies. Other faculty members considered that

the development of the affective and behavioral competencies might be the responsibility

of the church or the individual (Hopwood 1993). Additional studies by Callahan and

Huggins have examined essential leadership qualities and competencies needed by lay

leaders in the Catholic Church (Callahan 1996; Huggins 2004). Callahan utilized a

Delphi method. He uncovered "thirty-five competencies suggested by 111 respondents as

common to all leaders of faith communities in Western Washington" (Callahan 1996).

Second Leader Competencies

A related body of literature is concerned with "second leaders" in ministry

(Anderson 1982; Huntington 1985; Lee 2005; Lawson 1992; Barlow 1997; Esa 1996;

Thoman 2001; Woodward 1988; Woodruff 2004; Sam 1995; Huggins 2004). Recent

research interests solidify both the focus on second leaders and the need for more specific

research on how they are trained. Anderson, Huntington, and Lee have examined the

relationship between the senior leader and the associate pastor. Anderson examined the

relationship from the perspective of the leader's behavior, Huntington from the

perspective of power and authority, and Lee from the senior pastor's leadership style.

Lawson examined the career changes of directors of Christian education in order to

improve retention. Barlow sought to discover any differences between senior pastors and

associate pastors in the factors that determined ministry placement. Esa identified a

variety of types of associates in his Doctor of Ministry dissertation. Thoman explored the

relationship between Situational Leadership II and biblical servant leadership among

senior associate pastors, while Woodward examined servant leadership among religious

educators. Woodruff focused on the role of the executive pastor. Sam and Huggins

focused their studies on associate pastors in the Roman Catholic Church.

Missing from these studies is an examination of how leaders are trained for

ministry and whether or not one leadership development model is more effective in

expanding leadership competencies. If Schaller is correct in his assertion that larger

churches want "skilled specialists" (Schaller 1980, 13), then how these skilled specialists

are trained is paramount.

Research on Seminary Effectiveness

Buzzell examined leadership trends in 25 students at Dallas Theological

Seminary over one year through a pre-test/post-test involving four instruments. He

identified the academic model as effective in influencing thinking about leadership, but

stated that it was more limited in its ability to influence affective and behavioral

constructs. Buzzell calls for improvements in the leadership development process in

general and a "re-casting of the educational model" in use at Dallas Theological

Seminary in particular (Buzzell 1983). In a different context, Michael (1993) discovered

that non-formal and informal modes of leadership development used by early Pietism in

Germany and early Methodism in England and the United States and early Chilean

Pentecostalism "are contextually applicable to the needs of the Ethiopian Full Gospel

Church" (Michael 1993). Hopwood explored faculty perceptions of the competencies

needed by a pastor and the task of the seminary (Hopwood 1993). She discovered that the

faculty at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School showed greater responsibility for

development of cognitive competencies over affective or behavioral competencies.

Nelson examined the leadership training of ministerial students in evangelical

institutions of higher education searching among other things to answer this question:

"Do evangelical institutions of higher education effectively prepare pastors to lead?" His

conclusion, "The unequivocal answer from this research is that most institutions do not

effectively prepare pastors to lead" (Nelson 1994, 165).

Peak conducted a qualitative study utilizing an emergent case study method in

analyzing one ministerial leadership development program in the Southeast for young

leaders of churches and church-related institutions (Peak 1996). Peak suggests that,

"evaluative studies of these programs are worthwhile opportunities for better

understanding of the actual process of leadership development for leaders of religious

organizations" (Peak 1996, Abstract). Carroll conducted a three-year ethnographic study

of two theological schools, one mainline and the other evangelical, to determine the

impact of institutional culture on the educational process (Carroll et al 1997). Turner,

after evaluating 30 mainline denominational seminaries, identified a gap between the

needs of the seminary-trained ministers in the field and the curricular offerings of the

seminary. His conclusion, "Given the data, seminaries are not meeting the expectations of

their graduates, nor are they meeting their own stated purposes" (Turner 2001, Abstract).

Barnett's work on competencies at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has

already been mentioned above. His conclusion that "most SBTS graduates could not

report a high degree of competency development in leadership skills through their degree

program" is consistent with the general tenor of leadership development and Christian

higher education (Barnett 2003, 232). These studies demonstrate the research in this field

as well as an absence of and need for the creation of a taxonomic classification of

leadership development training models. There is a gap with respect to both a

classification and the models that are used to equip ministers for leadership on the field.

Related Research on Higher Education

Wakefield conducted a mixed-methods approach to evaluate Master's degree

Christian Education preparation programs (Wakefield 1983). He evaluated how well the

programs equipped their students for work in the field in four standardized areas:

curriculum, leadership, instruction, and supervision. The research of Wakefield

encompassed thirty seminaries and divinity schools and 519 graduates. The current

research effort would extend the Wakefield evaluation beyond Christian education by

examining a broader sample and encompassing a variety of leadership development

training models. Demuth investigated American higher education doctoral programs to

see how those same programs were contributing to the leadership development of the

students (Demuth 1990). Demuth's population consisted of 120 American higher

education programs. While her research was not seminary specific, one wonders if her

findings are consistent on the seminary campuses. Demuth discovered that 74% of

respondents said that leadership was a topic of discussion, but 57% testified that there

were no requirements to take a leadership course. Only 34% of the programs, according

to the directors, had both pre-program and post-program assessment. The study would

seem to indicate the need for the proposed research, a post-program assessment of

leadership development models.

Bloomer conducted an ethnographic study of 35 experientially qualified

leaders. He "confirmed" that leaders are formed in situations that demand leadership

(Bloomer 1999, iv). One wonders if the graduates of models that require field experience

would be more effective and satisfied than those who did not. The current research

proposal would address that question. It would also build on the work of Thompson by

determining if some leadership development models would more effectively produce the

competencies he identified as necessary for church planting. ATS and others have

examined the issue of spiritual formation among seminarians (Hancock 1992, 75;

Thompson 1995). Hancock conducted a study to determine the role, if any, that

Presbyterian seminaries played in the spiritual development of candidates for ministry.

Hancock sought to compare the stated intentions of the seminaries with the perception of

the graduates as to what actually took place (Hancock 1992). Hancock concluded that

seminaries value spiritual formation, but that the institutions have not built spiritual

development into their formal curriculum, and when they have sought to do so they have

actually "relativized the very faith they assumed students would bring to seminary"

(Hancock 1992, 98). Could that issue be the leadership development model?

Summary of the Social Science Perspective

There has been much research into the subject of ministry competencies, little

however, as to the relationship between the seminary and those competencies. There is no

current study that has examined possible relationships between the way one was taught

and the four variables under consideration in this study. Research has been conducted on

second leaders, but little as to how those leaders were prepared for ministry. There is

some research on Christian higher education. Buzzell, for instance, points to the inability

of the academic model alone to account for effective leadership development.

Additionally, Hopwood and Peak both call for evaluative studies.

The current research points to the need for additional study to identify

leadership development models and which models are deemed "most effective" when

evaluated by people who have taken the seminary path and are actually serving on the

field. This research would extend the work by Wakefield as well as expand the focus of

Simpson and Barnett. This portion of the review indicates a need to create both a

taxonomy and evaluate various leadership development training models relative to it.

The Educational Perspective of Leadership Development

Noted church growth specialist Lyle Schaller writes, "Mastery of the

knowledge-building process is the crucial ingredient that separates the effective

organization from the ineffective one" (McNeal 1998, 11). This portion of the review of

precedent literature will focus on identifying and describing the various leadership

development models, that is the philosophical and pedagogical bridges that serve as the

means in the knowledge-building process described by Schaller. Burgess notes the

difference between models and theories in that "the notion of change seems more

integrally related to modeling than to theorizing" (Burgess 2001, 22). Since the purpose

of this research project is to create a taxonomic list of leadership development models

currently used in seminary education, this review will serve as the beginning step of the

creation of that list.

The researcher recognizes that many models are in the word of Burgess,

"theorizing," that is they are models in theory rather than models in practice, but since a

full picture of current models cannot be known until the document review phase as

described in chapter three, this review will examine both proposals for and practices of

leadership development in theological education. The review will begin with Banks

(1999). Banks will be taken as the starting point for a number of reasons. First, Banks is a

recognized scholar (Cambridge Ph.D.) with a unique combination of theological

scholarship combined with a leadership focus and practical application in the field of

church ministry. Second, Banks has conducted the kind of careful biblical thinking on

theological education that is consistent with the presuppositions of this research

endeavor. Third, Banks has built on the work of Kelsey, and in doing so has established a

typology of the academic proposals that have come out of the discussion of theological

education initiated by Farley (Kelsey 1993; Farley 1983). The theoretical models as

described by Banks will be considered first (Banks 1999, 17-69; 129-88). Next, the

review will examine precedent literature for descriptions of models currently existing in

seminary practice. Finally, a few theological education proposals for leadership

development outside of the seminary will be considered for their possible application to

the seminary scene.

The Theoretical Models

Banks (1999) neatly summarizes the theoretical models that have arisen from

the theological education debate using the following typology: Classical, Vocational,

Synthetic, Confessional and Missional. The classical model (Farley 1983; 1988) is a

focus on Theologia, "a form of divine wisdom accessible to all people as they seek to live

out their faith in a concrete way" (Banks 1999, 19). Others have built on Farley by

emphasizing the significance of personal formation (Neuhaus 1992), and others on social

transformation (The Mud Flower Collective 1985; Rhodes and Richardson 1991).

Leadership development is seen as equipping students with a vision for and the tools to

pursue Theologia, and the classroom is pedagogically primary.

The vocational model put forth by Hough and Cobb is aptly described by the

words, "reflective practitioner" (Hough and Cobb 1985). Hough and Cobb agree with

Farley about the fragmentation of the theology, but believe the problem is political not

theological, the result of ministers caught between "the conflicting expectations from the

secularized academy and from the professionalized church" (Banks 1999, 35). Hough and

Cobb are "persuaded that all Christian leaders should become practical theologians who

ground their daily decisions in practical Christian thinking" (Hough and Cobb 1985,

131). Such a model creates concomitant curricular implications that narrows rather than

widens the gap between theory and practice. Banks places Stackhouse and his concept of

Apologia within the vocational framework.

The synthetic model is the third theoretical model noted by Banks. This model

offers a "higher synthesis of key elements than the first two approaches" (Banks 1999,

46). The synthetic model is represented by Wood, Kelsey, and Hopewell (Wood 1985;

Kelsey 1992; Hopewell 1987). If the academic model represents theory in the theory-

practice dichotomy so prevalently discussed in the literature, and the vocational model

represents practice, the model Wood proposes recasts theory and practice under the

concepts of vision and discernment; concepts that are more dialectical and harmonious

than theory and practice. Wood, in offering this, connects paideia and Wissenschaft that

Kelsey chronicled as a divided enterprise (Kelsey 1993). For Wood "Theological

education is the cultivation of the theological judgment. It is the acquisition of the habitus

for those activities . . . named 'vision' and 'discernment'" (Wood 1985, 93).

Banks offers a different theoretical approach, which questions as much the

conceptual locus of theological education as well as its focus. The missional model sees

the Scriptures as its starting point rather than either Athens and the concomitant paideia,

or Berlin and its associated Wissenschaft. In doing so Banks looks past the tension

between "Athens" and "Berlin" noted by Kelsey (Kelsey 1993) and considers rather the

tension between "Jerusalem," and both "Athens" and "Berlin." The model Banks

proposes is that of "reflection, training, and formation for work on the mission field,

whether the latter takes place overseas or locally" (Banks 1999, 142). Banks proposes

the missional model makes a more immediate connection between action and reflection

and creates a more complex relationship between theory and practice. It conceives

teaching as sharing life and knowledge, as an active as well as reflective practice.

The researcher has summarized the significance of these theoretical approaches

above. If, as Lewin has written, "there is nothing so practical as a good theory," these

theoretical approaches provide the foundation upon which current seminary models can

be constructed and evaluated.

The Current Seminary Models

The researcher has not found a taxonomic list of current seminary models in

the literature. This issue is compounded by nomenclature that differs according to

context, and by shifting definitions for models such as distance education. The literature

reveals a number of models currently in use that will be examined below.

The Traditional Classroom Model

The traditional classroom model, also termed the academic or classical model,

has been in vogue since the start of Andover Seminary in 1808.

The classic model conceives of theological education as (1) full immersion for at least three years in a (2) residential program in which senior members of the community instruct, inspire, and form junior members primarily through (3) lecture- based pedagogies and where students learn the art of theological reflection through (4) face-to-face community discourse, (5) library research and (6) writing. (Delamarter and Brunner 2005, 146)

This model places the locus of academic and curricular focus in a knowledge-driven

classroom. The classic model has been routinely criticized (Anderson 1978, Groome

1989, Simpson 1992). Simpson notes the incongruity in the academic training model in

regard to its cognitive educational objectives, which are excessively information-oriented

while providing extremely low levels of synthesis goals (Simpson 1992, 223). He also

criticizes the epistemology of the academic model that sees knowledge as primarily

transmission of facts as out of step with a biblical position (Simpson 1992, 222).

Anderson as well as Groome noted the incongruencies of the academic model.

Distance Education Model

Distance education has encompassed a variety of mediums for over seventy-

five years including mail correspondence courses and more recent online approaches to

education. "Distance learning" now refers to "any educational or instructional activity in

which students are separated from faculty and other students" including correspondence

instruction, as well as synchronous and asynchronous learning with a variety of

instructional modes (Council for Higher Education Accreditation 2002, 1). According to

CHEA, as of January 2002, distance learning was offered at 35 of 210 ATS affiliated

schools and 18 of 28 TRACS-affiliated schools (Council for Higher Education 2002, 5).

Cannell has noted a number of factors that have increased the desire for distance

education, among them: scheduling conflicts, costs, family responsibilities and

professional commitments, the decentralized learner, the professional in the field,

networking, the growing popularity of electronic mediums, global interconnectedness, the

knowledge explosion, as well as postmodern insistence on community and pluralism

(Cannell 1999, 6-7).

The literature shows that distance education is effective. Russell, in response to

concerns about distance learning, compiled 355 research reports on student outcomes that

show "no significant difference" on student outcomes between distance and face-to-face

courses in North America (www.nosignificantdifference.org [2008]). Steve Delamarter

and Daniel Brunner reference 52 studies that document a "significant difference" in

results between the two media, and where there is a difference, the distance medium is

more often effective (Delamarter and Brunner 2005, 148).

Distance education is a moving target according to Delamarter and Brunner

who identify a three-fold typology: Stage-1 thinking, a dichotomy between online and

face-to-face models; stage 2, the discovery of the hybrid course; stage 3, the development

hybrid programs (Delamarter and Brunner 2005, 146). They demonstrate that as to ATS

standards the meaning of the words "distance education" is ambiguous, including courses

and degree programs, and when combined as "distance education program" it also

encompasses various forms of delivery systems that can include hybrid courses and

programs, but generally stage-1 thinking is in view (Delamarter and Brunner 2005, 155).

Charles Willard, former Secretary of The Commission on Accrediting for ATS, in

response to Delamarter and Brunner identifies "distance education" as "pure," that is, "a

course or group of courses where the teacher and the student were not in the same place

at the same time" (Willard 2005, 162).

The landscape of distance education is varied. Delamarter and Brunner

highlight four types of programs currently under development by seminaries across

America:

1. Programs made up primarily of electronically mediated correspondence courses;

2. Programs made up of a set ratio of online courses and face-to-face courses;

3. Programs made up of a collection of online courses, face-to-face courses and some hybrid courses; and

4. Fully hybrid programs (according to the definitions discussed above) (Delamarter and Brunner 2005, 158).

http://www.nosignificantdifference.org

Cannell has demonstrated that the literature is varied, but she identifies four

administrative models: Campus Based Universities (CBUs), Distance Teaching

Universities (DTUs), and Dual-Mode Universities (DMUs), as well as the possibility of

the virtual university (Cannell 1999, 50). A sampling of these models will follow:

Distance education serves a unique educational cohort. Distance programs

provide opportunities for students to pursue theological education who cannot or will not

come to the traditional classroom (Lumsden, et al. 1999, 116). The Lumsden study

examined graduating doctoral students who pursued their studies through distance-

mediated education at one American school (not accredited by ABHE, ATS, or TRACS)

between 1969 and 1998. When queried as to the reason for choosing the distance

medium, the overwhelming number of students (86.6 per cent) chose the distance method

because it enabled them to pursue their education without attending class (Lumsden et al.

1999, 113). As noted earlier by Cannell these reasons include family, present ministry

responsibilities, and the burgeoning electronic medium.

Theological Education by Extension (TEE)

Harrison provides an overview of the forty-year history of theological

education by extension (Harrison 2004, 315-28). The TEE movement grew out of the

need to produce functional pastors from untrained leaders on the mission field where the

theological college could not keep pace with demand. Harrison identified three specific

components for the TEE process: "self-study materials, regular seminars and life

experience and ministry in the students' own context" (Harrison 2004, 319). An

additional dimension was the capacity of theological education by extension to expand

theological education both geographically and extend the potential student body. While

the TEE model was primarily used in cross-cultural contexts, "it also exists in some more

affluent western settings, where it has now generally introduced online and other

computer-based components" (Harrison 2004, 321).

Bethel Seminary's InMinistry Program

Bethel identifies InMinistry as a distributed model of education (Dukes and

Bourgond 1999; Anderson 2007). "InMinistry combines instructional technology and

online learning with face-to-face on-campus intensive instruction" (Anderson 2007, 67).

The InMinistry program includes distance and face-to-face learning in both courses and

in the program as a whole (Anderson 2007, 68-70). There are four central components to

the distributed framework:

1. Every InMinistry student is engaged in a ministry setting.

2. The use of cohorts to build a rich learning community.

3. The institution requires residential faculty members to teach in the program as part of their normal teaching load.

4. Technology must serve the needs of effective teaching and learning (Anderson 2007, 69-70).

Programs are made up of a collection of online courses, face-to-face courses and some

hybrid courses.

Hybrid Model

Hybrid models of theological education incorporate "bricks and clicks," that is

a combination of face-to-face and asynchronous interaction. There is as yet, no definitive

consensus as to the "right" blend of that interaction. Mark David Milliron, president of

Catalyze Learning International predicts that the search for the "big blend" of online and

traditional classroom will intensify (Chronicle of Higher Education 2008, B9). Currently,

ABHE, ATS, and TRACS allow hybrid courses. ATS and TRACS permit fully hybrid

programs, though the definitions for what constitutes a full program differ. ATS classifies

a program as "a comprehensive distance program" when one may take six courses of an

approved degree program though distance education (ATS COA Procedures 2008, 115).

TRACS, on the other hand permits complete programs to be delivered through distance

education, though in practice that is rarely done (Fitzgerald 2008).

Extension Education Model

Williamson defines an extension campus as "an off-campus site that is used by

a traditional campus to provide education to students who are unable or unwilling to

attend the traditional campus for study (Williamson 2001, 12). Extension education is

distinct from correspondence education in that correspondence education is generally

defined "as the relationship of an institution with an individual student who receives print

material at home" (Cannell 1999, 10). Researchers Dodds, Lawrence and Guiton

discovered that extension students carried a contextual frame of reference into their

extension program studies, which included their commitments and responsibilities

(Dodds et al. 1981, 10-13). Dukes describes extension centers for New Orleans Baptist

Theological Seminary (NOBTS) as "seminary classes in remote locations from the main

campus that provide qualified students the opportunity to participate in regular academic

classes on schedules that meet their needs" (Dukes and Bourgond 1999, 117). The

NOBTS model is based on a four-year cycle that requires a minimum of thirty resident

semester hours of classes at the seminary. Teachers, who commute to extension centers,

provide instruction. Instruction is also provided by qualified local adjuncts and through

media-related devices.

The extension model provides several positive features according to Dukes.

First, students engage in academic pursuits while remaining in a context that allows for

the practical outworking of that education. Second, seminary faculty and qualified

adjuncts are engaged in the extension education. Third, extension sites engender the

collegiality of a learning community. Fourth, the extension provides the opportunity for

students to participate in graduate theological studies who were not previously able due

to distance limitations (Dukes and Bourgond 1999, 118).

Carroll, Wheeler, Aleshire, and Masler express concerns over the ability of the

extension center to provide the formative power present in "being there" in a traditional

seminary setting (Carroll et al. 1997, 276). Further research through this current study

would help to address that concern.

Church-Seminary Partnerships Model

Ellington researched an emerging pattern of contextualized education termed,

"church-seminary partnership." Ellington defines this partnership as "the linking of the

two institutions for the purpose of effectively preparing the seminary graduate to lead

effectively within the context of the local church" (Ellington 2004, 5). The partnership

evaluated by Ellington was designed to provide a classical theological education within

the context of a local church. This program was a cohort-group model designed around

an extended field-based internship coupled with competency-oriented study (Ellington

2004, 66-71). Students participated in January-term courses to meet ATS residency

requirements. A benefit according to the study was its contextualized education that

provided the cohort extensive experience in every aspect of church life, provided

mentoring opportunities, and led to an earned Master of Divinity degree from the Billy

Graham School at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Field Education Model

Field education is a ministry-centered pedagogy that provides an opportunity

for learners to develop practice skills, translate classroom theory into practice and test

abilities to perform as professionals (Fortune, McCarthy, and Abramson 2001, 111).

Hope describes alternative models of field education that include the San Francisco

Network Center. This approach provided for three days in the field and two days in

individual and small groups supervision, as well as didactic work (Hope 1987). An

alternative program is that of the Women's Theological Center, a collaborative enterprise

in which the center shared a contractual relationship with the Episcopal Divinity School

and Emanuel College for theological training of women in the field.

Newer focus areas for field education include the 2+2 program of Southern

Seminary which combines two years in the classroom with two-to-three years of church

planting in an international missions setting (SBTS Catalog 2007-2008, 111).

Summary of Seminary Models

There are a variety of leadership development training models practiced in the

seminary today. Among these are the traditional classroom model, a variety of distance-

education models, the extension-site model, church-seminary partnerships—which are

driven by the church as much as they are the seminary, and field-education models. There

is a lack of clarity as to the meaning of "distance education." Delamarter and Brunner

note, "an ATS accredited seminary could develop an entire program of hybrid courses,

meeting face-to-face only once or twice per course, and technically never be subject to

any of the standards or procedures of ATS for distance education" (Delamarter and

Brunner 2005, 159). The authors contend that these types of courses are considered

modified face-to-face learning experiences and not technically, "distance education

courses" (Delamarter and Brunner 2005, 159).

The researcher examined a variety of sources, but found no taxonomy of

leadership development models in his review of the precedent literature. A taxonomic list

of these models will be more fully developed in the research process as outlined in

chapter 3.

The Models Outside of the Seminary

There are models of leadership development being proposed and practiced

outside of the academy that may have relevance to it, including leadership communities

and other forms of judicatory-based theological education. Barker and Martin have

described some of these models (Barker and Martin 2000, 2004). Barker and Martin

define judicatory-based theological education as "theological study designed and

administered primarily by a denominational body" (Barker and Martin 2004, 3). These

programs generally emerge due to financial and geographic issues or historical and

cultural identity problems or concerns. They are not substitutes for graduate theological

study; rather they are designed with the mindset that other routes exist to prepare

ecclesial leadership. At times curricular designs are patterned after seminary education

and faculty are often pulled from the seminary (Barker and Martin 2004, 5-6). The

following section outlines models with some form of seminary link.

Course of Study Program

Barker and Martin highlight Course of Study programs. These programs trace

their roots to the oldest form of formal theological education in the United Methodist

Church. "Historically it represents a correspondence and mentored study program that

prepared candidates for the orders of that denomination before attending seminaries

became a norm" (Barker and Martin 2000, 6). Today it is more structured and

institutionally based. The Barker and Martin study identified the Course of Study of the

United Methodist Church with the most obvious link to the seminary, but noted others in

the Episcopal and Lutheran judicatories (Barker and Martin 2000, 13).

The Learning Community

Reggie McNeal serves as Missional Leadership Specialist for Leadership

Network of Dallas, TX. McNeal contends that a new kind of leader, the apostolic leader,

is needed for renewal of the North American church. Apostolic leadership resembles

first-century church leadership in that it is visionary, missional, empowering, team-

oriented, reproducing, entrepreneurial, and kingdom conscious (McNeal 1998, 28-31).

McNeal asserts that developing that kind of leader will require a new kind of leadership

development model, "an intentional process called the learning community" (McNeal

1998, 18). A learning community is:

A group of colleagues who come together in a spirit of mutual respect, authenticity, learning, and shared responsibility to continually explore and articulate an expanding awareness and base of knowledge. The process of a learning community includes inquiring about each other's assumptions and biases, experimenting, risking, and openly assessing the results. (McNeal 1998, 50)

McNeal believes that neither renovating curriculum nor rewriting degree programs of

traditional seminaries will mitigate the inherent flaws in traditional academic seminary

models (McNeal 1998, 52).

McNeal considers five scenarios for application of the learning community to

the seminary. First, seminaries could establish in-seminary learning communities.

Second, a seminary could develop a seminary-field learning community model that

would combine seminary seat time followed by in-field learning communities. Third,

learning communities could be the seminary's primary model through a distance-learning

program. Fourth, learning communities could be value-added options to the traditional

model. Fifth, seminaries could incorporate the learning community concept as a means of

task-specific preparation (McNeal 1998, 124-26).

Summary of Non-Seminary Models

The research of Barker and Martin and the practice of McNeal demonstrate the

possibility for the seminary to adopt new delivery systems (Barker and Martin 2000;

McNeal 1998). Judicatory-based models such as the Course of Study program provide

examples of new approaches to theological education. This literature also identifies

potential links between the seminary and these alternative forms of leadership

development such as the Learning Community. Barker and Martin express the need for

new models of theological education in their call for additional research, "it is important

that conversations be initiated between these programs and the theological s c h o o l . . . .

Within these discussions there needs to be a serious consideration of the relationship of

theological education models and the ecclesial communities for whom leadership is

prepared" (Barker and Martin 2000, 35).

Summary of Leadership Development Models

Burgess, commenting on the ambiguity of the field of religious education,

writes, "One factor contributing to this perplexity concerning nature and purposes seems

to be that no common methodology for analysis and synthesis has been fully established"

(Burgess 2001, 18). A review of the literature concerning leadership development

models, a subset of the field of religious education, seems beset by this same problem.

This review has considered different models proposed by a variety of scholars and

practitioners. Banks has developed a classification system for theoretical models, but as

of yet there is no taxonomic classification for extant leadership development models

either within or outside of the seminary (Banks 1999). The current research project

proposes to provide such a taxonomic classification as well as a means to measure the

various models within it.

Ministry Effectiveness

This portion of the literature review will examine the topic of ministry

effectiveness. It will briefly survey the history of the research regarding ministry

effectiveness. It will also examine what the literature reveals as to the challenge of

determining criterion for evaluating ministry effectiveness. This section will review

instrumentation literature and summarize research studies regarding ministry

effectiveness.

This review will focus on providing details regarding ministry effectiveness as

it relates to the research topic of leadership development training models. The researcher

refers the reader to Nauss (Nauss 1996) for a thorough review of the inventories,

independent variables and the research studies conducted in light of them prior to 1996,

and to Pickens (Pickens 2000) and Belcher (Belcher 2002) for more current thorough

reviews of the literature. Hunt, Hinkle, and Malony provide a thorough overview of the

various dimensions of ministerial assessment (Hunt, Hinkle, and Malony 1990, 15).

The History of Ministry Effectiveness

Ministerial effectiveness has its roots in early social science research

conducted by May (May 1934). Nauss is a significant voice in the area of ministry

effectiveness, researching and writing on the subject for parts of five decades. Nauss

credits Niebuhr and Blizzard with efforts to more carefully assess clergy in a fair manner

(Nauss 1996, 222). Nauss cites Kling as the first attempt to collect and review criteria for

ministry effectiveness (Nauss 1994, 58). Additionally, Nauss points out the relative

newness of established modes of measurement (Nauss 1972). He writes, "At our present

level of knowledge and skill in measuring pastoral effectiveness we have no valid tests of

judgments or preferences" (Nauss 1972, 146). Of course, many instruments are in use

today, but this demonstrates how young the field is. Then as now, criterion and

measurement problems were key issues. Bunn provides a thorough overview of the

history of effectiveness research and current trends through 1998 (Bunn 1998).

The Criteria and Definition of Ministry Effectiveness

The criterion problem in ministerial effectiveness is an attempt to answer the

critical questions as to what should be assessed and how (Aleshire 1990, 97).

Determining the criteria by which ministers can be judged effective or not is a complex

problem defying easy solution (Hinkle and Haight 1990, 61). This issue has been an

ongoing challenge for the research community (May 1934; Blizzard 1956; Douglas 1957;

Dittes 1962; Nauss 1970, 1972; Aleshire 1990; Briscoe 1993). Nauss noted that there is

not yet consensus on this issue (Nauss 1994).

Criteria development is the means by which criteria for ministerial

effectiveness is selected and validated (Hinkle and Haight 1990, 61). Hinkle and Haight

identify three models of criteria development: consensual, theoretical/empirical, and the

combined consensual/empirical model of criteria development (Hinkle and Haight 1990,

62-65). The consensual model is extremely time-consuming, yet provides an agreed-upon

criteria for evaluation. The theoretical/empirical model begins with existing criteria

("what is") to determine how operative criteria functioned so as to determine whether to

modify the criteria or use it as is (Hinkle and Haight 1990, 63). The consensual/empirical

model uses both models to identify clergy assessment criteria.

There are a variety of criteria used to evaluate ministry effectiveness. Nauss,

building on Guion differentiates between primary and secondary criteria (Nauss 1972;

Guion 1965). Nauss defines primary criteria as "specific, observable behaviors on the

part of the pastor" (Nauss 1972, 142). Secondary criteria are observable consequences of

that behavior such salary or church size (Nauss 1972, 142). May identifies a third type of

criteria, notably spiritual or mystical factors (May 1934, 249). May discusses the problem

concerning the measures of success used to evaluate the American minister. He

differentiates between conventional measures—size, accomplishments, salary and

efficiency, and social criteria—ministerial participation in community, activities and

social effectiveness (May 1934, 247-48). He regrets "that in addition to the above

conventional and social criteria of success, we cannot add a spiritual or mystical

criterion. But in the nature of the case, the data are not available" (May 1934, 249).

Defining ministry effectiveness is a necessity in order to enhance the research

efforts that lead to more effective ministry. Bunn notes, "Clearly, then, effectiveness must

be defined and clarified in terms of context, setting and consensus-driven criteria in order

to be useful in building an effectiveness theory base" (Bunn 1998, 24). Cardoza, building

on Hunt, Hinkle and Malony, defines effectiveness as "the positive degree to which

vocational leaders are able to minister in given settings, with specific resources and

certain limitations" (Cardoza 2005, 8; Hunt, Hinkle, and Malony 1990).

Ministry Effectiveness Instrumentation

This section will outline some of the instrumentation used for evaluating

ministry effectiveness. It will consider the ATS-directed Profiles of Ministry, the

Ministerial Activities Scale, the Clergy Evaluation Instrument, the Ministerial

Effectiveness Inventory, the Vicar Evaluation Inventory, and the Leadership Practices

Inventory.

Profiles of Ministry (POM)

The Profiles of Ministry is the most comprehensive analysis of behavioral

aspects of ministry, with data obtained "from more than 2000 clergy, laity, seminary

faculty and students" (Nauss 2001, 3). Daniel Aleshire summarizes essential aspects of

the Profiles of Ministry. He notes that the POM was birthed in 1973 at the request of the

Association for Theological Schools as the Readiness for Ministry program. Criteria are

empirically derived. It provides assessments for both entering seminary students and for

graduating seminary students and career ministers. It also provides interpretive resources

for both (Aleshire 1990, 97).

Aleshire notes that the procedure for identifying criteria was "gradual,

inclusive, and deliberate," building on extensive literature reviews and critical incident

reports by over 2000 clergy and laity including seminary professors, seminary seniors,

alumnae, denominational executives, and laity (Aleshire 1990, 98). As of 1994, the

Profiles Of Ministry did not enjoy significant use. Allen Nauss notes that the lack of use

of the Profiles of Ministry may be due to the extensive length of the instrument as well as

the varied and intricate assessment techniques that are necessary to interpret it (Nauss

1994, 58).

Ministerial Activities Scale (MAS)

The MAS was a Lutheran version of the POM (Nauss 2001, 3). It was built on

Kling who "asked a cross-section of clergy, lay people and seminaries to list any

behaviors, critical incidents, or statements that could be considered indicative of

ministerial effectiveness" among parish clergy (Nauss 1996, 226). Kling identified thirty

pastoral function in the following six clusters: Priest and preacher, community and social

involvement, administrator, personal and spiritual development, visitor-counselor, and

teacher (Nauss 1983, 336). The initial work of Kling resulted in a ministerial function

scale, which was used by both the pastor (self-rated) and others (Nauss 1983, 335) to

determine effectiveness. The MAS provides analysis of effectiveness in ten functions and

has undergone a series of revisions.

Clergy Evaluation Inventory (CEI)

Nauss notes that the CEI was built on the POM, the Ten Faces of Ministry

(TFM), MAS, current literature and a review of problems identified by thirty-five district

presidents of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. It began with 261 items and was

ultimately reduced to 98 items (Nauss 1996, 227).

Ministry Effectiveness Inventory (MEI)

The MEI was based on Schuller, Strommen, and Brekke (1980) and designed

to "gather primary measures of ministerial effectiveness (specific observable behaviors)"

(Majovski and Malony 1990, 86). The MEI provides descriptors of the eight main

characteristics of effective ministry noted by Schuller, Strommen, and Brekke. It is a

shortened version of the POM (Nauss 1996, 227).

The eight characteristics are (1) Having an open, affirming style; (2) carrying

for persons under stress; (3) evidencing congregational leadership; (4) being a theologian

in life and thought; (5) understanding ministry from a personal commitment of faith; (6)

developing fellowship and worship; (7) having denominational awareness; (8) not having

disqualifying personal and behavior characteristics (Majovski and Malony 1990, 87).

Majovski used 24 items that were rated "quite" or "highly important" or "quite" or

"highly detrimental," and 35 other items from those determinants deemed "important"

(Majovski and Malony 1990, 87).

The Vicar Evaluation Inventory (VEI)

Representatives of two Missouri Synod seminaries developed the VEI for use

in "assessing readiness for ministry among seminary students who have completed an

assigned nine-month vicarage" (Nauss 1999, 1). The VEI measures five factors that are

"clearly evidenced" in effective pastors: serving faithfully, stimulating

intellectually/spiritually, modeling personally/spiritually, showing love, exercising

visionary servant leadership (Nauss 2007, 1). The VEI is built upon the MAS, POM and

CEI (Nauss 1999, 2001). It is self and other rated. Raters use a 7-point scale in assessing

the frequency of behavior noted in the questionnaire (Nauss 1999, 1). The VEI has

demonstrated validity and reliability (Nauss 2001, 5-7).

Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)

The Leadership Practices Inventory was developed by James Kouzes and

Barry Posner. The LPI "was developed through a triangulation of qualitative and

quantitative research methods and studies" (Leadership Practices Inventory, 1). The

conceptual framework grew out of extensive case studies followed by over 500 in-depth

interviews (Leadership Practices Inventory, 3). This instrument examines five scales of

leadership practices, each measured by the response one gives to six statements using a

ten-point Likert scale. Internal reliability as measured by the Cronbach's Alpha shows all

scales above the .75 level (Leadership Practices Inventory, 6). The LPI scores have been

found, in general, not to vary across a wide-range of demographic characteristics,

including many non-business settings (Leadership Practices Inventory, 8). The LPI has

been used with males and females, public and private sectors, across ethnic backgrounds,

and in cross-cultural settings. It has face validity and has been validated by numerous

groups in meta-reviews of leadership instruments (Leadership Practices Inventory, 16).

Additionally, the LPI has been used in over 300 doctoral dissertations. It is a standard

leadership measurement profile, used in the United States and in other countries.

Summary

Nauss examines assessment of construct and content validity in the evaluation

of the criteria used in measuring the MAS, POM, TFM, CEI, MEI and LPI, as well as six

problem areas one should consider in the use and development of instruments (Nauss

1996, 222). Nauss also provides a thorough evaluation of the VEI (Nauss 2003). None of

the above instruments provide a simultaneous analysis of the four variables of this

research effort. Bunn notes that researchers "have been unsuccessful in developing a

single global instrument that measures pastoral effectiveness" (Bunn 1998, 3).

The Research of Ministry Effectiveness

Numerous effectiveness research studies have been conducted. Bunn desired to

understand the difference between perceptions of effectiveness on the part of clergy and

laity in the Nazarene church (Bunn 1998, 2). He notes research on effectiveness and

ministry style by Moy, and research on effectiveness and psychological assessment by

Malony and Majovski, and effectiveness and denominational leaders in the Nazarene

church (Bunn 1998, 22; Malony and Majovski 1986). As has been mentioned, the

Leadership Practices Inventory has served as an essential instrument of over 300 doctoral

dissertations. At the present time there are no effectiveness studies that correspond to this

current research focus. There is a definite opportunity to build on the vast field of

ministry effectiveness by examining possible relationships between ministry

effectiveness and leadership development training models.

Summary

This portion of the literature review has examined pertinent literature regarding

assessing ministerial effectiveness. It provided a brief history of the literature of

ministerial effectiveness, examined the importance of establishing criteria by which

effectiveness is measured, provided an overview of some essential assessment tools and

gave a picture of some of the research being conducted with respect to effectiveness in

ministry. The review has identified a gap in the ministry effectiveness research with

respect to evaluating the possible relationship between leadership development models

and ministry effectiveness.

Ministry Satisfaction

This portion of the literature review will examine the topic of ministry

satisfaction, which is usually addressed as "job satisfaction" outside the area of ministry.

It will briefly survey the history of the research regarding job satisfaction and its

subsequent application to ministry. Following this, the researcher will review select

theories and instruments to identify essential factors of ministry satisfaction that will

serve as the basis for this research. The researcher will demonstrate the need for the

current study by showing the gap in the ministry satisfaction research regarding

leadership development training models.

This review will focus on providing essential details regarding ministry

satisfaction as it relates to the research topic of leadership development training models.

The researcher refers the reader to Fred Wilson for a thorough review of the job

satisfaction literature prior to 1987 and to Michael Jon Boersma for a review of job

satisfaction theories and related research for ministry and education (Wilson 1983, 1987;

Boersma 1994).

The History of Ministry Satisfaction

Concepts of ministry satisfaction grew out of job satisfaction research which

was plentiful from 1920 to 1954, and which measured the job satisfaction construct using

one rating scale (Herzberg et al. 2005, xiii). Herzberg, recognizing inconsistencies in the

outcome of the research of that time and suspecting that the prevailing measure was

flawed, derived a new hypothesis of job satisfaction. Herzberg used the Critical Incident

research technique in evaluating job satisfaction. This research led to his conclusions that

100

the job environment (extrinsic factors) is more significant to job dissatisfaction, while job

activity or what one does on the job (intrinsic factors) is more significant to job

satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman 2005, xiii).

Fred Wilson was an early proponent of ministry satisfaction studies of

religious workers (Wilson 1983). Wilson cites research of Protestant clergy (Blizzard

1956; Ashbrook 1967; Higgins and Dittes 1968) that assumes ministry satisfaction is

contingent on fulfilling perceived roles and functions of ministry (Wilson 1983, 2). He

also noted the contrary view of Glass (Glass 1976), who proposed that job satisfaction is

associated with internal factors—the general satisfaction about ones work, and external

factors—the perceptions of the evaluations of others (Wilson 1983, 3). Wilson noted that

little research on ministry satisfaction had been conducted. He also addressed the nature

of available research in this area. Wilson noted that the available research was more

descriptive in nature and emphasized post hoc correlation of factors such as age,

education, or marital status with ministry satisfaction (Wilson 1987, 148). Wilson, for his

part, considered variables related to job satisfaction of parachurch and religious youth

workers (Wilson 1983, 4), drawing on the 1959 work of Herzberg, Mausner, and

Snyderman. Wilson has served as a pacesetter in the area of ministry satisfaction, his

work spawning a number of research efforts, especially by the research community of

Talbot School of Theology.

The Theories of Ministry Satisfaction

The researcher refers the reader to Lawler, Wilson, Boersma, and Hogue for a

thorough overview of the theories of job satisfaction, which will be briefly examined

below (Lawler 1973; Wilson 1987; Boersma 1994; Hogue 1985, 1990). These theories

may be categorized in three groups: the traditional or conventional theory of job

satisfaction, process theories of job satisfaction and content theories of job satisfaction.

101

The Traditional Theory of Job Satisfaction

The traditional or conventional theory of job satisfaction states that factors

relating to what one does on the job (job content) and the environment in which one

works (job context) interact to produce a level of satisfaction (Boersma 1994, 64). This

satisfaction is measured on a single continuum ranging from dissatisfaction to satisfaction

(Boersma 1994, 64). Boersma notes examples of the conventional theory (Hoppock 1935;

Brayfield and Rothe 1951). Hill, Baillie, and Walters used this approach in their

evaluation of the employment of pastoral counselors (Hill, Baillie, and Walters 1991).

The Process Theory of Job Satisfaction

Wilson notes that process theories explain the interaction between the needs,

values and expectations of a worker with the job itself, to produce a level of satisfaction

or dissatisfaction (Wilson 1987, 149). These process theories are three-fold: Fulfillment

or Expectancy Theory, Equity Theory, and Discrepancy Theory (Wilson 1987; Hogue

1990; Boersma 1994). Fulfillment Theory postulates that workers are satisfied in their

jobs to the degree the needs and values they bring to that job are satisfied (Boersma 1994,

58). Wilson identifies Schaffer and Yroom as proponents of this theory (Schaffer 1953;

Vroom 1964). Equity Theory, according to Hogue, suggests that a person expects to

receive from his job what he perceives others receive from their jobs (Hogue 1990, 67).

Wilson identifies Adams with this theory (Adams 1963, 1965). Discrepancy Theory

defines job satisfaction as the difference between the expected rewards of a job and the

actual rewards the job provides (Hogue 1990, 67). Process theories of job satisfaction

stand in distinction to content theories.

The Content Theory of Job Satisfaction

Content theory states that different factors affect satisfaction and

dissatisfaction. Content theories, represented by Maslow and others (Maslow 1970;

102

Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell 1957) "attempt to identify the needs, values,

and expectations that are important to individuals in measuring their satisfaction"

(Wilson 1987, 148). Maslow identifies six needs that must be met in every individual:

psychological, safety and security, love and affection, esteem, knowledge and

understanding, and self-actualization (Maslow 1968).

Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman theorized Motivation-Hygiene Theory,

also called the Two-Factor Theory. The authors recently updated their theory (1959,

2005). As stated earlier, Herzberg contends that job dissatisfaction occurs as a result of

the job environment, the extrinsics of a job. Herzberg asserts that job "satisfiers" have to

do with what one does on the job, the intrinsics of a job. Herzberg used the label hygiene

to describe the environmental factors that contributed to job dissatisfaction. He used the

label motivators to describe the intrinsics of what one does that contribute to job

satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman 2005, xiii).

Measures of Job Satisfaction

There are multiple measures of job satisfaction in the research literature. In this

section the researcher will summarize the essential factors upon which selected theories

are built in an effort to determine a means of evaluating leadership development models.

The researcher will examine the factors underlying the Motivation-Hygiene Theory. The

benefits of a single-factor or dual-factor means of measuring will also be evaluated.

Global Approaches to Measurement

There is substantial disagreement in the research community as to the relative

merits of using a single or global measurement factor or two-factor continuum for

measuring employment satisfaction. Boersma notes several researchers who favor a one-

factor model over the two-factor approach of Herzberg (Boersma 1994, 64; Medved

1982; Congo 1986; Hill, Baillie, and Walters 1991, 73). Hill, Baillie, and Walters of

103

Florida State University, cite Robbins regarding using a single global question of job

satisfaction,

It appears that the single global question of overall job satisfaction is a more valid dependent measure of employment satisfaction than a more lengthy summation of job satisfaction factors. Apparently employment satisfaction is inherently so broad that the single question actually becomes a more inclusive dependent measure of job satisfaction. (Hill, Baillie, and Walters 1991, 73)

Wilson, in his research on three major groups of professionals in Christian education,

discovered that there was "a strong, positive relationship between the Traditional Theory

of job satisfaction and Herzberg's Motivation Hygiene Theory of job satisfaction

factors," demonstrating that the two theories measure the same construct.

Multiple Approaches to Measurement

Herzberg is unique in that he moved from a single or global measurement of

job satisfaction to measuring satisfaction on two continuums. The continuums were

motivators and dissatisfiers (Herzberg 2005, xiii). Wilson, a leading voice in ministry

satisfaction literature, favors the Herzberg approach to examining satisfaction. He cites it

as superior in that it "identifies specific content areas where Christian education

professionals are satisfied or dissatisfied" (Wilson 1987, 157). Wilson has noted that this

information is helpful in providing insight into other aspects of ministry satisfaction

(Wilson 1987, 157). Herzberg, in the 2007 edition of The Motivation to Work, cites their

theory as "perhaps the most heuristic theory in industrial psychology," as providing a

variety of useful applications for training and administration as well as providing a

parsimonious explanation for the nature of mankind as a determined-determiner being

(Herzberg 2005, xvii).

The Research of Ministry Satisfaction

Wilson provided initial work on ministry satisfaction with youth workers in

ministry (Wilson 1983). Wilson also examined three major groups of professionals in

104

Christian education: a parachurch youth organization, church youth directors and

Directors of Christian education (Wilson 1987). Boersma summarizes research on job

satisfaction as it relates to relationships with co-workers/supervisors (Hardy 1986,

Robinson 1987, Talbert 1987); job satisfaction and experience with a mentor in

educational, academic or ministerial settings (King 1986, Clemens 1989, Brannagan

1997); job satisfaction and experience in the educational field (Byosiere 1987; Sciacca

1987; Smith 1986; Zuffa 1989; and Robinson 1987); job satisfaction and the expectations

and realities of the career one chooses (Pollock 1987); job satisfaction and educational

level (Sciacca 1987; Brandmeyer 1987; Mills and Koval 1971; Bowers 1986; Field

1988); and job satisfaction and economic status of the subject (Boersma 1994, 66-71).

Both Wilson and Boersma note that at the time of their research efforts, little work

research had been conducted that was aimed directly at pastoral ministry (Wilson 1987,

Boersma 1994, 66). Since that time a number of studies have been conducted that

examine the levels of satisfaction in ministry (Beck 1997; Carr 2000; McDuff 2001;

Kiemele 2002; Bivins 2005).

Summary

Research on job satisfaction is somewhat contradictory in nature. Researchers

Hill, Baillie, and Walters favor a single or global satisfaction-dissatisfaction scale, while

the two-factor approach of Herzberg is favored by Wilson. The research reveals merit for

both approaches as each serve unique purposes. Currently there is no research that

attempts to measure a relationship between leadership development models and ministry

satisfaction. The current study would address this research gap.

Literature Review Summary

This review has examined several lines of literature in an effort to determine

the need for the current research. The researcher has set forth a biblical perspective of

105

leadership development. In doing so, he has clarified the worldview that undergirds his

research efforts. The researcher has examined leadership development training models as

they relate to higher education. The historic and theoretical roots of these models have

been examined. The researcher has also surveyed the social science research base to

establish the relevance of the topic. Additionally, the researcher has briefly examined the

literature regarding ministry effectiveness and ministry satisfaction to consider the way

they intersect with the research project at hand. This review demonstrates the absence of

and the need for the current focus. This research focus is concerned with developing a

taxonomic classification of leadership development models, and comparing five-year

graduates of those models to determine if there is any relationship between the

predominant model by which one was equipped for ministry and corresponding measures

of ministry employment, effectives, satisfaction and tenure.

CHAPTER 3

METHODLOGICAL DESIGN

Evangelical seminaries employ a variety of leadership development models as

they strive to equip leaders for the church in the twenty-first century. A review of

precedent literature revealed growing dissatisfaction with the traditional classroom model

for leadership development. There were also proposals for optimum training and fresh

leadership development practices, but little research examined the relationship between

the leadership development models and the graduates of these models. The purpose of

this research was to understand the relationship between seminary leadership

development models and select outcome assessment criteria: employment, leadership

effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure.

Research Question Synopsis

The following questions guided this research project:

1. What leadership development models for ministry exist in evangelical post- baccalaureate theological (seminary) education?

2. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry employment?

3. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and leadership effectiveness in ministry?

4. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry satisfaction?

5. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry tenure?

6. How do these models compare with respect to the variables of ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure?

106

107

Design Overview

This research study utilized a sequential mixed methods design, incorporating

both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Creswell has described this

procedure as one "in which the researcher seeks to elaborate on or expand the findings of

one method with another method" (Creswell 2003, 16). The benefits of a mixed methods

approach have been noted by many research specialists (Anderson 1998; Leedy and

Ormrod 2001; Creswell 2003; Fraenkel and Wallen 2003; Gall, Gall, and Borg 2007).

The researcher employed the following methods in an effort to answer the research

questions: content analysis, interviewing, and survey research.

The study followed a three-phase process. In phase 1, a taxonomic

classification of current leadership development models in post-baccalaureate theological

education was developed. In phase 2, graduates in the research population were surveyed

using a Likert-scale instrument. In phase 3, statistical analysis was conducted on the data

generated from the surveys. This research was a modified protocol described and

implemented by Ennis (Ennis 2002).

Phase 1: Taxonomic Classification

In phase 1, a taxonomic classification of current leadership development

models in post-baccalaureate theological education was developed. The initial taxonomy

(Appendix 1) was constructed after reviewing precedent literature. After completion of

the initial taxonomic classification, the research method of content analysis was used to

review and examine institutional documents in the research population. Document

analysis was conducted with a view to clarifying and solidifying the taxonomic list of

leadership development models in seminary education (Appendix 2). To complete phase

1, the researcher conducted open-ended interviews with appropriate academic

administrators who oversee the institutional degree programs. These interviews were

108

conducted with the belief that institutional gatekeepers could provide essential descriptive

data regarding the leadership development model or models used by each institution.

The research was predicated on the belief that an examination of only

precedent literature, or institutional documentation, or interviews with academic

administrators would not yield a solid taxonomy. A triangulated process of data gathering

and analysis was essential to substantiate the final taxonomic classification of seminary

leadership development models (Appendix 3).

Phase 2: Likert-scale Survey

The second phase of the research involved surveying a sample of the research

population, which included 131 evangelical post-baccalaureate theological institutions

accredited by ABHE, ATS, and TRACS. The instrument was a Likert-scale survey

incorporating the Kouzes and Posner Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), the Hoppock

Job Satisfaction Blank, and approximately 15 questions that related to demographics and

educational participation of the population (Appendix 4). This instrument was used to

gather the perceptions of seminary graduates about the four dependent variables: ministry

employment, leadership effectiveness, ministry satisfaction, and ministry tenure.

Validity and reliability procedures are discussed below.

Phase 3: Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis followed phases 1 and 2. The researcher looked for

relationships between the predominant leadership development models used to equip the

graduates for ministry, and the following outcome variables: ministry employment,

leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure. Data were examined utilizing the

following statistical procedures: One-way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey tests for ANOVA

relationships, and MANOVA. Conclusions were drawn as to how these models compare

109

with respect to the variables of ministry employment, leadership effectiveness,

satisfaction, and tenure as seen in the graduates of the research sample.

Population

The population for this research consisted of all 2004 graduates of evangelical

post-baccalaureate theological institutions accredited by ABHE, ATS, or TRACS whose

graduate degree programs were focused on ministerial leadership as opposed to general

theological studies. ATS makes a categorical distinction between degree programs that are

intentionally designed to equip students for ministerial leadership and those that are

designed to acquaint students with general theological studies. Only those graduates of

degree programs designed for ministerial leadership were included in the population. For

graduates of ABHE or TRACS accredited institutions, only those institutions, and their

accompanying programs, that had leadership in their mission statement or program

objectives were included in the research population. Graduate degree programs included

were the Master of Divinity, Master of Religious Education, Master of Christian

Education, Master of Arts in Religion and Education, Master of Arts in Christian

Education, Master of Arts in Leadership, Master of Ministry, and equivalent degrees.

Determining which institutions could be categorized evangelical was

accomplished separately for ATS member schools. Both ABHE and TRACS have an

evangelical doctrinal statement to which participating institutions must adhere. All ABHE

and TRACS institutions were, therefore, included in the research population. Since ATS has

no evangelical requirement, two documents were utilized to help determine the evangelical

distinction. The 2009 membership list of the Fellowship of Evangelical Seminary Presidents

was examined. The presidents on the FESP list were cross-referenced to their

corresponding ATS institutions. Those ATS institutions were included in the research

population. ATS also maintains a list of Chief Academic Officers of evangelical schools

within its membership. These schools were also included in the initial research population,

110

which totaled 135 post-baccalaureate theological education institutions (Appendix 5). Four

institutions were removed because they were non-English speaking, which provided the final

institutional population of 131 from which the graduate sampling was drawn. A list of these

institutions is recorded in Appendix 6. This institutional population included graduates

from 29 ABHE institutions, 96 ATS institutions, and 28 TRACS institutions. Some

institutions held dual accreditation.

This research population helped establish a higher degree of validity in that the

population could be randomly sampled, was of sufficient size to reduce sampling error,

and could be replicated in other studies. All of these factors are significant to establishing

population validity (Gall, Gall, and Borg 2007).

Samples and Delimitations

A true institutional census was sought in this study. All 131 institutions in the

research population were invited to participate in the survey phase of the research. This

decision was made in light of potential research delays from a progressive stratified random

sampling protocol. The time-consuming nature of sequentially pursing institutional

permissions in light of various internal permission protocols became problematic. A calling

team was formed to achieve the goal of securing institutional permission and participation.

This process is described under the procedures section below.

This design resulted in 53 participating institutions, an institutional response

rate of 40.4%. This institutional sample represented 2421 graduates. Reasons for non-

participation in the research varied. Some institutions simply declined to participate;

others had "no participation policies." A few institutions had no graduates. Some

institutions with the research population were short-staffed and had no time to participate

in this research project. A total of 23 institutions never responded despite repeated emails

and phone calls.

The delimitations of this study include the following:

I l l

1. This study was limited to theological education.

2. This study was limited to evangelical post-baccalaureate theological education (master's level seminaries and divinity schools).

3. This study was limited to post-baccalaureate theological education institutions accredited by one of the following faith-based accrediting associations: The Association for Biblical Higher Education; The Association of Theological Schools; Transnational Association of Colleges and Schools.

4. This study was limited to examining the leadership development models of these institutions.

5. This study was limited to examining the leadership development models within those institutions whose degree programs were designed for ministerial leadership.

6. This study was limited to graduates of those degree programs within the post- baccalaureate theological institutions.

7. This research was limited to examining graduates at the 5-year post-graduate mark.

Limitations of Generalizations

Conclusions drawn from this research, while applicable to evangelical post-

baccalaureate theological education do not necessarily generalize to all Christian

seminaries. The data from this sample was limited. The limits of generalization include

the following:

1. The research findings may not generalize to other forms of Christian higher education.

2. The research findings may not generalize to divinity schools associated with universities that are not Christian or evangelical in their worldview.

3. The research findings may not generalize to undergraduate leadership development training programs.

4. The research findings may not generalize to ecclesial leadership development programs outside of the context of post-baccalaureate theological education.

5. The research findings may not generalize to Christian leadership development in cross-cultural settings.

6. The research findings will not necessarily generalize to leadership development programs sponsored by various agents within the business community.

This study sought to gather perceptions from graduates. It attempted to

evaluate whether any relationship existed between the leadership development model by

112

which graduates were trained and the variables of ministry employment, leadership

effectiveness in ministry, ministry satisfaction, and ministry tenure among those

graduates. The study sought to examine possible relationships between leadership

development models and the stated variables, but the research did not intend to prove

causality. The study was conducted with the understanding that the intended outcomes of

the various leadership development models should be the primary basis by which model

measurement and model assessment is made by the institutions under consideration. The

conclusions drawn from this research were not intended to be a reflection of the quality

of any educational program in the research population, nor were the conclusions drawn

from this research intended to be a reflection of the teaching a student received while at

his respective institution.

Instrumentation

The researcher utilized a mixed methods approach in the process of working

through the three phases of this study. In phase 1 a taxonomic classification of leadership

development models was established (Appendix 3). Two research methods were utilized

to expand, clarify, and consolidate the initial taxonomic classification discovered in the

review of precedent literature. These methods were content analysis of institutional

documentation and interviews of institutional academic administrators. In phase 2 the

researcher surveyed a sample of the research population using a Likert-response survey.

Phase 3 included statistical analysis of data mined from phases 1 and 2. This section

outlines the instrumentation used for the document review, interviewing, and surveying.

This section also describes the measures used to validate the instrumentation.

Phase 1: Instrumentation

Two instruments were developed and utilized for phase 1 of this study. These

instruments, which were essential for gathering data from institutional documents and

113

from academic administrators, were the Document Analysis Coding Protocol (Appendix

7) and the Academic Interview Coding Protocol (Appendix 8). Details regarding each

instrument are recorded below, including a description, rationale, development process,

as well as validity and reliability measures.

Document Review Instrumentation: Document Analysis Coding Protocol

Content analysis has been defined as "any technique for making inferences by

objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages" (Holsti

1969, 14). This study relied on careful examination of institutional documentation for the

purposes of establishing a taxonomic classification of leadership development models. A

protocol instrument was necessary to accomplish this type of careful analysis.

Instrument Description

The Document Analysis Coding Protocol was a step-by-step, six-page

guideline for examining degree program documents from theological institutions within

the research population. The protocol established qualification for coders and provided

directions for their training. It addressed issues of coding syntax and semantics, and

explained how data gleaned from the study would be stored. The protocol provided

complete directions for use including identifying the units of analysis, the location of

data, coding categories and a step-by-step template for identifying, analyzing, and

determining data conclusion. The complete protocol is located in Appendix 7.

Instrument Rationale

The document analysis coding protocol was employed to increase the validity

of data drawn from institutional documentation and to ensure the reliability of

measurement when used by multiple coders. Weber notes that content analysis can be

used to reflect institutional trends, patterns, and focus (Weber 1990, 9). The study relied

114

on the analysis of these trends and patterns to help clarify, substantiate, and expand the

taxonomic classification of leadership development models.

Instrument Development

Established guidelines shaped the development of the document analysis

coding protocol (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003). These steps, which led to the discovery of

patterns and trends within institutional documentation, are noted below.

Determine objectives. Fraenkel and Wallen note that there are many reasons

a researcher might want to use content analysis. One objective would be to formulate

themes from large amounts of descriptive information; a second objective would be to

obtain information "useful in dealing with educational problems" (Fraenkel and Wallen

2003, 484). These two objectives, formulating themes and solving problems, drove the

document review phase. It was essential that they were embedded in the document

analysis protocol.

Define terms. Frankel and Wallen note the importance of defining terms prior

to analyzing any documents. This study examined institutional mission statements,

degree program descriptions, degree program mission statements and learning goals

(learning outcomes), course descriptions when necessary, and other institutional

documents essential to determining the primary leadership development model used by

the institution. These terms were included and defined in the protocol.

Specify the units of analysis. The document analysis primarily occurred at

three levels: institutional documentation, degree program documentation, and curricular

documentation. At the institutional level, documents examined included mission

statements, core values, and educational learning goals and objectives. At the

programmatic level, documents examined included degree program descriptions, degree

115

program mission statements, as well as specific educational and programmatic learning

goals. At the curricular level, degree program curriculum overviews and course

descriptions were examined, and occasionally syllabi were evaluated. The document

protocol provided accountable measures to ensure these units were examined.

Locate relevant data. The document review phase required examining

institutional documents of graduate schools accredited by ABHE, ATS, and TRACS. It

was essential therefore that the coding protocol provided directions for securing this data.

Develop a rationale. Fraenkel and Warren contend that the "choice of content

should be clear, even to a disinterested observer" (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003, 485). This

study focused on graduates of institutions that are developing ministry practitioners as

was noted in the section detailing the research population. Since the study was limited to

this group, these degree programs were included under Terms in the protocol. The Master

of Divinity, Master of Religious Education, Master of Christian Education, Master of

Arts in Religion and Education, Master of Arts in Christian Education, Master of Arts in

Leadership (or some "leadership" equivalent), Master of Ministry, and other equivalent

degrees were clearly identified in the protocol.

Formulate coding categories. Stemler differentiates between a priori and

emergent coding (Stemler 2001). Emergent coding comprises categories included after

making some initial observations. A priori coding refers to categories that are established

prior to the analysis based on a particular theory. This study was approached with an a

priori taxonomic list and coding. This a priori coding was gathered from the review of

precedent literature that is detailed in chapter 2 of the research study (Leedy and Ormrod

2001, 157). These coding categories were included in the protocol and can also be seen

in Appendix 7.

116

Instrument Validity and Reliability

Weber notes that validity in reference to document analysis refers to both the

classification scheme and the interpretation associated with it (Weber 1990, 18). Is there

a correspondence between the category or variable (leadership development model) and

the concept it represents (the primary model used to prepare the minister)? Furthermore,

can research conclusions from the findings generalize beyond the data examined?

Weber suggests "much stronger validity is obtained by comparing content-

analytic data with some external criterion" (Weber 1990, 19). The researcher, therefore,

established construct validity and semantic validity. In construct validity a construct

(leadership development model) was shown to generalize across measures or methods.

Semantic validity, according to Krippendorff, occurs when users, familiar with both the

texts and language of the discipline, affirm the categories that are employed for the

content analysis (Krippendorff 2004, 323).

Face and content validity were established by means of an expert panel, which

was invited to view the protocol. This panel was composed of three theological

educators, each of whom holds a research doctorate. Panel members represented each

accrediting association. The panel provided recommendations, which were incorporated

into the instrument.

The researcher also worked to enhance reliability by establishing strong

coding procedures. Weber notes that inconsistent coding processes lead to unreliability

(Weber 1990, 17). To eliminate coding inconsistencies and establish reliability the

researcher followed guidelines established by Krippendorff (2004, 127-49):

1. Establishing the qualifications that coders need to have.

2. Training coders for the task of recording.

3. Addressing issues of syntax and semantics so coding is more efficient and reliable.

4. Designing records and procedures to record and store data.

These guidelines were stated and followed in the Document Analysis Coding Protocol.

117

Document Review Instrumentation: Academic Interview Coding

Interviews were conducted with appropriate academic administrators who were

responsible for institutional degree programs. Creswell recommends establishing an

interview protocol template for this process (Creswell 1998, 123-27). A protocol

instrument was developed to initiate and conduct this portion of analysis. Following a

protocol is essential to ensure consistency for each interview (Creswell 2003, 190). This

section provides a description of the protocol. It also includes the rationale for

development, and the developmental process for the interview coding protocol. Validity

and reliability measures that were incorporated are addressed.

Instrument Description

The interview coding protocol was a step-by-step, three-page guideline for

introducing the research project and conducting interviews that would yield descriptive

data relating to institutional leadership development models within the research

population. The protocol identified the project, the time of the interview, date, place,

interviewer, interviewee, and location of the interviewee. It also provided a description of

the research project, four open-ended questions which guided the interview, and the

taxonomic classification of leadership development models. It concluded with a reminder

to express thanks for the interviewee's participation. The complete protocol is located in

Appendix 8.

Instrument Rationale

Interviewing academic administrators was essential for two reasons. First,

these interviews helped to clarify, substantiate, and expand the taxonomic list of

leadership development models. Second, they provided helpful assessment as to the

primary degree-program leadership development model or models used by the institution

of the academic administrator.

118

Instrument Development

The researcher developed the academic interview coding protocol. Experts

were consulted to ensure the quality of the instrument (Creswell 1998, 2003; Leedy and

Ormrod 2001). The procedural outline for the interview protocol was established in light

of the guidance offered by those authors.

Instrument Validity and Reliability

Taking measures to ensure validity and reliability in an interview process is a

challenge, but not insurmountable. Irving Seidman comments on the lack of research to

support one interviewing procedure over another as well as the epistemological

challenges that are present due to the intimate role the interviewer plays (Seidman 2006,

22). He comments, "The governing principle in designing interview projects might well

be to strive for a rational process that is both repeatable and documentable" (Seidman

2006, 22). The following steps were taken to enhance validity and establish a repeatable

and documentable process: (1) the interview questions were submitted to an expert panel

for face and content validity, (2) the interview questions were tied to an interview

protocol, (3) the interview questions and protocol were pilot tested before use.

Interview questions were designed to solicit descriptive information relating to

the primary leadership development models used for each degree program. An expert

panel was assembled to evaluate the interview questions. The panel consisted of an

academic administrator from the research population, a practitioner-teacher with a Ph.D.,

and a M.Div. graduate with a reputation for expert analysis. The panel examined the

questions and offered various suggestions, which were incorporated into the final four

questions that were used in the interview process. The questions were:

1. When it comes to equipping students for ministerial leadership, what are some of the "best practices" and/or distinctives of your institution?

2. If you were to change one aspect of your educational design in order to better prepare students for ministerial leadership, what would you change? Why?

119

3. Assuming all seminaries expect students to be engaged in the life of the local church, how do you collaborate with the church in your degree program/s?

4. Using the taxonomy on the next page, which of the following leadership development models best describes your institution?

As Ennis has noted, pilot testing the interview with academic administrators

outside of the sample helps to clarify the interview questions and more effectively

facilitate the interview process by discovering what does and does not work (Ennis 2002,

61). The researcher utilized this pilot test to establish a sense of pacing for the interview.

The interview and protocol were pilot-tested with a graduate academic administrator

outside the research population prior to being used with academic administrators from the

research population.

Phase 2: Instrumentation

One instrument was developed and utilized for phase 2 of this study. This

instrument, which was essential for gathering data from the research sample, was The

Leadership Development Model Assessment Survey (Appendix 4). Details regarding the

instrument were recorded below. A description, rationale, development process, as well

as validity and reliability measures were provided.

Survey Phase Instrumentation: Leadership Development Model Assessment Survey

The study employed a self-reporting instrument, The Leadership Development

Model Assessment Survey. The purpose of the instrument was to gather perceptions of

seminary graduates regarding their ministry employment, leadership effectiveness,

satisfaction, and tenure.

The researcher utilized the services of the online survey development company

Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com), as a means of making the survey more easily

accessible and data more effectively managed. The various facets of the development

process are listed below.

http://www.surveymonkey.com

120

Instrument Description

The Leadership Development Model Assessment Survey was a Likert-

response scale instrument that included the Leadership Practices Inventory (Self)

developed by Kouzes and Posner, and the Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank. The survey

included approximately 15 additional questions. These questions were related to

demographics, ministry employment, and the educational models experienced by the

research participants. The purpose of the instrument was to measure graduate perception

as to ministry employment, effectiveness in ministry, satisfaction in ministry, and

ministry tenure. The Leadership Development Model Assessment Survey was distributed

to 5-year post-matriculation graduates of the evangelical seminaries from the research

population.

Instrument Rationale

Given the multitude of research instruments available today, it was not

surprising that at least one expert was hesitant to recommend the process of developing a

research instrument (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003). There are three factors, however, that

influenced the decision to develop a hybrid instrument for this research. First, the

researcher could not locate a research instrument that was designed to simultaneously

examine all four dependent variables the research seeks to evaluate. The researcher

searched the Buros Institute of Mental Measurements (Buros Institute, buros.unl.edu), a

web-based searchable database of nearly 4000 commercially available tests. He also

examined several instruments used by other researchers in hopes that one might be

directly transferable. None were adequate for this task. Second, it seemed impractical,

without significant modification, to employ possibly four different standardized research

instruments with a sample size of 400. The researcher was concerned that the time

required of participants to complete the survey might preclude their participation. Third,

both the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank have

121

been used extensively with a number of research populations. Both can be self-

administered and require little time to complete.

Instrument Development

A pre-existing instrument was not found that sufficiently satisfied the needs of

this research project. Measuring the perceptions of graduates regarding ministry

employment and tenure was not a difficult task. Determining measures of leadership

effectiveness and satisfaction, however, was more challenging. It was the view of the

researcher, that combining research instruments such as the 76-item Ministry Satisfaction

Inventory of Fred Wilson with the 59-item Ministry Effectiveness Inventory or the 130-

item Vicar Evaluation Inventory was problematic for a response rate suitable to a large

sample size. Furthermore, the purpose of the study was to initiate a conversation in the

research community regarding possible relationships between leadership development

models in post-baccalaureate theological education and employment, leadership

effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure of graduates of those models. A global measure for

examining the four variables was chosen for the following reasons: (1) the desire to

initiate a discussion in the research community, (2) the desire to establish an initial

baseline measurement, (3) the paucity of research on the subject, (4) the lack of a

research instrument measuring all four variables, (5) the problematic nature of combining

multiple extensive instruments and expecting a large response rate.

A number of possible instruments were considered and rejected. These were

detailed in the literature review. The review of the literature did reveal three instruments,

however, that showed promise in being adapted to the needs of the research project. Allen

Nauss has been engaged in ministry effectiveness research for portions of five decades.

He has been and is a leading voice in this field. Nauss developed The Vicar Evaluation

Inventory (VEI). The VEI is built on five factors of ministry effectiveness. It has an

impressive pedigree (Nauss 2001, 3), has been regularly improved, and has been

122

thoroughly tested for validity and reliability (Nauss 1999, 2001, 2003). The VEI is a 130-

question 360-degree instrument. The researcher worked closely with Nauss in an effort to

reduce the 130-item inventory to a 30-question inventory based on the five factors of the

VEI. After further consideration, however, the researcher determined the research design

would be stronger using a time-tested instrument. Consequently the researcher

incorporated the LPI developed by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner.

The Leadership Practices Inventory is a specific measure of leadership

effectiveness, based on five behavioral practices. Reliability has been tested among a

large group (N=48,620) across the five sub scales using Cronbach alph. Internal

reliability coefficients ranged from .73 to .88. Cronbach alfa coefficients that exceed .70

are generally regarded as very good (Posner 2008, 2). Validity has been thoroughly

tested:

Factor Structure: A five-factor solution was generated using factor analysis (varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization). These results support leadership behaviors to be conceptualized within five practices (challenging, inspiring, enabling, modeling, and encouraging). Face validity, discriminant validity. LISTREL estimates across settings all reported confirming validity of the instrument, (www.nnpnetwork.org [2008], Leadership Practices Inventory, PDF)

The LPI has been used across a wide-range of contexts as stated in the literature review.

It was felt that the LPI would provide a time-tested instrument and provide a stronger

contribution to the literature base. The LPI has been used in over 300 doctoral

dissertations. It is a recognized instrument for assessing leadership behaviors.

The satisfaction measure of Hoppock was also included in the research survey.

This measure is both simple and accurate in determining a measure of satisfaction.

Although developed over 40 years ago, Hoppock's job satisfaction measure appears to have significant utility in contemporary organizational research. The measure performs well when examined in terms of its distribution, construct, convergent, and concurrent validities and reliability. Furthermore, the measure performs consistently when applied to a variety of sample populations including many different job categories, organizational levels, and demographic groupings. The authors consequently suggest its use as a compromise between the lengthy, sophisticated job satisfaction instruments and the unvalidated satisfaction questions often found in survey questionnaires. (McNichols et al. 1978, 741)

http://www.nnpnetwork.org

123

Initially, the researcher considered using a two-factor approach pioneered by Herzberg,

adapted for ministry by Wilson, and extensively used by others. The literature review

revealed, however, that global measures were considered as effective or more effective

for determining job satisfaction.

In reviewing the literature on job satisfaction, Robbins reports that while job satisfaction has been found to be negatively related to absenteeism and job turnover, and positively related to better employee health and overall life satisfaction, measures of job satisfaction have been debated. It appears that the single global question of overall job satisfaction is a more valid dependent measure of employment satisfaction than a more lengthy summation of job satisfaction factors. Apparently employment satisfaction is inherently so broad that the single question actually becomes a more inclusive dependent measure of job satisfaction. (Hill et al. 1991, 73)

The Hoppock Job Satisfaction Measure has been thoroughly evaluated in "terms of its

distribution, construct validity, concurrent validity, convergent validity, and reliability"

(McNichols et al. 1978, 739). It has been recommended "as a compromise between

lengthy, sophisticated job satisfaction instruments and the unvalidated satisfaction

questions often found in survey questionnaires" (McNichols et al. 1978, 741).

The Leadership Development Model Assessment Survey therefore

incorporated the exceptional research and research instruments of Kouzes and Posner and

Hoppock, which were combined in an effort to answer the research questions.

Instrument Validity and Reliability

The Leadership Development Model Assessment Survey was submitted to the

dissertation supervisor to receive permission to commence validity and reliability testing.

An expert panel was gathered to establish face and content validity. Three scholars were

asked to examine the questionnaire for the following evidence of validity stated by Gall

(Gall et al. 2007, 196-99):

1. Test content evidence. How well does the instrument sample the domain-specific content of the variables?

2. Response processes evidence. How well does the instrument require evaluative processes specific to the constructs it purportedly measures?

124

3. Internal structure evidence. What types of internal correlations exist in the instrument to validate interpretations of scores?

4. Distributive difference evidence. Will the scores distribute differently when applied to two groups who are hypothesized to be different on the constructs under review?

Comments and suggestions from the expert panel were incorporated into the instrument.

Instrument reliability was also addressed. Gall suggests two measures for

determining instrument reliability: test-retest and calculating a split-half correlation

coefficient (Gall, Gall, and Borg 2007, 200-03). In test-retest reliability, the researcher

calculates a correlation coefficient between an individual score on the same measure on

two different occasions. Internal consistency can also be determined by means of a split-

half correlation coefficient. The researcher used this method for determining reliability.

The survey instrument was pilot-tested with a group of 20 graduates with post-

baccalaureate theological degrees who fell outside of the research population. The

researcher ran Cronbach's Alpha as a means of determining internal consistency and

reliability. The 30-qustion LPI portion of the survey, which was used to evaluate

leadership effectiveness, had a Cronbach's Alpha rating of .92. This was satisfactory as

the cutoff value for acceptability is .70. The 5-question Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank,

which was used in the survey to measure ministry satisfaction, had a rating of .48. Since

the JSB is reversed scaled, the last question was dropped. When Cronbach's Alpha was

run again, the rating was .84, which was acceptable. The employment and tenure pieces

of the survey were not scaled responses so no tests were conducted on them. Two

academic administrators offered valuable feedback on the survey after viewing it. Their

suggestions were incorporated into the final survey.

Research Procedures

This study was conducted in three phases as noted earlier under the design

overview. In phase 1 the initial taxonomic classification of leadership development

models established in the literature review was substantiated, clarified, and improved.

125

This occurred through an institutional document review process of degree programs

within the research sample. Interviews with appropriate academic administrators within

the research sample also contributed to an improved taxonomy. In phase 2 a Likert-scale

instrument was used to survey the research sample. In phase 3, statistical analysis was

applied to data gathered from the survey phase. The step-by-step protocol follows.

Phase 1 Taxonomic Classification

This section details the step-by-step process that was followed for taxonomic

classification phase. This phase included the institutional degree-program document

review and the academic administrator interviews.

Document Review

Institutional document evaluation was conducted after the literature review.

The units of analysis were discussed earlier in this chapter under instrumentation. This

section details the step-by-step process that was followed. These procedural steps include

identifying and securing institutional documentation, conducting the review proper, and

analyzing the data gleaned from the review.

Identifying and Securing Institutional Documentation

The Association of Theological Schools had a categorical description for

degree programs oriented toward ministerial leadership. The researcher examined the

documents of those institutions and degree programs that met that categorical description.

The study examined institutional documentation from ABHE and TRACS affiliated

institutions that had one of the following phrases in their mission statements or program

objectives: Ministerial leadership, Christian leadership, leadership development,

leadership for ministry, ministry leadership, or an equivalent.

126

The researcher secured all documents from the institutional websites.

Approximately 57 sets of institutional documentation were examined. Since all member

institutions have active hyperlinks, institutional websites were first examined for

appropriate data. In each instance appropriate information, with the usual exception of

syllabi, was available. When data was lacking, an email or telephone request was made to

the appropriate institution.

This process was time consuming since there is no institution-wide protocol

for web storing of documentation. Document review generally began at the institutional

website and progressed to the electronic institutional catalog. With respect to institutional

catalogs, electronic documents were located in several places. At times e-catalogs were

located under resource tabs, on a different site it might be stored under the academic

calendar tab (Canadian). The catalog could be embedded throughout the website and not

available as a download. When web-based documents were not available, the researcher

emailed the appropriate academic personnel to request electronic or paper copies.

Conducting the Review Proper

Two methods were established for following the Document Analysis Coding

Protocol. The first method started with the protocol and moved to institutional

documentation, proceeding item-by-item through the protocol. This was effective, but

time consuming. A second method involved downloading the institutional catalog and

having a research assistant print the pages that corresponded to the protocol and then

highlight relevant facets such as mission statement, values or educational distinctives,

and educational objectives. This proved beneficial with respect to time and with respect

to more quickly identifying patterns associated with the predominant institutional or

degree-program leadership development model.

Documents were examined and coded according to Document Analysis Coding

Protocol. Where an institution had multiple degree programs, the M.Div., or primary

127

ministry preparation degree was examined first. The primary Non-M.Div. degree was

examined second, followed by other degree programs as deemed important to

determining the primary institutional leadership development model. Document review

notes were stored on paper and in an electronic database established through

Survey Monkey.

Analyzing the Data

The final step of the document review phase involved examining the

descriptive content about the leadership development models used in the institutions

under consideration. This data analysis was essential to identifying different leadership

development models. The researcher examined documentary findings against the initial

taxonomic classification. Similar models were grouped to form a secondary classification

of leadership development models (Appendix 2). The content of these documents were

examined and evaluated for trends and patterns that convey the leadership development

model or models used by the institutions within the population to equip their students for

ministerial leadership.

Interviews with Academic Administrators

Interviews were conducted with academic administrators within the research

sample using the Academic Administrator Interview Protocol previously described in the

instrumentation section (Appendix 8). These interviews provided data, which were used

to solidify the final taxonomic classification. The procedural steps included: identifying

administrators, securing participation, conducting the interview, and analyzing the data.

Identifying Academic Administrators

The researcher interviewed academic administrators from each taxonomic

category institution who were responsible for the degree program. Names and contact

128

information were drawn from institutional websites or from institutional

recommendations. A list of academic administrators and some of the various models,

which they represented, is available in Appendix 9. Attempts were made to secure

participation from representatives within each taxonomic category. This was challenging

as some administrators could fit in two or even more taxonomic categories depending on

the degree program and degree program year.

Securing Participation

Administrators representative of each taxonomic category were contacted. An

interview request letter was prepared and sent to academic administrators by email

(Appendix 10). This letter included two pages of the Academic Interview Protocol. The

intention of this process was to provide an overview of the research project and to give an

advanced review of the interview questions and the taxonomy. These measures were

taken to maximize time and enhance the data gleaned from the interview. Each letter was

followed by a personal phone call requesting an appointment for a 20-minute phone

interview. Appointments were scheduled at one-half hour intervals within a seven-day

period.

Conducting the Interview

Interviews were conducted by telephone. It was expected that the interviews

would provide clarity regarding leadership development models in general and

institutional models in particular. Conversations followed the interview protocol noted

above. At the beginning of the conversation the interviewee was thanked for his time and

willingness to contribute to the research effort. A few minutes were taken to establish

rapport after which the interview proceeded according to the protocol.

Interviewees were asked the four interview questions. Most were also asked to

identify their degree program leadership development model from the taxonomy that was

129

provided. Notes were recorded and saved for analysis. Participants were thanked at the

conclusion of the interview. Participants were also notified of confidentiality and

promised a summary of the research findings at the conclusion of the study.

Analyzing the Data

Interviews provided immediate data regarding leadership development models

and the taxonomy. Post-interview reflection and analysis also provided time for

identifying trends among the interview responses. After collecting interview data it was

analyzed to see where it corroborated or contradicted existing patterns and trends from

the literature review and document review processes. The researcher used this data to

clarify, substantiate, and update the taxonomic list of leadership development models.

Interview Summary

Interviews were conducted with 27 academic administrators across North

America following the Academic Administrator Interview Protocol. Approximately 3

academic administrators from each taxonomic category were interviewed. Additional

clarification regarding leadership models and institutional were sought with follow-up

emails and phone calls to the interview pool and some other academic administrators.

The final taxonomic list was formalized as a result of data gleaned from the document

review phase and the interview phase (Appendix 3).

Phase 2: Likert-scale Survey

The study followed a sequential mixed methods design incorporating both

qualitative and quantitative research elements. A taxonomic classification and a 50-

question online survey were at the heart of the work. The survey phase was essential for

determining if there were any relationships between leadership development models and

the four dependent variables: ministry hiring, leadership effectiveness in ministry,

130

ministry satisfaction, and ministry tenure. This section details the step-by-step procedures

that were followed to establish a data collection method, secure institutional participation,

secure participation from 5-year graduates of the research sample, and provide essential

data analysis after the survey phase.

Establish Data Collection Method

This research utilized the online service, SurveyMonkey, for the purpose of

ease and accuracy. Surveys were sent in one of four ways: (1) Invitations were sent

through SurveyMonkey with an electronic link to the online survey, (2) invitations were

sent on behalf of the researcher through an institutional email invitation that included an

electronic link to the survey, (3) invitations were sent on behalf of the researcher through

an institutional paper invitation that offered an opportunity to access the online survey

through an electronic link on the Knox Theological Seminary website, (4) paper

invitations with a paper survey were sent from the researcher to individuals without email

addresses.

Securing Institutional Participation

A calling team was formed to achieve the goal of securing institutional

permission and participation. Ten people were gathered and trained to use the Institutional

Calling Team Protocol (Appendix 11). The list of institutions was divided among the team.

Team members contacted institutional registrars, academic vice presidents, and other

personnel responsible to release graduate email address. A follow-up institutional invitation

was sent by email to interested schools that did not immediately release graduate directory

information (Appendix 12). The institutional invitation included a Research Project

Overview (Appendix 13) and recommendation letters from ABHE and ATS accreditation

leaders (Appendix 14). The Executive Director of TRACS sent a separate recommendation

letter via email to all TRACS institutions.

131

Those institutions that were interested in participating, but unwilling to release

graduate email addresses were asked to facilitate the survey invitation themselves. In those

cases the researcher provided the institutions with a paragraph "invitation to participate"

note that included an active hyperlink to the online survey (Appendix 15). Approximately

one-half of the institutions opted for this method of engaging their graduates.

Securing Graduate Participation

Graduates were invited to participate as their institutions released their names

or as soon as institutions offered to facilitate the survey themselves. Invitations were

extended through a form letter sent via email (Appendix 16) or through U.S. mail

(Appendix 17). Graduates without email addresses were invited to participate by mail and

with a paper survey. Rejected ("bounced") emails were included in the paper survey

when a physical address was available. A second invitation to participate was emailed in

select instances. These instances included times when three-to-four weeks had elapsed

since the first email, and when the graduate group reflected a taxonomic category that

was not statistically represented.

The researcher took the following steps to gather the names of the individuals

within the research sample:

1. Promoted the research project so that institutional gatekeepers will become aware of and desire to participate in the survey.

2. Secured the help of ABHE, ATS, and TRACS directors. This step was taken to mitigate the potential challenge of institutional reticence regarding releasing names of graduates.

3. Contacted the offices of alumni affairs, institutional research and effectiveness, and academic administrators of each of the cluster schools to solicit their help in securing the names of graduates.

4. Mailed or emailed a letter to all graduates in each participating institution explaining the research and the instrumentation. They were asked to participate and offered a $5 Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks gift card as an incentive upon completion.

132

5. Sent follow-up requests to select groups to increase response rate and achieve a minimum of twenty survey responses per taxonomic category and a total minimum survey response sample of 400.

Phase 3: Data Analysis

The data from all three phases of the research was recorded and analyzed.

Survey data stored in Survey Monkey was downloaded in numerical-based excel files for

purposes of statistical analysis. The survey data was examined by means of inferential

statistics that were tied to each research question.

Six research questions guided this study. The first research question was

"What leadership development models for ministry exist in evangelical institutions of

higher education?" This information was addressed prior to statistical analysis through

the taxonomic classification of leadership development training models. The second

research question was "What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership

development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry employment?" This

question was addressed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Tukey tests

as necessary. The third research question was "What relationship, if any, exists between

the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and leadership

effectiveness in ministry?" This question was addressed using ANOVA with post-hoc

Tukey tests. The fourth research question was "What relationship, if any, exists between

the leadership development training model a graduate experienced in seminary and

ministry satisfaction? The Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank addressed this question. The

researcher used ANOVA to compare the mean JSB scores among the various leadership

development training model categories. The fifth research question was "What

relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development training model a graduate

experienced in seminary and ministry tenure?" This question was addressed using

ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey tests to identify the degree of relationship that exists

between the leadership development training model and ministry tenure. The sixth

133

research question was "How do these models compare with respect to the variables of

ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure?" The researcher

used multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to conduct a meta-analysis with post-

hoc Tukey tests.

Methodological Design Summary

This chapter provided the methodological design that was followed for this

study. The design was establish to understand the relationship between leadership

development models in post-baccalaureate theological education and select outcome

assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure. A

three-phase process was followed: (1) Taxonomic classification of leadership

development models through a triangulated process of literature review, document

analysis and interview research, (2) Likert-scale survey of the research sample to record

responses for four variable, (3) statistical analysis of taxonomy and survey results. All

findings relative to the research questions were recorded in chapter 4. They were reported

with a view to helping enhance the efforts of equipping people for ministerial leadership

through post-baccalaureate theological education.

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

The purpose of this research was to understand the relationship between

leadership development models in post-baccalaureate theological education and select

outcome assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and

tenure. This chapter outlines the compilation protocol the researcher used to collect,

record, organize, and process the data relative to this research. It also includes

demographic and sample data for the study. The research findings are displayed through

objective description and analysis of the data mined from this study. The chapter

concludes with an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the research methodology.

Compilation Protocol

This study followed a sequential mixed methods design incorporating both

qualitative and quantitative research elements. A taxonomic classification and a 50-

question online survey were at the heart of the work. Data for the taxonomy was

compiled from a review of precedent literature, content analysis of institutional degree

program documents of 57 evangelical post-baccalaureate theological institutions, and

from interviews with appropriate academic administrators who oversee the degree

programs. The literature review, document analysis, and interviews provided a

triangulated means of clarifying and solidifying the taxonomic classification.

A Likert-scale survey was administered to a sample (n=2421) of the 2004

graduating class of the seminaries under consideration to determine if any relationship

existed between the leadership development model by which the graduate was equipped

134

135

and the stated outcome assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness,

satisfaction, and tenure.

The first email invitations to participate in the online survey were sent on

December 15, 2008. Invitations were extended through a form letter sent via email

(Appendix 16) or through U.S. mail (Appendix 17). Graduates were invited to participate

as their institutions released their names or as soon as institutions offered to facilitate the

survey themselves. Graduates without email addresses were invited to participate by mail

and with a paper survey (n=335). Rejected ("bounced") emails were included in the paper

survey when a physical address was available. A second invitation to participate was

emailed in select instances. These instances included times when three-to-four weeks had

elapsed since the first email, and when the graduate group reflected a taxonomic category

that was not statistically represented. The survey phase closed on January 29, 2009.

Data were recorded and organized differently for the taxonomic and survey

phases of the study. Taxonomic data was recorded, organized, and updated in tables after

the literature review, the document analysis, and interviews with academic

administrators. The taxonomic development can be tracked by examining the information

in Appendices 1-3. Survey data was recorded and organized in Survey Monkey. Survey

data was downloaded in numerical-based Excel files for purposes of statistical analysis.

The data findings and displays are reported in the pages that follow.

Demographic and Sample Data

The institutional research population (n=T31) consisted of evangelical post-

baccalaureate theological schools. All institutions were invited to participate in the

research project. A total of 53 institutions agreed to join the study (40.4% institutional

participation rate). An invitation to participate in the research was sent to all 2004

graduates of participating institutions (n=2421). Graduates were invited to participate in

the research by means of email or U.S. mail (1985 email invitations, 335 U.S. mail

136

invitations), depending on the availability of graduate email addresses. A total of 490

responses were received (20% response rate) which included 445 electronic surveys and

45 paper surveys. This data is displayed in Table 1.

Table 1: Participation and response

Participation Participation Response Rate

Institutional Population 131 NA

Institutional Sample 53 40.4%

Sample 2004 Graduates 2421 NA

Graduate Survey Responses 490 20.2%

A total of 403 of the 490 surveys were usable. Some surveys were rejected

because the recorded responses related to undergraduate (bachelor) or post-graduate

(doctorate) education. Several surveys had to be eliminated because the post-

baccalaureate degree was awarded for general theological studies and therefore fell

outside of the scope of the research, which was limited to degrees that equipped people

for ministerial leadership. A number of surveys were incomplete. The data relating to the

surveys collected and used is displayed in Table 2.

Table 2: Survey summary (N=490)

Total Surveys Received 490

Unusable (Bachelors/Doctorate) 32

Unusable (General theological studies) 28

Unusable (Incomplete) 27

Total Usable Surveys 403

137

Findings and Displays

This research study sought to provide demographic data regarding the research

population and to answer 6 research questions that related to leadership development

models in evangelical post-baccalaureate theological education. This section will provide

objective description and analysis of data with appropriate tables and illustrations. The

participation and response rates and essential demographic findings are displayed. The

findings relative to each research question are also explained. This data is described

narratively and displayed in tables. A summary of the findings and statistical analysis

relative to each research question appears below.

Demographic Information Analysis

Eleven questions on the survey requested personal demographic information.

Of the demographic questions, six were associated with issues of the ministry

employment the graduate experienced after seminary education. Demographic matters

related to ministry employment are displayed under research question 2. Demographic

matters that related to ministry tenure are displayed under research question 5. The

demographic factors reported immediately below include the age of the graduates, the

gender of graduates, the post-baccalaureate degrees the graduates received from their

respective institutions, and data about the institutions themselves. These general

demographic matters were reported by means of descriptive statistics.

Graduate Age

Data relating to graduate age was recorded in scaled ranges. Distribution of

respondent ages ranged from a minimum of 26 to 30 to a maximum of 66 or older. A

large majority of respondents (80%) were over the age of 30. Slightly more than 57% of

all graduates were between the ages of 31 and 45.The age distribution comparison is

displayed in Table 3.

138

Table 3: 2004 graduates grouped by age (N=403)

Age Range Number Percent

26-30 75 18.6%

31-35 119 29.5%

36-40 70 17.7%

41-45 41 10.2%

46-50 39 9.7%

51-55 25 6.2%

56-60 21 5.2%

61-65 8 2%

66 or older 5 1.2%

Gender

The gender response comparison displayed in Table 4 shows a ratio of three

male respondents to every one female respondent. The gender response finding was

slightly larger than the gender difference for basic ministerial degree preparation

programs for ATS institutions, which were 63% male and 37% female (ATS Data Tables

2003-2004, 91). No data tables were available from ABHE or TRACS agencies.

Table 4: Graduate gender response comparison (N=403)

Gender Total Percentage

Male 302 74.9%

Female 101 25.1%

139

Post-Baccalaureate Degree Received

The research population consisted only of those graduates who participated in

an educational program of study leading to a graduate degree that focused on ministerial

leadership as opposed to general theological studies. The M.Div. is the generally

recognized ministry preparation degree, but the population also included non-M.Div.

degrees that focused on ministerial leadership including, for example, M.R.E., M.C.E.,

M.A.R.E., M.A.C.E., M.A., and M.M. degrees. The Th.M. degree was considered

separate from both the M.Div. and Non-M.Div. degrees. The Th.M. is the primary

ministry preparation degree offered by Dallas Theological Seminary and includes the

general work of the M.Div., along with additional theological preparatory studies. Table

5 displays number and percentage of the degree program types.

Table 5: Post-baccalaureate degree received (N=403)

Degree Program Number Percentage

M.Div. 230 57%

Th.M. 29 7%

Non-M.Div. 144 36%

M.Div. as well as non-M.Div. degrees were offered with a variety of

specialties. The sample included M.Div. degrees with concentrations in Academic

Ministries, Biblical Languages, North American Church Planting, Pastoral Care, and

Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth. non-M.Div. degrees were offered in an even

wider variety. The largest group of non-M.Div. degrees was the generic M.A. group that

did not specify a concentration. This group was followed by degrees with a focus on

Christian education, Th.M. degrees, and programs that are directed toward counseling in

140

one form or another. Table 6 displays number and percentage of the various non-M.Div.

degree programs.

Table 6: Distribution of Non-M.Div. degrees (N=173)

Non-MDiv Degree Number Percentage

Generic MA 44 25.4%

Christian Education 39 22.5%

Th.M. 27 15.6%

Counseling 21 12.1%

Bible/Theology 14 8%

Ministry 9 5.2%

Youth Ministry 7 4%

Leadership 5 2.8%

Apologetics 2 1.1%

Intercultural Studies 2 1.1%

Other 3 1.7%

Post-Baccalaureate Institution

A total of 53 institutions participated in the survey phase of this research, a

40.4% institutional response rate. Distribution of respondents by institution ranged from a

minimum of 0 to a maximum of 60. Three of the 4 largest participating institutions were

Southern Baptist seminaries. The majority of graduates were affiliated with ATS

seminaries, but ABHE and TRACS accredited schools participated. The institutional

respondent mean of 8 was skewed by the participation of graduating classes from 5 of the

10 largest schools. The institutional survey respondent data is displayed in Table 7.

141

Table 7: Graduate response by institution (N=403)

Institution Number Percentage

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (ATS) 60 14.9%

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ATS) 39 9.7%

Dallas Theological Seminary (ATS) 31 7.7%

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (ATS) 27 6.7%

Asbury Theological Seminary (ATS) 20 5%

Grand Rapids Theological Seminary (ATS) 15 3.7%

Western Seminary, CA or OR (ATS) 15 3.7%

Western Theological Seminary, MI (ATS) 15 3.7%

Bethel Seminary (ATS) 14 3.5%

Biblical Seminary (ATS) 13 3.2%

Sioux Falls Seminary (ATS) 10 2.5%

Lincoln Christian Seminary (ABHE, ATS) 9 2.2%

Others (ABHE, ATS, TRACS) 135 33.4%

Summary of Demographic Variables

A review of the collected demographic data for this study provides reveals that

a majority of the graduate respondents exemplified the following profile:

1. Are over the age of 30.

2. Fall within the 31 -45 year range.

3. Are male.

4. Earned a Master of Divinity degree.

5. Attended a seminary accredited by ATS.

142

Research Question 1 Findings and Display

The first research question was "What leadership development models for

ministry exist in evangelical post-baccalaureate theological (seminary) education?"

A taxonomic classification of leadership development models was established as a result

of a review of precedent literature, content analysis of degree program documents from

the research population sample, and from interviews with appropriate academic

administrators. The taxonomic classification is displayed as a research finding. A

descriptive summary overview of the models is provided. This summary includes a brief

description of each model, the characteristics of the model, and a model exemplar. The

taxonomic classification overview appears in Figure 1.

The Applied Model

The applied model is a praxis-centered approach to theological education.

Action learning and action-reflection are keys to the pedagogical underpinnings of the

Applied model. Proponents of the applied approach intentionally create opportunities for

authentic assessment throughout the curriculum. A description of the Applied model and

a summary of its characteristics are provided.

Description of the Applied Model

The Applied model is philosophically and programmatically integrative,

intentionally combining theory and practice by embedding throughout the curriculum

opportunities for "hands-on" application. Key descriptors for this model are integrated,

embedded, woven, and holistic. Document analysis revealed that institutions that utilized

an applied approach generally had integrated and embedded language at three levels in

their institutional documentation:

1. Institutional level. Institutional documentation such as the mission statement, core values, or educational distinctives spoke of an applied focus. An example of applied language at the institutional level is the core value of disciplinary integration held by

143

T a x o n o m i c C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f S e m i n a r y L e a d e r s h i p D e v e l o p m e n t M o d e l s

M o d e l D e s c r i p t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s A p p l i e d : The Applied M o d e l is philosophically and pi ogrammaticaIly integrative, intentionally combining theory and practice by embedding throughout the curriculum opportunities for "hands-on" application in the church and community, both locally and globally.

Classroom: Intentional springboard to applied learning Curriculum: Praxis-centered Pedagogy: Intentional "hands-on" integration Learning: Face-to-face followed by Action-Learning Church: Integration with/required immersion in church Distinctive: Embedded application/authentic assessment

Apprentice: T h e A p p r e n t i c e M o d e l utilizes a field-based, c o m p r e h e n s i v e , full-immersion, ministry-centered p e d a g o g y for a significant portion o f the d e g r e e p r o g r a m . Students migrate from the seminary to a field o f ministry, w h i c h b e c o m e s the c l a s s r o o m .

Classroom; Residential campus + Field Curriculum: Experience-centered, mission specific Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process-oriented'Active Learning: Mostly synchronous, action-learning Church: Missional preparation through the church Distinctive: Contextual on-the-job-training

Classic: T h e Classic M o d e l p l a c e s the a c a d e m i c and currieular f o c u s in a teacher-centered, residential classroom, which is primarily knowledge or content- driven, a n d a u g m e n t e d by s o m e field-experience a n d / o r internship.

Classroom: Residential c a m p u s Curriculum: Teacher-centered Pedagogy; Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Face-to-face instruction Church: Introduction to the church Distinctive: Historic campus classroom preparation

D i s t a n c e Education: T h e Distance Education M o d e l includes educational and instructional activity in which students a r e separated from faculty and other students for a significant portion o f their degree p r o g r a m (one-half o f a M A. degree or two-thirds o f a M.Div. degree).

Classroom: "Without walls" Curriculum: Teacher-facilitated Pedagogy: Learner-centered; Teacher/learner partnership Learning: Asynchronous/Synchronous, Contextualized Church: Preparation while in the church Distinctive: Accessibility for those "m-ministry"

Extension Site: A geographically separate unit generally governed by the parent institution, but with local facilities and administration, a more contextualized faculty, and f e w e r eurricular options—providing education for s t u d e n t s who are unable o r unwilling to attend the h o m e campus. Extension site may occur for a course, p r o g r a m (4 t o 6 courses), or a complete degree

Classroom: Transported to the extension site Curriculum: Dispersed, teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Contextualized, mostly synchronous Church: Preparation while in the church Distinctive: Convenience, connectivity, economy

Hybrid: T h e Hybrid Model incorporates both traditional classroom instruction, and modular or distance education modes in the degree p r o g r a m and c o u r s e w o r k — in p r e f e r e n c e to the exclusive use o f either traditional or technological modes.

Classroom: "Bricks and clicks" Curriculum: Teacher-directed/facilitated Pedagogy: Teacher/Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous, Contextualized Church: Expand the role in the church Distinctive: Convenience, technology, pedagogy

Partnership: In the Partnership Model a seminary strategically collaborates with a teaching church, parachurch ministry, or another institution for a specialized portion o f the degree p r o g r a m ; co-laboring in the task o f leadership development through the design and delivery o f curriculum, which usually c o m p r i s e s a minimum of four to six course credits

Classroom: Campus + Partnering organization Curriculum: Seminary-Partner-ccntcred Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process-oriented/Active Learning: Focused, mostly synchronous Church: Collaboration for the church Distinctive; "Teaching Church/Ministry"

Figure 1. Taxonomic classification of leadership development models

144

Grand Rapids Theological Seminary: "We nurture skillful integration of the theological disciplines to foster holistic growth in theory and practice, while affirming the value of specialization in the theological disciplines, (www.grts.cornerstone.edu [2009])

2. Programmatic level. Programmatic documentation such as degree program descriptions and program objective statement stressed the applied design. An example is Northeastern Seminary at Roberts Wesley College, "The Core Curriculum is highly integrated, reflecting a holistic approach." (Northeastern Seminary Catalog 18)

3. Course level. Course descriptions incorporated practicum language in courses that were not a part of the traditional practicum load. An example of course level embedded language is found in Phoenix Seminary, "Be exposed to outstanding examples of local church ministry through observation, interviews with ministry professionals, reading, and group interaction." (Phoenix Seminary LD 506 Survey of Effective Church Ministries)

Institutions with an applied focus hire practitioner-scholars. Pastoral and ministry

experience is a must for professors. The focus of the applied approach echoes in practice

the ideas of McNeal (1998). Students learn how to exegete culture and the text, they build

relationships with faculty and outside ministry mentors; they are required to spend

extended time in apprenticeships beyond the typical 3 to 6 hours of field education.

Characteristics of the Applied Model

The characteristics of the applied model are summarized below. The location

and nature of the classroom, the applied curriculum, pedagogy, where and how learning

takes place, the relationship of the model to the church and the key distinctives of the

model are described.

The classroom. In the applied model the classroom is an intentional

springboard to practical learning. The importance of the classroom as a catalyst cannot be

understated. It is precisely why Mars Hill Graduate School has been slow to adopt

distance learning (Frieson 2009). The classroom is the place of incarnational togetherness

where teacher-student synergy occurs. It is the action-reflection launch pad; a process-

oriented starting point for training, implementation, reflection, and action. All 3 of the

http://www.grts.cornerstone.edu

145

interviews with academic administrators who oversee applied programs revealed that

these schools do not have strong distance programs. The aversion to the distance model is

due, in part, to a philosophical distinctive of incarnational living and teaching.

Proponents of the Applied model value physical space and face-to-face personal

interaction, distinctives that are not congruent with the Distance model.

The curriculum. Curricular offerings in the applied model are not taught in a

vacuum. The curriculum is praxis-centered and integrated across disciplines. In an

applied model, there is an interdisciplinary connection. The theological encyclopedia is

approached from an integrated perspective rather than guild mindset. The theology of

God, for example, is brought to bear on the subject of church planting. The curriculum is

focused on doing theology and doing ministry. Application is an institutional theme as

well as a practice woven throughout all subject matters, not just practical theology.

Pedagogy. The pedagogy of the Applied model is an intentional hands-on

integration of learning and life. Training is highlighted more than learning. There is a

focus on action learning in a teach-act-reflect cycle that is enhanced through mentoring

and group interaction. Mentorship is a critical component.

Learning. Learning occurs in a face-to-face encounter that results in an

action-learning assignment. Ideas are important, but not king. Learning is situated—

instruction that ends on the field of church and community; action that ends in reflection;

reflection which occurs both individually and in a learning community of students,

faculty and ministry mentors from outside the theological institutional.

Church. The applied model provides a full-immersion approach to the church.

Curricular integration within the church and community are standard with this model. A

Classical model may introduce students to the church through field education or an

146

optional internship, but an applied model programmatically situates the student in the

church throughout the seminary experience. Extended internships and pastoral mentoring

experiences are the norm. The church functions as a teaching hospital and the model

provides the residency program.

Distinctive. The distinctive of the applied model is embedded application and

authentic assessment. Practical application is hardwired into the curricular offerings.

Students must demonstrate in practice the truths that are cognitively and affectively held.

Exemplar of the Applied Model

Mars Hill Graduate School (MHGS) is an exemplar for the Applied model. At

the institutional level, transformation is in their mission statement. To achieve that end

MHGS has adopted a curricular program that is as committed to a therapeutic approach to

education as it is to theological understanding. An entire practicum series of courses

provides opportunities for students to meet together with a faculty mentor and a ministry

facilitator to reflect and dialogue on their developmental journey. MHGS is intent on

graduating biblical leaders who are able to navigate relational and power dynamics as

well as they are able to navigate the biblical text. The curriculum is contextual on a

church and community level since text and context are closely tied together, whether

evaluated on a first century or twenty-first century basis.

Challenges and Reflections

A primary challenge facing the Applied model is that of finding pastors who

are willing and able to mentor this next generation of leaders. Academic administrators

spoke of the challenges of mentoring the mentors who will influence their students. This

is not an easy task. Of note, those institutions which were considered applied, but did not

have every element outlined above, were generally working toward them. A key question

147

that was asked of academic administrators was "If you were to change one aspect of your

educational design in order to better prepare students for ministerial leadership, what

would you change? Why?" One administrator was seeking a stronger interdisciplinary

connectedness. Another wanted to have more in-ministry dimensions to his program;

another more active learning. All wanted cultural and contextual competencies. All were

looking outside their walls.

The Apprentice Model

The Apprentice model has roots in the early North American practice called

reading divinity. This practice grew as many students, distrustful of colleges or of

colleges as the final preparation for ministry after college, chose to study theology in the

home of a revival preacher. These arrangements lasted anywhere "from a few months to

more than a year" (Gilpin 1984, 86). The practice of reading divinity and the Apprentice

model share an intentional linking of the student with a mentor in a local context of

church ministry. Apprentice education is seen most distinctly among the Southern Baptist

seminaries including their 2+2 and 2+3 programs. It is also evident at the Lakeview

program, a unique cohort staff mentoring program where students earn their Master of

Divinity in a combination of classes at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

coupled with a three-year cohort mentored experience at Lakeview Baptist Church in

Auburn, Alabama (Smith 2008).

Description of the Apprentice Model

The Apprentice model utilizes a field-based, comprehensive, full-immersion,

ministry-centered pedagogy for a significant portion of the degree program. Students

migrate from the seminary to a field of ministry, which becomes the classroom. The

Apprentice model is most noticeable in Southern Baptist institutions that offer a Master

of Divinity with a focus in church planting in a North American or international context.

148

Degree programs within the sample, which had counseling as a degree-program focus,

were also included in this model due to the extensive internships they require of

graduates. The Apprentice model is not readily noticed at the institutional level, but can

be seen at the programmatic and course level.

1. Programmatic level. Degree program descriptions and program objective statement clearly stress the apprentice focus. An example is The Master of Divinity with a Concentration in International Church Planting, which "provides a solid foundation of classical studies and a missions focus on church planting. This concentration equips students to start and develop churches abroad. This unique degree allows students to complete their course of study while serving off-campus. The church planting experience occurs under the auspices of the IMB's International Service Corps (2 years) or career apprentice program (3 years). The first-hand ministry experience acquired off-campus aids in fulfilling requirements for 1MB missionary candidates." (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Catalog 2006-2007, 70)

2. Course level. The apprentice model is a component of an overall institutional curricular plan. Courses are distinct in design and setting. This is reflected in the course descriptions: MIS 7510 Cross-Cultural Communication: "The study and practice of communication across cultural and social boundaries with emphasis placed on cross-cultural communication of the Gospel" is more unique given that the context is a cross-cultural setting. MIS 7571 Practicum in International Church Planting I: "A combination of academic study and field missionary experience conducted in selected settings under approved supervision, in cooperation with the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. This course emphasizes field orientation, theory, and practicum in three 3-semester hour segments." (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 2008-2009, 199)

Characteristics of the Apprentice Model

The characteristics of the Apprentice model are summarized below. The

location and nature of the classroom, the apprentice curriculum, pedagogy, where and

how learning takes place, the relationship of the model to the church and the key

distinctive of the model are described.

The classroom. In this model the classroom is a laboratory. Students migrate

to the field, which in most cases is a North American or international church-planting

context. Professors travel to the context of the student rather than the student moving to

the institutional classroom. This contextualized classroom provides a transformative

149

retreat-like environment. In other instances the field itself becomes the classroom and the

daily experiences knitted to form a curriculum mosaic of serendipity and intentionality.

The curriculum. The curriculum is contextual, experienced-centered and

mission specific. An institutional professor who travels to the field teaches a set of

modular courses. The balance of the curriculum is course practicums, which are directed

by field mentors.

Pedagogy. The pedagogical focus is transmissive, participatory and

interactive. Professors teaching a modular class may lecture, but they will also provide

times for group collaboration and interaction. Professor-student worship and recreation

are not uncommon in these contextualized cross-cultural courses.

Learning. Learning is synchronous within the modular classes. There is also a

significant amount (18 hours and more) of supervised experiential practicum courses.

These provide opportunities for action learning and action-reflection. Learning may be

heightened by pre-deployment vision trips, which are not a part of every program, but are

designed to acquaint prospective students with the field and the approach.

Church. The relationship of the Apprentice model to the church could be

described as missional preparation through the church and for the church, since the work

of the church is the context in which the educational experience takes place and the

purpose for the instructional activity as well.

Distinctive. The distinctive of the Apprentice model is the contextual on-the-

j ob-training that the student receives. Portions of the Apprentice model may involve

simply transporting a teacher to the field, however, much contextual learning also occurs

as the student works with an assigned mentor.

150

Exemplar of the Apprentice Model

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is an exemplar for the Apprentice

model. Students must complete 63 hours of campus-based course work, while at the same

time working though the application process with the International Mission Board (SBC).

The students are deployed as a group to their overseas assignment upon the completion of

the core campus curriculum. The field then becomes the laboratory where students learn

the essentials of church planting by actually serving as church planters. Southeastern

professors travel to the field to teach essential core courses in a modular format. Students

complete their field curriculum under the supervision of seasoned church planters,

national leaders, or proficient language coordinators. Apprentice "students earn their

degree while acquiring language skills, developing cross-culturally effective lifestyles,

and planting churches among the least reached peoples of the world" (Southeastern

Baptist Theological Seminary Catalog 2008-2009, 112).

Challenges and Reflections

The field mentor is critical to the apprentice process. Bruce Ashford of

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary noted that exit interviews with students

indicate that with a great mentor 80 to 100% of students return to the field; with a mentor

who is not strong that number drops to below 50% (Ashford 2009). In the Southeastern

model mentors help with the language, with culture, with evangelism and with

discipleship.

The Classic Model

Classic was the predominant model employed by the institutions in the

research sample. Of the 403 useable surveys, 253 were classified as classic, a full 63% of

all graduates were included in the Classic category. Classic schools were varied, but

similar in core areas as described below.

151

Description of the Classic Model

The Classic model places the academic and curricular focus in a teacher-

centered, residential classroom, which is primarily knowledge or content-driven. The

Classic model may be augmented by some field education or by a ministry internship.

Key descriptors of the Classic model were scholarship, theological preparedness, and a

preaching and teaching ministry. The Classic model, like the Applied model, is generally

evident at the institutional, programmatic, and course level.

1. Institutional level. At the institutional documentation level, the mission statement, core values, or educational distinctives were more cognitively focused, stressing content, biblical disciplines, core subjects, and theological preparation. The educational objectives and philosophical approach would also be tipped in favor of the cognitive. Typical descriptive words and phrases would include: understanding, defend, mature, awareness of Classic models were more likely to emphasize the authority and supremacy of the Bible.

The mission statement of Mid-America Reformed Seminary is an example of the Classic model: "Mid-America Reformed Seminary glorifies God by training godly men to serve in the ministry of the Word and sacraments. We place primary emphasis on training in the high calling of preaching the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our primary task is to train men to be ministers of the Word and sacraments." (Mid- America Reformed Seminary Catalog)

2. Programmatic level. Programmatic documentation and program objective statements in the Classic model stress equipping persons to be able ministers of the Word of God. Skillful communication and application as well as knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for such work are prevalent. An example is the Canadian Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: "This degree program is a survey of all major areas of biblical, theological, historical, and practical disciplines related to the Christian ministry." (Canadian Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Catalog)

3. Course level. Course descriptions are generally cognitively written using words such as a study of, and a survey of. While course descriptions are not exclusively written in cognitive language, the lack of affective and behavioral descriptors, as well as integrated descriptions is noticeable.

Characteristics of the Classic Model

The characteristics of the Classic model are summarized below. The location

and nature of the classroom, the classic curriculum, pedagogy, where and how learning

takes place, the relationship of the model to the church, and the key distinctive of the

model are described. Model challenges are also addressed.

152

The classroom. The classroom in the Classic model is residential and the

experience is essentially institutional.

The curriculum. The strengths of the Classic model are evident in the explicit

curriculum: biblical studies, languages, critical thinking, development of a Christian

worldview, biblical interpretation, and exegetical preaching and teaching are paramount.

This curriculum is teacher-centered. The informal or hidden curriculum is marked by

opportunities that are generally institutionally focused: chapel, interaction with professors

over common meals, or by the emphasis in documentation on the interaction and

participation in a community of scholars. In the Classic model, the institution serves as

the environment for spiritual formation and maturity. Whereas both Classic and applied

programs may include participation with local pastors, in the Classic model the pastor is

more likely to be an invited guest to the institution, as opposed to hosting the student at

the church campus. The null curriculum would be the general absence of required church

participation or a minimal amount of field education experience.

Pedagogy. In the Classic model education is often primarily a transmissive

enterprise. Transmitting essential theological constructs and acquiring essential

exegetical skills for a pulpit ministry are paramount. Lecture is the predominant, though

not the sole instructional mode. Readings, lectures, papers, and exams are preferred

pedagogical modalities.

Learning. The Classic model operates on a face-to-face basis. Unlike a true

Distance model where teacher and student are never in a face-to-face relationship, the

Classic model thrives on regular and intimate teacher-student interaction. Electronic

learning mediums are embraced slowly.

153

Church. The Classic model provides opportunities for students to be

introduced to the church. Two words that describe the degree of church participation for

the Classic model are exposure and encourage. In the Classic model students are exposed

to the church and encouraged to participate and serve in it, but intentional curricular

planning as well as accountability and assessment may be lacking.

Distinctive. This is the historic, time-tested means of campus classroom

preparation. The unique distinctives of the Classic model is seen well in contrast to the

Applied model as noted in Table 8.

Table 8. Distinctions of Classic and Applied models

Focus: Classic Model Applied Model

Classroom Education within the walls Education outside the walls

Church Exposure to Integrated in

Participation Encouraged to Required to

Mission Training knowledgeable pastors

Equipping effective leaders

Pedagogy Reading, lectures, papers,/ and exams

Engagement, action-reflection

Learning Passive Active

Value Literary exegesis Cultural exegesis

Assessment Written and oral exams Proven integration, authentic assessment

Exemplar of the Classic Model

Many institutions provide excellent ministry preparation using the Classic

model. Knox Theological Seminary is one such exemplar. The best practices of Knox

154

include languages and exegetical preaching (McNutt 2008). Like many Classic models

church participation is encouraged, but not essentially tied to the curriculum other than

through minimal field education. The church is a potential partner, but not an essential

partner in the educational process. Like many Classic models, the academic interview

revealed that Knox desires to upgrade and integrate the field education component while

moving toward more of an Applied model.

Challenges and Reflections

Academic interviews and document analysis revealed two trends in the Classic

model. The first trend is the institutional migration toward the other models in general

and the Applied model in particular. The second trend was the presence of a variation of

the Classic model that will be noted as Classic plus. Document reviews and interviews

with academic administrators unveiled the presence of a variation of the Classic model

that was termed Classic Plus. This variation of the Classic model is essentially Classic

plus a much more intentional and robust field education component. This may include an

extensive ministry residency, or a significantly greater number of field education or

practicum-oriented courses. Whereas most classic models may require 3 to 6 course

hours of field education that may be moderately monitored, classic plus models required

full-year internships, or two or even three years of supervised field ministry with more

intentional links to the local church as well as church mentors and a more detailed

integration plan and accountability process. Institutions that were coded as classic plus,

were like the Applied model in their degree of intentional integration with respect to field

education, but generally not fully integrated through all course work as the Applied

model tended to be.

155

The Distance Model

The Distance model of education is a burgeoning model providing accessible

theological education. The popularity of the model is seen in its growth among ATS

institutions. In 2002, a combined total of 32 ATS and TRACS institutions were offering

some form of distance education (Council for Higher Education 2002, 5). In 2009 that

number has climbed to 93 among ATS institutions alone (www.ats.edu [2009]). Key

descriptors for this model are accessibility, convenience, distributed, InMinistry.

Description of the Distance Model

The Distance model includes educational and instructional activity in which

students are separated from faculty and other students for a significant portion of their

degree program. For the purposes of this study one-half of a M. A. degree and two-thirds

of a M.Div. degree was chosen as the distinguishing mark for distance education since it

represented the maximum ATS allowable distance component any degree program could

incorporate (ATS Degree Program Standards 2008, 181-89).

ATS identifies a comprehensive distance program as one in which an

individual may take 6 courses of a degree program through distance education (ATS

COA Procedures 2008, 115); however, document analysis did not generally reveal that

layer of programmatic distinction. Document analysis did reveal a distinction between

institutions offering distance courses and distance programs.

1. Distance courses. Institutions like Grand Rapids Theological Seminary offer a limited number of distance courses that one may take within a degree program. GRTS limits a student to five distance courses with a degree program. (Grand Rapids Theological Seminary (www.grts.cornerstone.edu [2009])

2. Distance programs. Institutions like Canadian Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Regent University School, and Bethel Seminary offer the M.Div. degree to students unable to move to the seminary campus through flexible distance programs. Students are able to take up to 30 hours of a 60-hour M.A. degree and 60 hours of a 90-hour M.Div. degree through distance learning, completing the balance through intensive short-term modular courses.

http://www.ats.edu

http://www.grts.cornerstone.edu

156

Characteristics of the Distance Model

The characteristics of the Distance model are summarized below. The location

and nature of the classroom, the distance curriculum, pedagogy, where and how learning

takes place, the relationship of the model to the church, and the key distinctive of the

model are described. Model challenges are also addressed.

The classroom. The classroom is "without walls" since it can be anywhere a

correspondence lesson, DVD recording, or Internet threaded discussion occurs. Working

from the ATS guideline, portions of any distance program must be taken in residence.

The campus classroom component generally follows the classic residential design though

more often using intensive classes in block format.

The curriculum. In the Classic model the teacher is the catalyst, responsible

for and essential to each lesson in the curriculum. In the Distance model the teacher

operates as a curriculum planner and facilitator more than an instructor. The transmissive

instructor must become an engaged facilitator; a difficult adjustment for some professors.

Pedagogy. Distance education is a pedagogical partnership between the

teacher and the learner. The teacher must approach the learning experience from the

standpoint of the separated student and incorporate instructional modalities that will

communicate essential content, engage the learner and build an interactive environment

while participants are not in direct contact. Lecture, the king of the pedagogical process

in most classic models, is rendered ineffective.

Learning. While learning may be synchronous in a Distance model, more

often it is asynchronous and independent. Despite the lack of physical presence, learning

communities are still formed as students engage and interact with one another online.

157

Church. Distance education provides theological and practical preparation

while one is in the church. If the Classic model introduces one to the church, the Distance

model expands the role one has in the church. It is an education while one is InMinistry

as evidenced by the growing number of institutions that promote that very distinctive for

their distance education program.

Distinctive. Accessibility is the overriding distinctive of the Distance model.

Students are able to remain in their ministry context while acquiring necessary

educational expertise since the educational experience is distributed to them.

Exemplar of the Distance Model

Bethel Seminary is the pacesetter in theological education distance learning.

Bethel exemplifies distance learning at its best in four facets: philosophical, pedagogical,

programmatic, and technological.

The uniqueness of the Bethel program is seen in the fact there is not a

philosophical distinctive to the distance program. As an institution Bethel

operates a three-center philosophy: (1) Bible, history, and theology, (2)

Spiritual formation, (3) Transformational leadership. There is no dichotomy

between campus-based and distance learning with respect to that philosophy.

Similarly, Bethel allows no dichotomy between campus-based and distance

learning with respect to the role of the teacher. Bethel professors have a three-

fold role: (1) Model a God-saturated life of devotion to Jesus Christ, (2) Be

qualified and competent in their field so as to be excellent, (3) Maintain the

goal of transformational teaching. There is no wavering on these distinctives

for any professor.

The uniqueness of the Bethel program is pedagogical. The entire faculty

without exception teaches distance courses. While this does not necessarily guarantee

158

enhanced pedagogical modalities, the camaraderie and institutional momentum for

distance education provides a certain impetus.

The Bethel InMinistry program has become a programmatic model other

institutions have adopted for providing distance education. The degree is intended for

individuals presently engaged in profession or lay ministry and who want to complete

their degree without relocating. Students meet twice a year for two one-week courses on

campus. Each year the student completes two distance education courses in his or her

ministry setting. The combination of distance learning and on-campus modular intensives

allows a student to complete a M.Div. in approximately five years, or the M.A. in three

years (www.seminary.bethel.edu [2009]).

Bethel puts great emphasis on technological support. This institutional

commitment is essential to fully assist and engage both faculty and students. Their

commitment to institutional accountability and improvement are key (Eliason 2009).

Challenges and Reflections

Academic interviews revealed concerns and challenges regarding distance

education. Two administrators noted that their institutions were slow to enter into the

distance format due to their perceived loss of the human interaction, which for both

institutions was quite evident in the intentional mentoring embedded in their degree

plans. Doing distance education right is expensive and time-consuming when issues of

faculty development, institutional technological support for both faculty and students, and

hardware updates are considered. One administrator cautioned about looking at distance

education as a "cash cow" or a simple add-on to the institutional program. Institutional

buy-in from professors is essential. Resistance from professors who are entrenched in a

different model becomes problematic for the Distance model as does letting professors

self-select for distance teaching assignments. Entrenched faculty may be slow to become

involved which can lessen the strength of the program.

http://www.seminary.bethel.edu

159

The Extension Site Model

The Extension site model provides opportunities to engage in theological

education without moving to the primary campus of the institution. It shares this

uniqueness with the Distance and Hybrid models. The Extension model is unique in that

it can provide the expertise of a seminary professor, in the convenience of a local

environment, with the opportunity for immediate contextual implementation and

application (Greenway 2009). Key descriptors for this model are professionalism,

accessibility, and contextual application.

Description of the Extension Site Model

The extension site is a geographically separate unit generally governed by the

parent institution, but with local facilities and administration, a more contextualized

faculty, and fewer curricular options -- providing education for students who are unable

or unwilling to attend the home campus. Extension site may occur for a course, program

(4 to 6 courses), or a complete degree.

Characteristics of the Extension Site Model

The characteristics of the Extension site model are summarized below. The

location and nature of the classroom, the extension site curriculum, pedagogy, where and

how learning takes place, the relationship of the model to the church, and the key

distinctive of the model are described. Model challenges are also addressed.

The classroom. The Extension site provides a transported classroom. The

seminary classroom is essentially relocated to the extension site. Functioning at optimum,

the model offers a true extension of the strength of the parent institution, which is the

professional expertise of the seminary professor. This is not always the case as adjuncts

are typically employed on a three-to-one ratio over professors from the parent institution

160

(Greenway 2009). Qualified local adjuncts are afforded the opportunity to express their

gifts of teaching.

The curriculum. As with the Classic model, the curriculum is institutional

driven and teacher-centered. Local leadership, however, may make curricular

modifications to better serve its constituency. Curriculum includes supervised mentoring

and ministry components. This supervised ministry experience may be more personal

given the generally smaller size of extension centers and the personal oversight of a local

director. In one instance the personalization was seen in altering the field education

component for the working professional student. The adjustment maintained academic

integrity while facilitating local uniqueness.

Pedagogy. Lecture still seems to be the primary pedagogical instructional

modality. The caveat to this, however, is that a generally older student population may

require a more dialogical approach to subject matters.

Learning. As with the primary residential campus, learning is mostly

synchronous though potentially more immediately contextualized due to the locus of

educational activity. A learning community may be more readily established due to the

camaraderie of life situations among students, shared commuting, and possible block

scheduling. The block schedule approach providing extended classroom interaction and,

at times, shared experiences around meals. Smaller class sizes may provide more

personalized learning due to a lower teacher-student ratio.

Church. Extension education enables preparation while one is in church. It

may also more readily provide practical outlets for classroom learning. As one

administrator noted, the degree may be earned in the classroom, but the education occurs

in the church. Extension education is reaching a student population segment untouched

161

by the traditional seminary. Lay people who want more theological education are

afforded that opportunity though the extension site. One may focus on just one course or

earn a complete seminary degree, which beforehand would not be possible due to the

challenges of uprooting family and career to attend.

Distinctive. Convenience, connectivity, and affordability are three distinctives

of the Extension site model. Extension site education offers a convenience factor.

Students are able to secure a quality, seminary-accredited education without having to

leave a job or support network. Educational accessibility is a key convenience factor of

this model. Extension site education also enhances connectivity. Staying linked to the

family support group including both nuclear and extended relatives is more likely when

campus migration is eliminated. Connections to the local church provide both support

and opportunities to immediately implement what is being learned in the classroom. A

third distinctive is affordability. While tuition may be comparable to a resident fee, the

savings associated with not uprooting family and home, as well as the likelihood of

maintaining local employment are important. This is especially critical for second career

students who are nested in their local environment.

Exemplar of the Extension Site Model

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is an Extension Site model exemplar.

SBTS provides a truly transported classroom, using professors from the parent institution

on a four-to-one ratio over local adjuncts. Students are exposed to the best Southern has

to offer by way of instruction. Since all teaching is considered overload, only professors

who want the extension opportunity will get it. Southern offers twenty-eight extension

centers in twelve states. Each center has a local director appointed by the Director of

Extension Education and Conferencing. This director is responsible for the extension

site, but under the authority and oversight of the main campus administration.

162

Challenges and Reflections

There are many challenges with the Extension site model. These challenges

include building a learning community, providing a qualitatively equivalent learning

experience, availability of courses, residency requirements, faculty fatigue, fewer library

resources, less effective communication from the primary campus, less interaction with

faculty from the parent institution, less interaction with campus activities, and

competition from a growing number of distance education providers. Students who are

engaged with local ministry responsibilities and are at the same time commuting an hour

or more to a local extension site one or two days a week may find it challenging to

engage in a learning community. Additionally, the use of local adjuncts rather than

seasoned seminary professors who are experts in their respective fields may prove

problematic with respect to a qualitative educational experience. Since extension sites

operate on a more limited basis than the primary campus, students may encounter

problems with class scheduling or availability more often than with the parent institution.

Extension centers still require a residency requirement for graduation; a complete degree

may not be available. Faculty who travel regularly may experience physical and

emotional fatigue. Changes in the economy may have a concomitant impact on

institutional expenses for faculty travel.

The Hybrid Model

The Hybrid model is a multi-modal format. Convenience, flexibility, and

technology are key descriptors for this model. While educational convenience and

institutional reach were cited as purposes for using a Hybrid model, some seminaries are

offering a hybrid format for a pedagogically-driven programmatic design of their

ministerial degree program. A description of the model, a summary of hybrid

characteristics, and the challenges of using this approach are recorded below.

163

Description of the Hybrid Model

The Hybrid model incorporates both traditional classroom instruction, and

modular or distance education modes in the degree program and coursework, in

preference to the exclusive use of either traditional or technological modes. Document

review and interviews with academic administrators revealed a difference between hybrid

programs and a hybrid education, also noted by Delamarter and Brunner (2005). The

hybrid approach is designed to make theological education more accessible to ministry

practitioners, rather than pull them out of their local context.

The hybrid program is a pedagogical design. Institutions such as Bethel

Seminary, Northland Baptist Bible Seminary, and Asbury Seminary all purposely

incorporate both campus-based instruction and technologically aided distance-learning

modes to accomplish programmatic and curricular goals. These institutions recognize the

educational distinctives of both instructional modalities and purposely incorporate facets

of each to accomplish their educational objectives. A hybrid program is driven by

institutional intentionality with respect to educational ends and means.

A hybrid education occurs when institutions or students approach traditional

campus instruction and online learning modes in a cafeteria style, selecting that which

helps them more efficiently achieve their educational ends. In these instances

convenience, efficiency, and accessibility are the driving forces for the hybrid use. One

survey respondent commented, "My experience was a hybrid. I did 6 hours (2 courses)

online before coming to campus, and I did an independent study (3 hours) and another

online course or two while on campus. I did this because it allowed me to finish in a more

efficient manner." A Hybrid model is an intentional design, a fabrication to exact

educational specifications for a unique group and purpose, whereas a hybrid education is

an assembly of educational components, albeit very good ones, to get the educational job

accomplished and the student serving on the field post-seminary.

164

Characteristics of the Hybrid Model

The characteristics of the Hybrid model are summarized below. The location

and nature of the classroom, the hybrid curriculum, pedagogy, where and how learning

takes place, the relationship of the model to the church, and the key distinctive of the

model are described. Model challenges are also addressed.

The classroom. The locus of learning has been described as "bricks and

clicks." The Hybrid model provides multiple options for course planning. Weekly block

scheduling on the residential campus may be paired with online activity or audio-visual

learning modes. Weekend seminars can be coupled with asynchronous internet-based

threaded discussions. Most often, intensive short-term modular residential course work is

combined with online activity.

The curriculum. Hybrid curriculum may be complete, that is a program-wide

plan of study that results in a post-baccalaureate degree. The curriculum may be a hybrid

core that is shared institutionally to serve a variety of educational cohorts. The curriculum

may be a series of online courses from which students may select that which helps

augment, complement, or speed their educational goals. Curriculum may be

institutionally directed. It may be teacher-directed or teacher-facilitated depending on the

nature of the program and design.

Pedagogy. Document analysis and survey response revealed that pedagogy is

not always at the forefront of hybrid planning. At times the desire to extend the

educational reach and provide accessible education results in diluted preparation. At best,

however, courses are teacher and learner-centered, resulting in a healthy blend of

expertise and personal ownership for instructional development.

165

Learning. Hybrid learning occurs on both a synchronous and asynchronous

level. It is generally quite contextualized since the model primarily serves an educational

cohort who is active in a local ministry and situated apart from the seminary

environment.

Church. The uniqueness of the Hybrid model in relation to the church is seen

in contrast to the Classic model. The Classic model might be considered an introduction

to the church and its ministries. For many students the field education component of the

Classic model is their first look at the inner workings of ministry. Students who

participate in a Hybrid model, however, may be more likely to be already serving in

ministry. Additionally, the hybrid program, like an extension site, may be nested in a

church. Students, already familiar and participating in ministry are able to expand their

role in the local church.

Distinctive. The Hybrid model, aided by technological advances, allows for

flexibility in curricular design, accessibility by an increasingly older student population

unable to uproot family and ministry to make the educational pilgrimage, and also

increases instructional modalities, which serve a variety of learning styles and aid

students who experience them.

Exemplar of the Hybrid Model

Regent University School of Divinity is an exemplar of the hybrid approach.

Regent is capable of offering a full distance program, but limits their online component to

approximately 33% due to an educational philosophy that values both campus and online

approaches. Every course is a spectrum of the Hybrid model, even purely residential

classes. Dean Michael Palmer notes, "Technology is not just a concession to what the

world wants but in theory it is a rich way to conduct theological education" (Palmer

166

2009). The institution devoted two full-time people to online instructional support. It has

an extensive online library. Regent also provides support and training for its faculty

through their own institute, which grants a certificate to those who complete the required

coursework. Regent divinity school is intentional about incorporating the hybrid

approach, the goal of which is contextualized learning.

The Partnership Model

The Partnership model provides opportunities for intentional institutional

collaboration. Collaboration between the seminary and other institutions may be

described as partnerships of convenience or of expertise. Partnerships of convenience

occur when institutions transfer coursework to another institution to better accommodate

a student. One survey respondent noted, "I found that this was the neatest way to get

courses that weren't offered presently at one location. I found both institutions more than

willing to accommodate my needs." While these types of partnership result in a

serendipitous educational relationship, there is a lack of intentionality in the design for

them to be included in the educational model.

A partnership of expertise occurs when institutions strategically collaborate

with other institutions or parachurch organizations to provide a specified portion of a

degree program. George Fox Evangelical Seminary offers a 15-hour concentration in

Urban Ministries through a collaborative relationship with a consortium entitled,

Contextualized Urban Ministry Education/Northwest (George Fox Evangelical Seminary

Catalog 2000-2001, 62). Document analysis revealed a wide variety of partnerships:

parachurch organizations such as Young Life and Campus Crusade for Christ; Clinical

Pastoral Education; Army Chaplain School; hospice-related agencies; evangelism

institutes; intentional educational partnerships with other theological or secular post-

graduate institutions; and for seminaries and divinity schools nested within a university

167

system, collaborative partnerships with other schools within the university family. A

summary of the description and characteristics of the Partnership model follows.

Description of the Partnership Model

In the Partnership model a seminary strategically collaborates with a teaching

church, parachurch ministry, or another institution for a specialized portion of the degree

program, co-laboring in the task of raising leaders through the design and delivery of a

shared curriculum, which usually comprises a minimum of four to six course credits.

Document analysis revealed an abundance of this model, but survey response was

minimal. Academic administrator interviews provide significant, but incomplete data.

Characteristics of the Partnership Model

The characteristics of the Partnership model are summarized below. The

location and nature of the classroom, the curriculum, pedagogy, where and how learning

takes place, the relationship of the model to the church and the key distinctive of the

model are described. Model challenges are also addressed.

The classroom. As the name suggests, a partnership generally provides a

teaching classroom on the campus and with the partnering organization. That classroom

could be institutional or a contextualized field-based learning environment with the

parachurch organization. It provides contextual learning as well as exposure to

experienced practitioners.

The curriculum. Curriculum for the partnership is institution and partner

centered. The institution must balance accreditation guidelines with the expertise of the

partnering organization to arrive at an appropriate plan. Curricular design matters (such

as outcomes) and curricular delivery matters (such as instruction and assessment) are a

shared responsibility.

168

Pedagogy. The model utilizes a contextualized and process-oriented pedagogy,

which itself is predicated on an active learning instructional modality. Western Seminary

in California and Oregon offers partnerships with seven different organizations. A key

feature of these partnership is the pedagogy that is less transmissive and more dialogical.

Learning. Focused and contextual learning is a genius of the design.

Institutions and students draw on the strength of the outside partnering organization to

enhance the effectiveness of the educational experience. Learning is mostly synchronous.

Adult learners are motivated by the contextualized approach and opportunities for

immediate application. Students are able to measure gifting and validate life callings.

Church. The church or parachurch setting provides the essential context and

resources for the education experience. This becomes a best-site pedagogical decision for

educational transmission and transformation of the minister-in-training. At times,

however, the educational boundaries expand to include institutional settings beyond the

teaching church or parachurch ministry. Each partner recognizes their mission is bound

together with the other—neither can do their work effectively without the contributions

of each.

Distinctive. The uniqueness of this Partnership model is the collaborative

effort that is engaged for the church. Whereas some other models may only provide an

introduction to ministry, the partnership approach is designed to broaden and enhance the

perspective. The Partnership model is built on an adult learning model that is action

oriented and application focused.

Exemplar of the Partnership Model

Dallas Theological Seminary and George Fox Evangelical Seminary are

exemplars of the Partnership model. Both seminaries offer specific degree program

169

tracks. Dallas Seminary offers a 17-hour Parachurch Ministries Track for the Th.M.

degree and a 12-hour Parachurch Ministries Track for the M.A./C.E. degree program.

GFES offers a 15-hour Concentration in Urban Ministries through the Contextualized

Urban Ministry Education/Northwest consortium already mentioned. George Fox

Evangelical Seminary also provides an 8-hour partnership for members of the military

who take the Military Chaplaincy School. These partnerships enable practitioners to both

capitalize on and benefit from specialized ministry training offered outside of the

seminary.

Challenges and Reflections

Challenges for the Partnership model include allowing students opportunities

to be released from staff duties to engage in necessary study and reflection. The

Partnership model, being a collaborative effort, can expect a slower design process as

multiple stakeholders engage in the development process. The seminary may lose control

for what occurs in the local ministry context. Students may require more time to acquire

the necessary exposure and experience for learning and competency-based instruction if

the partnering organization attempts to establish a campus-based rather than field-based

program.

Summary of Leadership Development Models

Research question 1 addressed the issue of extant leadership development

models in post-baccalaureate theological education. Seven models were identified after

analyzing institutional documentation and conducting interviews with 25 academic

administrators within the research sample. These models are Applied, Apprentice,

Classic, Distance, Extension Site, Hybrid, and Partnership. The Classic model was the

predominant model. The literature review, document analysis, and interviews with

academic administrators revealed a trend toward new models, and the continual

170

development and improvement of the Classic model. The presence, growth, and impact

of technology is apparent. Technological advances are most noted in the Distance and

Hybrid models.

Research Question 2

Research question 2 asks, "What relationship, if any, exists between the

leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry

employment?" The researcher used an ANOVA to identify if any relationship exists

between the LDM and the time it took for an employee to be first hired. The crosstabs

appear in Table 9, and the findings in Table 10. Since the p-value for significance for the

ANOVA has a value of .100, there is no significant relationship between LDM and time-

to-hire. In order to make the scale more continuous, which is necessary for ANOVA,

"never" was recoded as 0 instead of 4 before calculating the ANOVA. A post-hoc test

was not necessary because there was no significant relationship.

Table 9. Relationship between LDM and time to hire {N=403)

Model 0-6 months 7-12 months 12 months or longer Never hired Total

Applied 27 2 4 2 35

Apprentice 14 2 1 9 26

Classic 186 16 28 23 253

Distance 18 1 2 3 24

Extension 21 3 4 3 31

Hybrid 24 0 1 3 28

Partnership 5 0 0 1 6

Total 295 24 40 44 403

171

Table 10: ANOVA for relationship between LDM and first hiring

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 5.781 6 .963 1.789 .100

Within Groups 213.286 396 .539

Total 219.067 402

Tables 11 through 13 assess graduate employment. Particularly, was the graduate

every employed by a church, para-church ministry, or other Christian ministry after

seminary graduation. The crosstabs appear in Table 11. Table 12 indicates that there is a

significant relationship between the Leadership Development Model and ministry

employment, with a p-value of .032 that is less than .05. Post-hoc Tukey tests were

conducted to determine the specific relationships, but only two existed. Those in the

Apprentice model were more likely to answer "no" than those in the Applied and Classic

groups, but there were no other relationships detected in the Tukey tests. The finding of

this analysis is that graduates in the Classic and Applied models are more likely to be

employed than those in the Apprentice model.

Table 11. Relationship between LDM and ministry employment (N=403')

Model Have you ever been employed? Yes

Have you ever been employed? No

Total

Applied 32 3 35

Apprentice 17 9 26

Classic 226 27 253

Distance 20 4 24

Extension 28 3 31

172

Table 11—Continued. Relationship between LDM and ministry employment (N=403')

Model Have you ever been employed? Yes

Have you ever been employed? No

Total

Hybrid 25 3 28

Partnership 5 1 6

Total 353 50 403

Table 12: ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1.496 6 .249 2.333 .032

Within Groups 42.301 396 .107

Total 43.797 402

Table 13: Post-Hoe Tukey tests for ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment

(I) V73 (J) V73 Mean Difference

(1-3) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

(I) V73 (J) V73 Mean Difference

(1-3) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Applied Apprentice *

-.260 .085 .036 -.51 .00 Applied

Classic -.021 .059 1.000 -.20 .15

Applied

Distance -.081 .087 .967 -.34 .18

Applied

Extension -.011 .081 1.000 -.25 .23

Applied

Hybrid -.021 .083 1.000 -.27 .22

Applied

Partnership -.081 .144 .998 -.51 .35

Apprentice Applied .260* .085 .036 .01 .51 Apprentice

Classic .239* .067 .008 .04 .44

Apprentice

Distance .179 .093 .455 -.09 .45

Apprentice

Extension .249 .087 .065 .00 .51

Apprentice

Hybrid .239 .089 .105 -.02 .50

Apprentice

Partnership .179 .148 .889 -.26 .62

Table 13—Continued: Post-Hoe Tukey tests for ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment

(I) V73 (J) V73 Mean Diff(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Classic Applied .021 .059 1.000 -.15 .20 Classic

Apprentice *

-.239 .067 .008 -.44 -.04

Classic

Distance -.060 .070 .978 -.27 .15

Classic

Extension .010 .062 1.000 -.17 .19

Classic

Hybrid .000 .065 1.000 -.19 .19

Classic

Partnership -.060 .135 .999 -.46 .34

Distance Applied .081 .087 .967 -.18 .34 Distance

Apprentice -.179 .093 .455 -.45 .09

Distance

Classic .060 .070 .978 -.15 .27

Distance

Extension .070 .089 .986 -.19 .33

Distance

Hybrid .060 .091 .995 -.21 .33

Distance

Partnership .000 .149 1.000 -.44 .44

Extension Applied .011 .081 1.000 -.23 .25 Extension

Apprentice -.249 .087 .065 -.51 .01

Extension

Classic -.010 .062 1.000 -.19 .17

Extension

Distance -.070 .089 .986 -.33 .19

Extension

Hybrid -.010 .085 1.000 -.26 .24

Extension

Partnership -.070 .146 .999 -.50 .36

Hybrid Applied .021 .083 1.000 -.22 .27 Hybrid

Apprentice -.239 .089 .105 -.50 .02

Hybrid

Classic .000 .065 1.000 -.19 .19

Hybrid

Distance -.060 .091 .995 -.33 .21

Hybrid

Extension .010 .085 1.000 -.24 .26

Hybrid

Partnership -.060 .147 1.000 -.50 .38

Partnership Applied .081 .144 .998 -.35 .51 Partnership

Apprentice -.179 .148 .889 -.62 .26

Partnership

Classic .060 .135 .999 -.34 .46

Partnership

Distance .000 .149 1.000 -.44 .44

Partnership

Extension .070 .146 .999 -.36 .50

174

Table 13—Continued: Post-Hoc Tukey tests for ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment

(I) V73 (J) V73 Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

(I) V73 (J) V73 Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Partnership Hybrid .060 .147 1.000 -.38 .50

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Tables 14 and 15 assess the number of employers that graduates from each

LDM had after graduation. The researcher wanted to know whether there was a

relationship between the number of employers a graduate had after graduation and the

LDM. Since the p-value in Table 15 for the ANOVA test is .431 (much greater than .05)

the test indicates there is no significant difference between leadership development

models with regard to the number of employers graduates of each model had after

graduation from their institution.

Table 14: Relationship between LDM and number of employers (N = 403)

Number of employers: 0 1 2 3 4 5 or more

Applied 3 16 9 5 2 0

Apprentice 8 6 9 2 1 0

Classic 24 134 74 17 2 2

Distance 3 13 7 0 1 0

Extension 3 18 9 0 0 1

Hybrid J 13 7 1 3 1

Partnership 1 3 2 0 0 0

Total: 45 203 117 25 9 4

175

Table 15: ANOVA for Relationship between LDM and number of employees

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 5.022 6 .837 .991 .431

Within Groups 334.422 396 .845

Total 339.444 402

Research Question 3

Research question 3 asks, "What relationship, if any, exists between the

leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and leadership

effectiveness in ministry?" The researcher used an ANOVA to compare the mean scores

from the Leadership Practices Inventory among the various leadership development

models. These findings appear in Tables 16 and 17. According to Table 17, the

significance level of .126 is greater than .05, indicating there is no significant relationship

between leadership effectiveness and the LDM by which one was equipped for ministry.

Table 16. Descriptive statistics for leadership effectiveness across LDM models

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std.

Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum N Mean Std.

Deviation Std.

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

Applied 35 7.6524 .99565 .16830 7.3104 7.9944 5.37 9.80

Apprentice 26 7.6756 1.18616 .23263 7.1965 8.1547 4.40 9.37

Classic 253 7.3615 1.17326 .07376 7.2163 7.5068 2.73 9.63

Distance 24 7.7653 .99070 .20223 7.3469 8.1836 5.13 9.07

Extension 31 7.8774 .95651 .17179 7.5266 8.2283 5.20 9.63

Hybrid 28 7.6083 1.19449 .22574 7.1452 8.0715 4.50 9.33

Partnership 6 7.5722 .86575 .35344 6.6637 8.4808 5.97 8.33

Total 403 7.4911 1.13839 .05671 7.3796 7.6025 2.73 9.80

176

Table 17: ANOVA for leadership effectiveness across LDM models

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 12.898 6 2.150 1.676 .126

Within Groups 508.063 396 1.283

Total 520.961 402

Additionally, the leadership practices inventory was divided into five

subscales: model, vision, challenge, enable, and encourage. Table 18 displays the mean

for each model across each subscale, while Table 19 tests whether the average score for

each variable is different across the leadership development model groups. There was

only a significant difference in the encourage group, with a p-value of .024 (less than .05)

so Table 20 displays post-hoc Tukey tests for this particular variable to determine which

models differ in terms of mean scores for the encourage group. Despite the overall level

of significance, none of the individual pairings tests as significant, with the lowest p-

value o f . 153 easily exceeding the needed p-value for significance.

Table 18: Descriptive statistics for LPI subscales

95% Conf. Interval

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std.

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound Min. Max.

Model Applied 35 7.6143 1.30219 .22011 7.1670 8.0616 4.17 10.00

Apprentice 26 7.8077 1.16970 .22940 7.3352 8.2801 4.50 9.50

Classic 253 7.4710 1.24174 .07807 7.3173 7.6248 3.00 9.67

Distance 24 7.7986 1.04717 .21375 7.3564 8.2408 5.17 9.33

Extension 31 7.9785 1.04504 .18770 7.5952 8.3618 4.83 9.83

Hybrid 28 7.8214 1.19147 .22517 7.3594 8.2834 4.33 9.50

Partnership 6 7.6111 1.25462 .51220 6.2945 8.9278 5.83 9.00

Total 403 7.5902 1.21830 .06069 7.4709 7.7095 3.00 10.00

177

Table 18—Continued: Descriptive statistics for LPI subscales

95% Conf. Interval

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std.

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound Min. Max.

Vision Applied 35 7.3286 1.46667 .24791 6.8248 7.8324 4.33 10.00

Apprentice 26 7.0769 1.83014 .35892 6.3377 7.8161 3.00 9.50

Classic 253 7.0560 1.61482 .10152 6.8561 7.2559 1.17 10.00

Distance 24 7.5625 1.46110 .29825 6.9455 8.1795 4.00 9.67

Extension 31 7.6774 1.25310 .22506 7.2178 8.1371 4.33 9.67

Hybrid 28 7.1488 1.55974 .29476 6.5440 7.7536 2.83 9.33

Partnership 6 7.2778 1.53357 .62608 5.6684 8.8872 4.50 8.50

Total 403 7.1687 1.58020 .07872 7.0140 7.3235 1.17 10.00

Challenge Applied 35 7.2619 1.40161 .23692 6.7804 7.7434 3.67 9.67

Apprentice 26 7.3205 1.62202 .31810 6.6654 7.9757 3.17 9.17

Classic 253 7.0395 1.47487 .09272 6.8569 7.2221 2.33 9.67

Distance 24 7.2639 1.34588 .27473 6.6956 7.8322 4.17 9.33

Extension 31 7.7419 1.16813 .20980 7.3135 8.1704 5.00 9.50

Hybrid 28 7.2560 1.47090 .27797 6.6856 7.8263 3.33 9.00

Partnership 6 7.1667 1.19722 .48876 5.9103 8.4231 5.17 8.50

Total 403 7.1613 1.44950 .07220 7.0193 7.3032 2.33 9.67

Enable Applied 35 8.3524 .79600 .13455 8.0789 8.6258 6.33 9.67

Apprentice 26 8.3077 1.02056 .20015 7.8955 8.7199 5.00 9.33

Classic 253 8.0270 1.01207 .06363 7.9017 8.1523 3.33 10.00

Distance 24 8.2431 .90353 .18443 7.8615 8.6246 6.33 9.50

Extension 31 8.3011 .84264 .15134 7.9920 8.6102 6.67 9.67

Hybrid 28 8.2976 1.07090 .20238 7.8824 8.7129 5.83 9.67

Partnership 6 8.4722 .60934 .24876 7.8328 9.1117 7.83 9.17

Total 403 8.1328 .98058 .04885 8.0367 8.2288 3.33 10.00

Encourage Applied 35 7.7048 1.08697 .18373 7.3314 8.0782 5.67 9.67

Apprentice 26 7.8654 1.25346 .24582 7.3591 8.3717 5.50 9.83

Classic 253 7.2141 1.48016 .09306 7.0308 7.3974 2.67 10.00

Distance 24 7.9583 1.10691 .22595 7.4909 8.4257 5.00 9.33

178

Table 18—Continued: Descriptive statistics for LPI subscales

Encourage

N Mean Std.

Deviation

95% Conf. Interval

Upper Bound Min. Max.

Encourage

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std.

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound Min. Max.

Encourage Extension 31 7.6882 1.13997 .20474 7.2700 8.1063 4.67 9.67 Encourage Hybrid 28 7.5179 1.41228 .26690 6.9702 8.0655 4.83 9.83

Encourage

Partnership 6 7.3333 .51640 .21082 6.7914 7.8753 6.33 7.83

Encourage

Total 403 7.4024 1.39473 .06948 7.2658 7.5390 2.67 10.00

Table 19: ANOVA for LPI subscales

Sum of squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Model Between Groups 12.060 6 2.010 1.362 .229 Model

Within Groups 584.609 396 1.476

Model

Total 596.669 402

Vision Between Groups 16.154 6 2.692 1.080 .374 Vision

Within Groups 987.650 396 2.494

Vision

Total 1003.804 402

Challenge Between Groups 15.720 6 2.620 1.252 .279 Challenge

Within Groups 828.907 396 2.093

Challenge

Total 844.627 402

Enable Between Groups 7.936 6 1.323 1.383 .220 Enable

Within Groups 378.601 396 .956

Enable

Total 386.537 402

Encourage Between Groups 28.095 6 4.682 2.460 .024 Encourage

Within Groups 753.900 396 1.904

Encourage

Total 781.994 402

179

Table 20: Post-Hoc Tukey HSD tests for significant LPI subscales

Mean 95% Confidence

Interval Dependent Variable (I) LDM (J) LDM

Difference (I-J)

Std. Error Sig.

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Encourage Applied Apprentice -.16062 .35723 .999 -1.2193 .8981

Classic .49066 .24883 .434 -.2468 1.2281

Distance -.25357 .36568 .993 -1.3373 .8301

Extension .01659 .34030 1.000 -.9919 1.0251

Hybrid .18690 .34984 .998 -.8499 1.2237

Partnership .37143 .60967 .997 -1.4354 2.1782

Apprentice Applied .16062 .35723 .999 -.8981 1.2193

Classic .65129 .28416 .250 -.1908 1.4934

Distance -.09295 .39057 1.000 -1.2504 1.0645

Extension .17721 .36693 .999 -.9102 1.2646

Hybrid .34753 .37579 .968 -.7661 1.4612

Partnership .53205 .62492 .979 -1.3199 2.3840

Classic Applied -.49066 .24883 .434 -1.2281 .2468

Apprentice -.65129 .28416 .250 -1.4934 .1908

Distance -.74424 .29470 .153 -1.6176 .1291

Extension -.47407 .26256 .545 -1.2522 .3040

Hybrid -.30376 .27480 .926 -1.1182 .5106

Partnership -.11924 .56993 1.000 -1.8083 1.5698

Distance Applied .25357 .36568 .993 -.8301 1.3373

Apprentice .09295 .39057 1.000 -1.0645 1.2504

Classic .74424 .29470 .153 -.1291 1.6176

Extension .27016 .37515 .991 -.8416 1.3819

Hybrid .44048 .38382 .913 -.6970 1.5779

Partnership .62500 .62978 .955 -1.2414 2.4914

Extension Applied -.01659 .34030 1.000 -1.0251 .9919

Apprentice -.17721 .36693 .999 -1.2646 .9102

Classic .47407 .26256 .545 -.3040 1.2522

180

Table 20—Continued: Post-Hoc Tukey HSD tests for significant LPI subscales

95% Confidence Interval

Dependent Variable (I) LDM (J) LDM

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Encourage Extension Distance -.27016 .37515 .991 -1.3819 .8416

Hybrid .17031 .35973 .999 -.8958 1.2364

Partnership .35484 .61539 .997 -1.4689 2.1786

Hybrid Applied -.18690 .34984 .998 -1.2237 .8499

Apprentice -.34753 .37579 .968 -1.4612 .7661

Classic .30376 .27480 .926 -.5106 1.1182

Distance -.44048 .38382 .913 -1.5779 .6970

Extension -.17031 .35973 .999 -1.2364 .8958

Partnership .18452 .62072 1.000 -1.6550 2.0241

Partnership Applied -.37143 .60967 .997 -2.1782 1.4354

Apprentice -.53205 .62492 .979 -2.3840 1.3199

Classic .11924 .56993 1.000 -1.5698 1.8083

Distance -.62500 .62978 .955 -2.4914 1.2414

Extension -.35484 .61539 .997 -2.1786 1.4689

Hybrid -.18452 .62072 1.000 -2.0241 1.6550

Research Question 4

Research question 4 asked, "What relationship, if any, exists between the

leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry

satisfaction?" The researcher used an ANOVA to compare the mean scores from the JSB

among the various leadership development training model categories. Since question 5 of

the JSB is reversed scaled and arranged on a scale of 1 to 5, rather than 1 to 7, JSB

question 5 was recoded for statistical analysis. Question 5 was treated as having a scale

of 5 to 1 then multiplied by 1.4 to create parity with the rest of the scales. Consequently,

1 was recoded 7, 3 was recoded 4.2, 5 was recoded 1.4, and so on. This was designed as

181

a way of treating the scales relatively equally, and is pointed out for purposes of

replication studies.

The findings of the ANOVA appear in Tables 21 and 22. According to Table 22,

the significance level of .478 is much greater than .05, indicating there is no significant

relationship between ministry satisfaction and the choice of leadership development

model.

Table 21: Descriptive statistics for ministry satisfaction across LDM groups

Model: N Mean Std.

Deviation Std.

Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Model: N Mean Std.

Deviation Std.

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

Applied 35 26.7543 5.30728 .89709 24.9312 28.5774 17.20 35.00

Apprentice 26 27.8231 4.32271 .84775 26.0771 29.5691 16.20 35.00

Classic 253 26.5423 5.36047 .33701 25.8786 27.2060 9.40 35.00

Distance 24 27.4333 4.09737 .83637 25.7032 29.1635 17.20 35.00

Extension 31 27.0839 4.59964 .82612 25.3967 28.7710 15.20 34.00

Hybrid 28 28.4500 3.58086 .67672 27.0615 29.8385 21.20 33.00

Partnership 6 28.2667 4.14665 1.69286 23.9150 32.6183 24.20 35.00

Total 403 26.8963 5.05211 .25166 26.4015 27.3910 9.40 35.00

Table 22: ANOVA for ministry satisfaction across LDM models

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 141.615 6 23.603 .924 .478

Within Groups 10118.969 396 25.553

Total 10260.584 402

182

Research Question 5

Research question 5 asks, "What relationship, if any, exists between the

leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry tenure?"

The researcher used an ANOVA test to identify if any relationship existed between the

LDM and ministry tenure. The crosstabs appear in Table 23, and the findings in Table

24. Since the p-value for significance has a value of .013, there is a significant

relationship between LDM and current ministry employment. Table 25 shows the post-

hoc tests for the ANOVA in Table 24 to detect relationships between individual models.

Those in the apprentice model were more likely to answer "no" than those in the Applied,

classic, distance, extension, or hybrid models, but there were no other significant

relationships found. The analysis of this finding shows that Apprentice model graduates

were less likely to still be employed in Christian ministry five years after graduation

when compared to graduates of all other models, except the Partnership model.

Table 23. Relationship between LDM and ministry tenure (N = 403)

Model Currently employed in ministry? Yes

Currently employed in ministry? No

Total

Applied 29 6 35

Apprentice 11 15 26

Classic 188 65 253

Distance 19 5 24

Extension 24 7 31

Hybrid 22 6 28

Partnership 5 1 6

Total 298 105 403

183

Table 24: ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3.099 6 .517 2.744 .013

Within Groups 74.543 396 .188

Total 77.643 402

Table 25: Post-hoe Tukey tests for ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment

(I) V73 (J) V73

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

(I) V73 (J) V73

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Applied Apprentice -.405* .112 .006 -.74 -.07 Applied

Classic -.085 .078 .930 -.32 .15

Applied

Distance -.037 .115 1.000 -.38 .30

Applied

Extension -.054 .107 .999 -.37 .26

Applied

Hybrid -.043 .110 1.000 -.37 .28

Applied

Partnership .005 .192 1.000 -.56 .57

Apprentice Applied *

.405 .112 .006 .07 .74 Apprentice

Classic .320* .089 .007 .06 .58

Apprentice

Distance .369* .123 .045 .00 .73

Apprentice

Extension .351* .115 .040 .01 .69

Apprentice

Hybrid .363* .118 .037 .01 .71

Apprentice

Partnership .410 .197 .362 -.17 .99

Classic Applied .085 .078 .930 -.15 .32 Classic

Apprentice *

-.320 .089 .007 -.58 -.06

Classic

Distance .049 .093 .998 -.23 .32

Classic

Extension .031 .083 1.000 -.21 .28

Classic

Hybrid .043 .086 .999 -.21 .30

Classic

Partnership .090 .179 .999 -.44 .62

Distance Applied .037 .115 1.000 -.30 .38 Distance

Apprentice *

-.369 .123 .045 -.73 .00

184

Table 25—Continued: Post-hoe Tukey tests for ANOVA for relationship between LDM and ministry employment

(I) V73 (J) V73

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

955 Confidence Interval

(I) V73 (J) V73

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Distance Classic -.049 .093 .998 -.32 .23 Distance

Extension -.017 .118 1.000 -.37 .33

Distance

Hybrid -.006 .121 1.000 -.36 .35

Distance

Partnership .042 .198 1.000 -.55 .63

Extension Applied .054 .107 .999 -.26 .37 Extension

Apprentice -.351* .115 .040 -.69 .00

Extension

Classic -.031 .083 1.000 -.28 .21

Extension

Distance .017 .118 1.000 -.33 .37

Extension

Hybrid .012 .113 1.000 -.32 .35

Extension

Partnership .059 .194 1.000 -.51 .63

Hybrid Applied .043 .110 1.000 -.28 .37 Hybrid

Apprentice -.363* .118 .037 -.71 -.01

Hybrid

Classic -.043 .086 .999 -.30 .21

Hybrid

Distance .006 .121 1.000 -.35 .36

Hybrid

Extension -.012 .113 1.000 -.35 .32

Hybrid

Partnership .048 .195 1.000 -.53 .63

Partnership Applied -.005 .192 1.000 -.57 .56 Partnership

Apprentice -.410 .197 .362 -.99 .17

Partnership

Classic -.090 .179 .999 -.62 .44

Partnership

Distance -.042 .198 1.000 -.63 .55

Partnership

Extension -.059 .194 1.000 -.63 .51

Partnership

Hybrid -.048 .195 1.000 -.63 .53

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Also relevant in determining the relationship between the leadership development

model and tenure, Tables 26 and 27 assess whether there is a relationship between

185

constant employment by the same church and LDM. Since the p-value in Table 27 for

the ANOVA test is .336 (greater than .05), that indicates there is no significant difference

across the seven models with regard to employment within the same church.

Table 26. Relationship between LDM and employment by the same church

Model Currently employed by first ministry

Not employed by first ministry

Total

Applied 17 18 35

Apprentice 6 20 26

Classic 216 37 253

Distance 12 12 24

Extension 15 16 31

Hybrid 12 16 28

Partnership 4 2 6

Total 182 221 403

Table 27: ANOVA for relationship between LDM and employment by the same church

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1.702 6 .284 1.145 .336

Within Groups 98.105 396 .248

Total 99.806 402

Research Question 6

Research question 6 asked, "How do these models compare with respect to the

variables of ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure?"

186

The researcher used a MANOVA to determine if there is a statistically significant

relationship between ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and

tenure (taken together) with the type of model as an independent variable. The

significance of .038 or less for all four measures in Table 28 indicates there is a strong

relationship between the dependent variables of ministry employment, leadership

effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure taken together with the type of model as the

independent variable.

Table 28: Multivariate tests for MANOVA for Employment, LPI, JSB, and Tenure

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Pillai's Trace .968 2.959E3 4.000 393.000 .000 Intercept

Wilks' Lambda .032 2.959E3 4.000 393.000 .000

Intercept

Hotelling's Trace 30.117 2.959E3 4.000 393.000 .000

Intercept

Roy's Largest Root

30.117 2.959E3 4.000 393.000 .000

LDM Pillai's Trace .093 1.572 24.000 1584.000 .038 LDM

Wilks' Lambda .909 1.579 24.000 1372.223 .037

LDM

Hotelling's Trace .097 1.584 24.000 1566.000 .036

LDM

Roy's Largest Root

.058 3.816b 6.000 396.000 .001

a. Exact statistic

b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level. c. Design: Intercept + LDM

Table 29 indicates that it is the two yes/no variables (ministry employment and

tenure) that are significant, while the LPI and JSB scales are not. Table 30 specifically

shows all the significant differences across all seven models in the two variables that

were found significant in Table 29.

Table 29: Tests of between-subjeets effects for MANOVA for Employment, LPI, JSB, and Tenure

Source Dependent Variable Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model

Ever employed? 1.4963 6 .249 2.333 .032 Corrected Model Currently employed? 3.099b 6 .517 2.744 .013

Corrected Model

LPI 12.898° 6 2.150 1.676 .126

Corrected Model

JSB 141.615d 6 23.603 .924 .478

Intercept Ever employed? 187.794 1 187.794 1758.030 .000 Intercept

Currently employed? 224.016 1 224.016 1190.051 .000

Intercept

LPI 8245.587 1 8245.587 6426.868 .000

Intercept

JSB 106538.481 1 106538.481 4169.322 .000

LDM Ever employed? 1.496 6 .249 2.333 .032 LDM

Currently employed? 3.099 6 .517 2.744 .013

LDM

LPI 12.898 6 2.150 1.676 .126

LDM

JSB 141.615 6 23.603 .924 .478

Error Ever employed? 42.301 396 .107 Error

Currently employed? 74.543 396 .188

Error

LPI 508.063 396 1.283

Error

JSB 10118.969 396 25.553

Total Ever employed? 553.000 403 Total

Currently employed? 718.000 403

Total

LPI 23135.743 403

Total

JSB 301794.720 403

Corrected Total

Ever employed? 43.797 402 Corrected Total Currently employed? 77.643 402

Corrected Total

LPI 520.961 402

Corrected Total

JSB 10260.584 402

a. R Squared = .034 (Adjusted R Squared = .020)

b. R Squared = .040 (Adjusted R Squared = .025)

c. R Squared = .025 (Adjusted R Squared = .010)

d. R Squared = .014 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001)

188

Table 30: Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests for MANOVA for significant variables

Dependent Variable (I) LDM (J) LDM

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Dependent Variable (I) LDM (J) LDM

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std.

Error Sig. Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Applied Apprentice -.26* .085 .036 -.51 .00 Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Applied

Classic -.02 .059 1.000 -.20 .15

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Applied

Distance -.08 .087 .967 -.34 .18

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Applied

Extension -.01 .081 1.000 -.25 .23

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Applied

Hybrid -.02 .083 1.000 -.27 .22

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Applied

Partnership -.08 .144 .998 -.51 .35

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Apprentice Applied .26* .085 .036 .01 .51

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Apprentice

Classic .24* .067 .008 .04 .44

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Apprentice

Distance .18 .093 .455 -.09 .45

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Apprentice

Extension .25 .087 .065 .00 .51

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Apprentice

Hybrid .24 .089 .105 -.02 .50

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Apprentice

Partnership .18 .148 .889 -.26 .62

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Classic Applied .02 .059 1.000 -.15 .20

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Classic

Apprentice -.24* .067 .008 -.44 -.04

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Classic

Distance -.06 .070 .978 -.27 .15

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Classic

Extension .01 .062 1.000 -.17 .19

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Classic

Hybrid .00 .065 1.000 -.19 .19

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Classic

Partnership -.06 .135 .999 -.46 .34

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Distance Applied .08 .087 .967 -.18 .34

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Distance

Apprentice -.18 .093 .455 -.45 .09

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Distance

Classic .06 .070 .978 -.15 .27

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Distance

Extension .07 .089 .986 -.19 .33

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Distance

Hybrid .06 .091 .995 -.21 .33

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Distance

Partnership .00 .149 1.000 -.44 .44

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Extension Applied .01 .081 1.000 -.23 .25

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Extension

Apprentice -.25 .087 .065 -.51 .01

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Extension

Classic .00 .062 1.000 -.19 .17

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Extension

Distance -.07 .089 .986 -.33 .19

189

Table 30--Continued: Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests for MANOVA for significant variables

Dependent Variable (I) LDM (J) LDM

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Dependent Variable (I) LDM (J) LDM

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std.

Error Sig. Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Extension Hybrid -.01 .085 1.000 -.26 .24 Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Extension Partnership -.07 .146 .999 -.50 .36

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Hybrid Applied .02 .083 1.000 -.22 .27

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Hybrid Apprentice -.24 .089 .105 -.50 .02

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Hybrid

Classic .00 .065 1.000 -.19 .19

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Hybrid

Distance -.06 .091 .995 -.33 .21

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Hybrid

Extension .01 .085 1.000 -.24 .26

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Hybrid

Partnership -.06 .147 1.000 -.50 .38

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Partnership Applied .08 .144 .998 -.35 .51

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Partnership Apprentice -.18 .148 .889 -.62 .26

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Partnership

Classic .06 .135 .999 -.34 .46

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Partnership

Distance .00 .149 1.000 -.44 .44

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Partnership

Extension .07 .146 .999 -.36 .50

Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?

Partnership

Hybrid .06 .147 1.000 -.38 .50 Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Applied Apprentice -.41* .112 .006 -.74 -.07 Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Applied Classic -.09 .078 .930 -.32 .15

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Applied

Distance -.04 .115 1.000 -.38 .30

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Applied

Extension -.05 .107 .999 -.37 .26

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Applied

Hybrid -.04 .110 1.000 -.37 .28

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Applied

Partnership .00 .192 1.000 -.56 .57

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Apprentice Applied .41* .112 .006 .07 .74

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Apprentice Classic .32* .089 .007 .06 .58

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Apprentice

Distance .37* .123 .045 .00 .73

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Apprentice

Extension *

.35 .115 .040 .01 .69

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Apprentice

Hybrid *

.36 .118 .037 .01 .71

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Apprentice

Partnership .41 .197 .362 -.17 .99

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Classic Applied .09 .078 .930 -.15 .32

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Classic Apprentice

* -.32 .089 .007 -.58 -.06

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Classic

Distance .05 .093 .998 -.23 .32

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Classic

Extension .03 .083 1.000 -.21 .28

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Classic

Hybrid .04 .086 .999 -.21 .30

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Classic

Partnership .09 .179 .999 -.44 .62

190

Table 30—Continued: Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests for MANOVA for significant variables

Dependent Variable (I) LDM (J) LDM Difference

(I-J) Std.

Error Sig.

95 % Confidence

Inteval

Dependent Variable (I) LDM (J) LDM Difference

(I-J) Std.

Error Sig. Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Distance Applied .04 .115 1.000 -.30 .38 Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Distance Apprentice

* -.37 .123 .045 -.73 .00

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Distance

Classic -.05 .093 .998 -.32 .23

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Distance

Extension -.02 .118 1.000 -.37 .33

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Distance

Hybrid .00 .121 1.000 -.36 .35

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Distance

Partnership .04 .198 1.000 -.55 .63

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Extension Applied .05 .107 .999 -.26 .37

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Extension Apprentice -.35* .115 .040 -.69 .00

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Extension

Classic -.03 .083 1.000 -.28 .21

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Extension

Distance .02 .118 1.000 -.33 .37

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Extension

Hybrid .01 .113 1.000 -.32 .35

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Extension

Partnership .06 .194 1.000 -.51 .63

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Hybrid Applied .04 .110 1.000 -.28 .37

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Hybrid Apprentice -.36* .118 .037 -.71 -.01

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Hybrid

Classic -.04 .086 .999 -.30 .21

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Hybrid

Distance .01 .121 1.000 -.35 .36

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Hybrid

Extension -.01 .113 1.000 -.35 .32

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Hybrid

Partnership .05 .195 1.000 -.53 .63

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Partnership Applied .00 .192 1.000 -.57 .56

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Partnership Apprentice -.41 .197 .362 -.99 .17

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Partnership

Classic -.09 .179 .999 -.62 .44

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Partnership

Distance -.04 .198 1.000 -.63 .55

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Partnership

Extension -.06 .194 1.000 -.63 .51

Are you currently employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry?

Partnership

Hybrid -.05 .195 1.000 -.63 .53 Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 25.553. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Regarding church employment, the Apprentice model had a higher "no" score

than either the Applied or Classic models. The Applied: Apprentice comparison

difference of -.26 and the Classic: Apprentice comparison differences of -.24 were both

191

significant. This score indicates that graduates of the Apprentice model were less likely to

be employed in ministry after graduation when compared to graduates of the Applied or

Classic models. There are no other significant relationships with respect to ministry

employment.

Regarding tenure, the results were even more striking as the Apprentice model

had a higher "no" score than all other models except Partnership. The largest tenure

difference was .41 between Applied and Apprentice. These findings indicate that

graduates of 5 of the other 6 models were more likely to be employed than Apprentice

graduates.

In summary, research question 6 asked, "How do these models compare with

respect to the variables of ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and

tenure?" There was no statistically significant relationship between LDM and LPI or

between LDM and JSB scores. Significance was found, however, between LDM and the

variables of employment and tenure. Apprentice model graduates were less likely to be

employed after graduation when compared to the Applied and Classic model graduates.

With respect to tenure, graduates of 5 of the other 6 models were more likely to stay

employed for five years after graduation than the Apprentice model graduates.

Summary of Research Question Findings

The purpose of this research was to understand the relationship between

leadership development models in post-baccalaureate theological education and select

outcome assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and

tenure. Six research questions were asked that related to the research purpose. Research

question 1 asked what leadership development models exist in evangelical post-

baccalaureate theological education. A summary of the findings is noted on page 169.

Research question 2 looked for relationships between leadership development models and

graduate hiring. There was a significant relationship between LDM and graduate hiring.

192

Graduates of the Applied and Classic models were morel likely to be hired than graduates

of the Apprentice model. Research question 3 addressed relationships between leadership

development and leadership effectiveness in ministry, when effectiveness was defined as

the mean score on the LPI. There was no significant relationship between LDM and

leadership effectiveness. Research question 4 addressed the issue of relationships

between LDM and job satisfaction in ministry. An ANOVA test showed no significant

difference. Research question 5 examined relationships between LDM and ministry

tenure. ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests revealed a significant relationship between

LDM and ministry tenure. Apprentice graduates were less likely to still be employed five

years after graduation than graduates of all other models, with the exception of the

Partnership model. Research question 6 asked, "How do these models compare with

respect to the variables of ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction,

and tenure?" A MANOVA was used to analyze the data. While there was no statistical

significance between LDM and LPI or LDM and JSB scores, significance was found

between LDM and the variables of employment and tenure. Apprentice model graduates

were less likely to be employed after graduation when compared to the Applied and

Classic model graduates. With respect to tenure, graduates of five of the other six models

were more likely to stay employed for five years after graduation than were Apprentice

model graduates.

Evaluation of Research Design

In this section the researcher provided a reflective analysis of the strengths and

weaknesses of the current methodology. A three-phase design guided the research

process. Phase 1 was the development of a taxonomic classification of leadership

development models in post-baccalaureate theological education. In Phase 2 graduates

self-assessed regarding four variables using a Likert-scale survey. In Phase 3 data were

193

analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Each phase was evaluated for its

strengths and weaknesses. The population and sampling method were also examined.

Methodological Strengths

The strengths of the research design were evident in the overall design,

population and sampling, and the taxonomic and survey phases. The research project was

a robust meta-analysis that sought to provide comparative data from a wide spectrum of

like-minded post-baccalaureate theological institutions. It was narrow in focus in that it

examined leadership development models, but it was broad in scope in that it sought to

mine data from 131 institutions. The respective strengths of the population and sampling

methodology, qualitative analysis in building the taxonomic classification, and the survey

phase will be examined below.

Population and Sampling

Three facets of the population and sampling methodology were significant

factors for increasing research validity. These were the evangelical focus, the ministerial

leadership distinction, and the use of five-year graduates as the research subjects. Daniel

Aleshire, Executive Director of ATS, noted in an early interview that the theological and

philosophical underpinnings of mainline institutions shape their pedagogical approach so

including evangelical and non-evangelical institutions together would not be "comparing

apples with apples" (Aleshire 2008). Limiting the research to evangelical institutions

increased validity by providing a comparative consistency.

A second strength of the population and sampling methodology concerned the

decision to focus on degree programs that are designed to equip students for ministerial

leadership rather than on those that are designed to acquaint students with general

theological studies, or to focus on both types of degree programs. As with focusing on

evangelical institutions, one can expect a purely academic focus to have a pedagogical

194

impact on the leadership development model. ATS makes a categorical distinction in

degree preparation programs between those that are designed for ministerial leadership

and those that equip one for general theological studies. ABHE and TRACS do not make

the same categorical distinction. Nevertheless, the distinction can be discerned through

degree program description statements and by examining the degree-program curricular

overviews. Keeping this distinction was beneficial.

Focusing on five-year graduates also provided greater validity. Five years

provides time for objectivity to form. It also creates a very easy group to target for

longitudinal study. The evangelical focus, the emphasis on ministerial leadership, and the

use of five-year graduates provided a sufficient size to reduce sampling error, could be

randomly sampled, and easily replicated in other studies. All of these factors are

significant to establishing population validity according to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007).

Taxonomic Classification

There are two strengths to the taxonomic classification phase that should be

noted. First, the triangulated method of literature review, document analysis, and

academic interviews increased the scope of potential models while reducing the

possibility of error through comparative analysis. Second, the academic interviews added

a measure of qualitative depth that inert literature and passive document reviews could

not provide. Descriptive data is less likely to be misinterpreted when evaluated by an

objective third party.

Survey

The strengths of the survey phase were its length, its components, the ease of

participation, and the incentive. The survey was purposely kept to a minimum to

accommodate decreased attention spans of busy pastors. Using proven survey

components also proved beneficial. The LPI is used extensively in a variety of settings. It

195

has a proven track record. The Hoppock Job Satisfaction survey is short, simple,

interesting, and time-tested. Making the survey available online through a simple click of

a hyperlink seemed prudent in this technological age. Hitting a "submit" button is far

easier than walking to the mailbox to send a paper survey back to its owner. Finally, the

use of an incentive proved to be beneficial. A five-dollar gift card for Starbucks or

Dunkin Donuts provided choice and met a common desire. This incentive cost the

researcher over two thousand dollars, but was worth the investment. Many survey

participants provided unsolicited expressions of gratitude. Additionally, some academic

personnel confirmed the practice as beneficial in their own efforts to increasing response

rates when mailing to graduates.

Methodological Weaknesses

The weaknesses of the methodological design related chiefly to the same areas

of strength. These were population and sampling, the development of the taxonomy, and

the design of the survey. These issues were evaluated below.

Population and Sampling

The researcher intentionally expanded the population to include ABHE, ATS,

and TRACS institutions. Whereas there are similarities in degree programs among the

accrediting associations, dissimilar factors can reduce the validity and reliability of the

research. ATS, for example, makes a categorical distinction between degrees that prepare

one for general ministerial leadership and degrees that are directed toward basic

theological studies. ABHE and TRACS do not make the same categorical distinction,

though the differences are present in degree programs. ATS focuses only on post-

baccalaureate institutions; ABHE and TRACS include both baccalaureate and post-

baccalaureate schools. ATS has a long history of providing data tables using the same

scales year-to-year; ABHE and TRACS have different means of tracking data. ATS has

196

evangelical, mainline, Catholic and Jewish institutions under its umbrella, whereas

ABHE and TRACS are solely evangelical. These distinctions may suggest that a separate

study of ABHE and TRACS institutions would increase the validity and reliability when

examining both groups.

The sample and the response rate could have been larger with more front-end

work. Much time was devoted to securing support at the accreditation level. The

researcher invited the Executive Directors of ATS and TRACS as well as the ABHE

Director for the Commission on Accreditation to participate on expert panels.

Additionally, all three wrote letters of endorsement encouraging their member institutions

to participate in the research project. These relationships were very significant in securing

respective institutional support. The same kind of front-end relational work, however,

needed to be invested at the institutional level with presidents, and chief academic

officers. The adage, "people participate in what they own" has great relevance at this

point. More "owners" at the institutional level would help encourage graduate

participation. A note from an institutional president to his or her graduates, tying the

research to improving their alma mater would most likely garner more participation than

an invitation from an unknown researcher.

Taxonomic Classification

This research design allowed for multiple coders. A research assistant was

employed, but no additional coders were used in the process of the document analysis.

Additional coders could increase the volume of institutions examined and therefore

expand the scope of the taxonomy. Furthermore, additional coders could create greater

taxonomic validity by having each degree program rated by two coders. Such coding

would reduce bias and increase depth. Additionally, a post-panel group review of the

taxonomy would be highly beneficial. There is a synergistic dynamic that occurs in a

group. Group interaction could greatly improve the scope, accuracy, and acceptance of a

197

taxonomic classification of leadership development models in post-baccalaureate

theological education. Finally, greater accuracy in categorizing degree programs by

taxonomic category would occur if a triangulated means were used: coder, academic

administrator, and graduate. This occurred occasionally as the researcher sought to make

accurate categorical determinations. Including this process in the design would increase

the validity and reliability of the research.

Survey

The survey would be improved by limiting the categorization of degrees to

M.Div., Th.M., and non-M.Div. The scope of degree programs is so diverse that

meaningful analysis is lost unless the sample is significantly larger.

Making data comparisons between ABHE, ATS, and TRACS is difficult

unless there exist common scales. Of the three accrediting associations, ATS data is

readily available on the web. The design would be improved by using many of the same

scales and categories for basic demographic information as the ATS data tables. Cross-

comparison of research data with ATS data would be more useful.

The use of the LPI was helpful in recognizing trends in leadership practices,

and when defining leadership behaviorally; leadership effectiveness remains a difficult

concept to measure. This challenge was documented in chapter 3, and as of yet, there

does not seem to be a suitable instrument to measure leadership effectiveness. Perhaps

that speaks to the illusive nature of describing leadership.

The survey phase would have been more accurate if every survey was read in

its entirety prior to final coding. Minor comments at times revealed significant data that

changed how a graduate was classified. This was very minimal, but significant.

Evaluating survey comments was also essential for taxonomy clarification though that

was not part of the original design. Qualitative assessment helped augment quantitative

analysis.

198

The Apprentice model scores were significantly impacted by the presence of

response of the counseling degree cohort present in the sub sample. Individual survey

comments revealed a large number of the sample who were not now employed were all

counseling majors. This is a matter for additional study.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

This study combined qualitative and quantitative research methods to conduct

a comparative analysis of leadership development models in evangelical post-

baccalaureate theological education. The study focused on those institutions and

programs within them that are preparing men and women for basic ministerial leadership

as opposed to general theological studies. Data was collected to establish a taxonomic

classification of current leadership development models. This taxonomic development

involved a review of precedent literature, content analysis of institutional and degree-

program documents within the research population, and interviews of select academic

administrators who oversee the degree programs. A sample of graduates from the

research population completed a Likert-scale survey, which measured their perceptions

regarding employment, leadership effectiveness, ministry satisfaction, and tenure. This

chapter provides conclusions regarding the study.

Research Purpose

The purpose of this research was to understand the relationship between

leadership development models in evangelical post-baccalaureate theological education

and select outcome assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness,

satisfaction, and tenure.

Research Questions

The following questions were used to guide this study:

199

200

1. What leadership development models for ministry exist in evangelical post- baccalaureate theological (seminary) education?

2. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry employment?

3. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and leadership effectiveness in ministry?

4. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry satisfaction?

5. What relationship, if any, exists between the leadership development model a graduate experienced in seminary and ministry tenure?

6. How do these models compare with respect to the variables of ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure?

Research Implications

Each year thousands of men and women engage in post-baccalaureate

theological study as a means of equipping themselves for service to God in Christian

ministry. This study was conducted to identify prevalent leadership development models

in this sector of Christian higher education and to determine if there is a stronger

relationship between any of the models and the stated outcome assessment criteria:

ministry hiring, leadership effectiveness in ministry, ministry satisfaction, and ministry

tenure. This portion of chapter 5 provides interpretation and implications of the research

analysis presented in chapter 4.

Research Question 1 Analysis and Interpretation

Research question 1 addressed the issue of extant leadership development

models in post-baccalaureate theological education. Seven models were identified after

analyzing precedent literature, institutional documentation, and conducting interviews

with 28 academic administrators within the research sample. These models were Applied,

Apprentice, Classic, Distance, Extension Site, Hybrid, and Partnership. The classic model

was the predominant model. The finding of distinct models was expected in light of

201

precedent literature, which included theoretical proposals (Banks 1999, McNeal 1998),

observations of burgeoning hybrid and distance education (Lumsden, et al. 1999,

Delamarter and Brunner 2005, Anderson 2007), and reports of other models in

theological education (Cannell 1999, Williamson 2001, Ellington 2004).

The primary benefits of this study were the development of the taxonomic

classification of leadership development models and the statistical analysis of graduate

responses to the survey instrument, both of which provided answers to the research

questions and ultimately the research purpose. Document analysis, and interviews with

academic administrators that were conducted for this purpose revealed a trend toward

new models, the continual development and improvement of the classic model, the rise of

distance education in theological education, the important role of ministry mentors in

theological education, the significant relationship of educational philosophy to leadership

development models, the importance of the null curriculum, the importance of

institutional governance, the significance of institutional language, and the untapped

opportunities with educational partnership. The implications of this analysis will be

described in the summary below.

Research Question 2 Analysis and Interpretation

Research question 2 examined possible relationships between various

leadership development models and ministry employment. The researcher wanted to

determine if graduates from one model were more likely to be employed after graduation

than graduates of any of the other models. ANOVA tests demonstrated that there was no

statistically significant relationship between LDM and time to hire. Furthermore, there

was no significant relationship between LDM and the number of employers a graduate

had within five years of graduation.

The analysis did reveal a significant relationship between LDM and graduate

hiring. Post-hoc Tukey tests for ANOVA revealed that graduates of the Apprentice model

202

were more likely to answer "no" than those in the Applied and Classic groups when

asked the question, "Have you ever been employed by a church, parachurch ministry, or

other Christian ministry since your seminary graduation?" Graduates in the Applied and

Classic models were more likely to be employed in Christian ministry after seminary

graduation than those in the Apprentice model.

This finding was surprising. Apprentice graduates have extensive time on the

field. The researcher expected that the built-in experience factor of an Apprentice

education would actually favor graduates for employment. The Apprentice model group

included graduates of 2 + 2 and 2 + 3 programs that are designed to prepare one for

church planting in North American and international contexts. These programs require

students to migrate to the field upon completion of two years of core study on the home

campus. Classroom learning augmented by real-time field experience seemed a powerful

combination for educational impact.

The Apprentice model also included graduates of many counseling programs.

Counseling graduates were included in the Apprentice group due to lengthy internships,

which are closely monitored. The researcher determined that the migration from the

classroom to the field, which in the case of the counseling graduates generally meant the

counseling office, constituted their place in this group. Interestingly, when the researcher

examined qualitative responses to non-required comment boxes on the survey, none of

the comments that reflected non-hiring were drawn from 2 + 2 and 2 + 3 graduates. Most

of the reasons for non-hiring, however, did come from the counseling graduates.

Additionally, comment boxes revealed that many of the counseling center graduates serve

outside the local church. Obviously, this is healthy and encouraging, but ultimately it may

have skewed the analysis of findings. The findings must be treated with suspicion in light

of the qualitative responses from counseling graduates. Any replication study should

exclude counseling graduates. Additional studies solely for counseling graduates would

also be encouraged.

203

Despite the possibility of skewed data, several implications are worth noting.

First, the lack of 2 + 2 or 2 + 3 graduates among the non-hired group would merit running

statistical analysis again, limiting the analysis to the 2 + 2 and 2 + 3 graduate group.

Second, academic administrators overseeing both the programmatic design as well as

entry and exit processes may want to examine their processes and graduates for purposes

of mitigating fallout. Would a more careful entry or exit process help increase hiring rates

after graduation? Third, the importance of the mentor, which was noted earlier could be

very significant here. A follow-up study that was limited to 2 + 2 and 2 + 3 graduates,

with graduates from the Lakeview apprentice program (Ellington 2004) might provide a

more complete understanding of the Apprentice model. The conclusion of this study is

that the relationship between leadership development model and ministry employment is

negligible. Additional examination of the Apprentice graduates apart from counseling

graduates is necessary.

Research Question 3 Analysis and Interpretation

This research sought to determine if there was any relationship between the

LDM by which a graduate was equipped for ministerial leadership and leadership

effectiveness in ministry. The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) was the measure used

to evaluate leadership effectiveness. The LPI provides measurements on five practices of

exemplary leadership. These practices relate to the leader as a model, as one who inspires

a shared vision, as one who challenges the process, as one who enables others to act, and

as one who encourages the heart. The ANOVA test to compare the mean scores from the

LPI among the various leadership development models revealed a significance level of

.126, greater than .05, indicating that there is no significant relationship between the

mean scores of the LPI and the leadership development models.

Taking this one step further the individual subscales of the LPI were examined

using a second ANOVA to determine if there was any relationship between the LDM and

204

the means of the LPI subscales. The encourage subscale showed a significance level of

.024 which was less than the .05 for significance. A post-hoc Tukey test evaluated what

specific differences existed within the encourage subscale, but no specific differences

were significant using that variable. The study concluded that there is no relationship

between the leadership development model by which someone was equipped and

leadership effectiveness in ministry, when effectiveness is measured by the LPI.

One implication of this analysis is that the development of leadership

effectiveness in ministry is not contingent on any particular model. An emerging leader

can be taught and equipped using a Classic model, or an Applied model, or a Distance

model. No model "outperformed" the others with respect to leadership effectiveness in

graduates, when measured by the LPI. This finding leaves the door open to examining

other facets of theological education for their impact on leadership effectiveness,

including spiritual formation, mentors, church connections, graduate age, life

experiences, curriculum, and other variables. Humility is in order.

Research Question 4 Analysis and Interpretation

Research question 4 examined the variable of satisfaction in ministry. The

Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank, which provides a global job satisfaction rating, was

used to assess this variable. The study wanted to determine if there is a statistically

significant difference between the graduates of different leadership development models

with respect to satisfaction in ministry. The ANOVA test revealed a significance level of

.478, much greater than the level of .05 needed for statistical significance and far greater

than the . 126 significance level between LDM and leadership effectiveness when

measured by the LPI.

The research findings made it abundantly clear that there was no statistically

significant difference between graduates of any of the leadership development models

with respect to satisfaction in ministry. In fact, the measure for ministry satisfaction

205

showed the least amount of difference of all the outcome criteria. This is interesting in

light of calls in the precedent literature for changes to the Classic model in particular

(Anderson 1978, Groome 1989, Simpson 1992). Whatever perceived changes may be

needed, graduates of the Classic model are clearly no less satisfied in their ministry job

than graduates from any other model. The significance of that fact was made very clear

by the insignificance of the statistical finding.

Research Question 5 Analysis and Interpretation

Research question 5 examined possible relationships that existed between

various leadership development models and ministry tenure. The study wanted to

determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the graduates of

different leadership development models with respect to how long they lasted in ministry

after graduation. The ANOVA test, which looks to see if differences exist among

variables, showed a p-value for significance of .013, meaning there is a significant

relationship between the LDM and tenure. A post-hoc Tukey test for the ANOVA was

used to determine what the specific difference was. This test revealed that Applied,

Classic, Distance, Extension and Hybrid graduates were all more likely to employed in

Christian ministry five years after graduation when compared to Apprentice graduates.

Analysis of qualitative responses indicates that the presence of counseling

graduates in the research sample may have skewed these results. Still, the

disproportionate negative ministry tenure score for Apprentice graduates could prove

valuable as a cautionary warning to academic administrators responsible for interviewing

potential students as well as screening and placing potential graduates. When any

graduate group is not being hired or is experiencing high dropout rates in ministry, closer

examination and corrective action are necessary. Rerunning the analysis without

counseling center graduates would help to determine if the likelihood for dropout is more

positively related to the model or to the counseling graduate group.

206

The study also examined whether there was a relationship between constant

employment by the same Christian ministry and the leadership development model by

which one was equipped. The ANOVA test revealed a significance level of .336, far

higher than .05 necessary for statistical significance. These research findings showed

some relationship between LDM and ministry tenure, but as with employment the

presence of the counseling center graduates may call into question the findings.

Research Question 6 Analysis and Interpretation

Research question 6 examined overall comparisons of graduates from the

various leadership development models with respect to the four dependent variables of

ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure. The study sought

to determine if one model essentially "outperformed" the others when it came to the

helping graduates get hired in ministry, lead effectively, experience satisfaction, and last

their respective ministry jobs.

The study used a MANOVA to determine if there was a statistically significant

relationship between the outcome criteria of employment, leadership effectiveness,

satisfaction, and tenure when taken together as the dependent variable and the type of

leadership development model as the independent variable. The study revealed that there

was no statistically significant relationship between any model and the four dependent

variables taken together. No model outperformed the others.

As indicated in chapter 4, the two variables measuring ministry employment

and tenure were significant, while the LPI and JSB scales were not. With respect to

hiring, graduates from the Applied and Classic models were more likely to be hired than

graduates from of the Apprentice model. Regarding tenure, the results were even more

striking as the Applied, Classic, Distance, Extension and Hybrid graduates were all more

likely to be employed than Apprentice graduates. The largest area of statistical

significance existed between the Applied and Apprentice graduates. This issue was

207

treated under research questions 2 and 5. It appears that the presence of counseling center

graduates in the Apprentice sample skewed the results.

The implications for theological education are interesting. Do counseling

center graduates from other non-theological training programs have similar hiring rates

and higher dropout rates? Is the issue of limited hiring rates and greater dropout rates a

counseling issue or is the problem with theological education attempting to train

counselors? This finding certainly merits a follow-up study.

Summary of Research Implications

The principal aim of this study was to examine if there were any relationships

between leadership development models and select outcome assessment criteria.

Statistical significance was present, but negligible. The development of the taxonomic

classification of leadership development models, however, provided considerable

ancillary findings and implications. A summary of research implications is provided.

Theological Education Is Alive and Well

Post-baccalaureate theological education is routinely scrutinized and even

criticized. Social science research and popular studies do not always report favorably on

the theological academy (Buzzell 1983, Nelson 1994, Turner 2001, Barnett 2003). Some

churches are bypassing the seminary altogether in their efforts to find and develop church

leaders. The examination of institutional documentation coupled with discussion with

twenty-eight academic administrators revealed the breadth, depth, and robust nature of

theological education today. Institutions are equipping cultural exegetes, they are sending

students to the field for full-immersion mentored experiences, and they are harnessing

technology to make theological education more accessible. Administrators were

enthusiastic; graduate response was positive. Examples of educational excellence and

enthusiasm were seen throughout document analysis and the interview process.

208

The Critical Role of Mentors

The importance of field mentors for theological education was a recurring

theme in interviews with academic administrators. Administrators faced two common

challenges with respect to mentors: (1) Identifying ministry mentors who are able and

willing to invest time in the lives of students, (2) Mentoring the mentors; equipping them

as to how they can be more effective in the lives of students. Administrators were

generally united on the importance of both aspects of the mentoring challenge.

Philosophy Trumps Technology

The growth of technologically aided leadership development models has been

noted in the literature review. This growth was validated in the document analysis and in

interviews with academic administrators. Hybrid instructional modalities, and hybrid

programs; distance modalities, and distance programs are growing. Many institutions are

offering distance courses. Other institutions are developing programmatic designs that are

intentionally incorporating extensive distance components. Complete online degrees are

on the rise. In the face of this distance movement some institutions in the research sample

were intentionally avoiding it.

All three of the academic administrators who oversee applied programs do not

have a strong distance program or have no distance program at all. This is not due to

institutional inability, but in part to a philosophical educational distinctive of

incarnational living and teaching. Proponents of the Applied model value physical space

and face-to-face personal interaction as a part of their educational philosophy, and that

philosophy trumps the technological trend.

At the same time some administrators of the Applied model are avoiding the

distance education, exemplars for the Distance and Hybrid models are pursuing it, but

their pursuit is driven by their philosophical commitments. Academic administrators of

exemplary institutions address issues such as distance faculty, distance curricular design,

209

and technological support for distance education from a philosophical perspective, not at

all from cost-benefit analysis or as a knee-jerk response to a growing demand. Philosophy

trumps technology. Exemplar institutions are philosophically driven and philosophically

proactive.

Distance Education Panacea

The growth of the Distance and Hybrid models has been noted. The models are

powerful in harnessing technology and for making theological education more accessible

than ever. Doing distance education right is expensive and time-consuming when issues

of faculty development, institutional technological support for both faculty and students,

and hardware updates are considered. One administrator cautioned about looking at

distance education as a "cash cow" or a simple add-on to the institutional program.

Institutional buy-in from professors is essential. Resistance from professors who are

entrenched in a different model becomes problematic for the Distance model as does

letting professors self-select for distance teaching assignments. Entrenched faculty may

be slow to become involved which can lessen the strength of the program. Distance

education is a powerful aid, but not an educational panacea. The implication is that

institutional integration is time consuming, expensive, and must be philosophically

connected to the programmatic purpose for maximum effectiveness.

The Paucity of Partnership

The presence of educational partnerships in institutional design, but the lack of

graduates from the Partnership model was a research surprise. A potentially effective

model is lying dormant. Many questions needs to be answered: (1) Is the Partnership

model simple theological window dressing? (2) Is the collaborative effort necessary to

initiate a true partnership too costly in terms of time and energy? (3) Is a guild mindset

210

hindering collaboration? (4) Are students not interested? Many more questions could be

asked. In a day when the world is flat, the Partnership model makes cultural sense.

The Counseling Mystery

As has been noted the presence of counseling graduates in the Apprentice

model research pool may be the cause for the only real statistical significance of this

research study. Do counseling center graduates outside of theological education have

similar hiring and dropout rates? Are the issues of limited hiring rates and greater dropout

rates a counseling issue or is the problem with theological education attempting to train

counselors? This finding certainly merits a follow-up study.

Words Matter

Documentary analysis revealed that institutions using the Applied model

generally used applied language on three levels of their institutional documentation. This

was pointed out in chapter 4. These institutions reveal their institutional bent on an

institutional, degree-program, and course-level documentary basis. This institutional

clarity would seem beneficial for both the faculty and students. Clarifying institutional

purpose lessens institutional fog. Travel is generally faster, safer and more effective when

clarity is greater. What is true on the road would seem to be true on the curricular and

programmatic path as well. The implications for institutional documentation are

significant for both those inside and outside of the institutional community.

Research Applications

This section provides proposed outcomes as a result of the research findings. It

relates impacts of the present study to the field of social science research. It examines the

contributions and applications of the research in regard to education, and educational

leadership. It also provides summaries as to the contribution of the research toward

211

leadership development programs designed to equip and improve people for ministerial

leadership both inside and outside of the academy.

Applications for Social Science Research

This research was conducted to initiate a specific conversation in the research

community regarding the relationship between seminary outcomes and the predominant

leadership development models that were used in achieving these outcomes. Evangelical

post-baccalaureate theological education has a long history with a predominant model for

equipping people for ministerial leadership. Recently, newer models are making their

way in Christian higher education. The researcher wanted to address the issue of how all

models perform with respect to select outcome criteria. The study demonstrated some

statistical significance between leadership development models and the outcomes of

ministry hiring and tenure. While the results were not overwhelming conclusive,

replication and follow-up studies may yield valuable data for clarifying aspects of this

study and examining other outcome criteria. These results could prove beneficial for

theological education. The taxonomic classification developed for this study could be

used to establish consistent nomenclature for leadership development models in

evangelical post-baccalaureate theological education.

Applications for Education and Educational Leadership

This research provided quantitative and qualitative assessment on the growing

number of educational models in seminary education. This information could be helpful

for institutional gatekeepers in forming a diagnostic tool to assess institutional

effectiveness with respect to leadership development. Diagnostic questions could include:

1. What is our predominant leadership development model for each ministerial degree preparation program?

2. Is our institutional language in keeping with this model?

212

3. Is our model in keeping with our institutional objectives?

4. Are we devoting appropriate monetary, personnel and institutional resources toward this leadership development model? If not, what should change?

5. Are we clearly requiring full participation in our model?

6. Are we hiring toward our model?

A similar series of diagnostic questions could be formulated as a means of helping

prospective students determine which model and, therefore, which corresponding school

might be a good fit for them.

Applications for Improving Ministerial Leadership Development Programs

This research study provided qualitative and quantitative analysis on how

ministers are trained with a view to improving the seminary experience. This research

study revealed potential applications for improving the way seminaries equip students for

ministerial leadership.

1. Evaluate the institutional null curriculum. What do our relationships with local churches say about our leadership development model? What do institutional programs such as chapel, faculty mentoring sessions, and shared meals say about what is and is not important for leadership development?

2. Hire toward institutional intentions. If institutions hire toward their educational intentions what do the last few faculty hires reveal about what is and is not important for leadership development?

3. Identify and equip ministry mentors to mentor students. Mentoring is critical and critically challenging. How intentional is the institution about providing mentoring experiences with ministry field mentors? What steps are being taken to find and equip ministry mentors?

Undergraduate and church-related leadership development programs of study

could modify these diagnostic questions to evaluate their leadership development efforts.

Research Limitations

This study was a comparative analysis of leadership development models in

post-baccalaureate theological education. The data, findings, and conclusions are limited

213

in scope and application to the research population. While findings may prove beneficial

to a broader audience, there are specific limitations inherent in the research design. The

taxonomy of leadership development models is drawn from an extensive, yet select group

of institutions. The taxonomic list is not exhaustive. The characteristics and descriptions

are not ironclad. There may be leadership development models within the research

population that were not identified. Leadership development models may exist in other

groups within post-baccalaureate theological education institutions. Models may exist in

undergraduate Christian higher education in general and theological education in

particular that are not identified within this taxonomy.

Research findings with respect to evangelical post-baccalaureate theological

education are also limited. While these findings may prove valuable to theological

educators outside of the research population, they do not necessarily generalize to all of

Christian higher education in general or post-baccalaureate theological education in

particular. The research findings will not necessarily generalize to divinity schools

associated with universities that are not Christian or evangelical in their worldview. The

research findings will not necessarily generalize to undergraduate leadership

development training programs. The research findings will not necessarily generalize to

ecclesial leadership development programs outside of the context of post-baccalaureate

theological education. The research findings will not necessarily generalize to Christian

leadership development in cross-cultural settings. The research findings will not

necessarily generalize to leadership development programs sponsored by various agents

within the business community.

Four distinct variables were analyzed in this study. Statistical significance was

demonstrated between leadership development models and graduate hiring. Statistical

significance was also demonstrated between leadership development models and

graduate tenure. This does not prove causation. Many factors must be considered when

examining the variables of ministry hiring, leadership effectiveness, ministry satisfaction

214

and tenure. Life experiences such as a birth, a death, or a move to new place of service all

impact the variables examined. Economic issues and political factors inside and outside

of places of service can have significant bearing on the outcomes. The work of the Holy

Spirit cannot be measured, but must be considered when considering the outcome criteria.

Further Research

This study intended to initiate a conversation in the research community about

the ways men and women are prepared for Christian ministry. The researcher wanted to

know whether the way students were trained had any bearing on the assessment outcomes

of ministry hiring, leadership effectiveness in ministry, ministry satisfaction, and tenure

in ministry. Put another way, much has been written about the what of theological

education, this study focused on the how and possible concomitant relationships.

Additional research designs that could be explored as a result of this study are suggested

below as are suggested modifications for improving the replication of the current design.

Longitudinal Studies

Longitudinal studies involve periodically examining the same research subjects

over a period of time. A longitudinal study could be conducted to assess long-term

relationship between models and outcomes and consider the implications and

applications. Such information could benefit those engaged in education, educational

leadership, and leadership development through Christian higher education.

Qualitative Studies

This study would have been less effective without interview process inherent

in the design. There is much to be gleaned from the experience of an administrator with

years of experience. Extensive follow-up interviews with academic administrators or with

students who experienced the taxonomic models would reveal taxonomic distinctives,

215

institutional best practices, and participant insight. They would also help to uncover the

theological and philosophical foundations, which would prove beneficial in helping to

ensure that theology drive pedagogy.

Studies to Improve Assessment

Assessment is an essential and critical component in education. Additional

research could be conducted to evaluate methodological approaches for assessing

curriculum with a view to establishing both a taxonomic classification of curricular

assessment and analysis of these approaches (Burgess 2001).

Replication Studies

This study could be replicated with other post-baccalaureate theological

institutions that were outside of the research population in an effort to strengthen the

taxonomic classification. The study could be replicated with undergraduate leadership

development programs and the findings compared to find generalizable educational

principles. The study could be replicated with ecclesial leadership development programs

outside of the context of Christian higher education to improve the growing number of

leadership development opportunities. The researcher recommends replicating this study

without including counseling center graduates. This group seems distinct from the

general nature of most ministerial degree granting programs to warrant its own study.

This is especially noteworthy with respect to the Apprentice group, for which the most

statistically significant relationships were found. Replication studies could focus on

clarifying and strengthening the taxonomic classification of leadership development

models by examining various facets of Christian higher education.

Modifying the current design could enhance replication studies. The following

modifications would improve this design for replication:

1. Narrow the population. The population in this study was limited to evangelical institutions, but the difference between accrediting associations impeded some

216

aspects of data gathering. Selecting one accrediting association and mapping scales and categories to accrediting protocols would help assess and display data in a more efficient and effective manner.

2. Build institutional ownership. Involving accreditation personnel and receiving their endorsement for the project was a strength of this study. The researcher feels response rate would increase if the same efforts to build ownership and participation were made at the administrative level with institutions. The invitation of a seminary president to participate in a study may have a greater impact on response rate than an appeal from an unknown researcher or a generic invitation sent on his behalf from the institution.

3. Involve multiple coders. Using multiple coders and establishing measure for inter- coder reliability would improve the accuracy of both the taxonomy and the coding of graduates within it.

4. Include student interview. Gleaning qualitative data from students would do for the survey what the triangulation did for the taxonomy. Student reflection and input on the taxonomy could also prove beneficial.

5. Use standard scales and categories. The demographic information would be improved by using standard accreditation categories and scales where possible.

Summary of Conclusions

This research study sought to identify and examine leadership development

models in post-baccalaureate theological education. The primary aim on the study was to

determine if there were any relationships between the leadership development model by

which one was equipped for ministerial leadership and select outcome assessment

criteria: ministry employment, leadership effectiveness in ministry, ministry job

satisfaction, and ministry tenure. The study identified seven leadership development

models among the research sample: Applied, Apprentice, Classic, Distance, Extension,

Hybrid, and Partnership. Statistical analysis revealed some relationship between

leadership development models and hiring for ministry, and some relationship between

leadership development models and ministry tenure. The statistical analysis showed no

significant relationships between leadership development models and the variables of

leadership effectiveness and ministry job satisfaction.

St. Clair has noted that the transfer of research knowledge to practice can take

as long as 50 years" (St. Clair 2004, 227). If that is the case, surfacing valuable

217

information about leadership development models and addressing the implications is both

immediately necessary and essential to enhancing the work of Christian higher education,

which ultimately serves the purpose of furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ (Matthew

28:18-20; Colossians 3:17, 23). May this study further that goal!

A P P E N D I X 1

INITIAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT MODEL TAXONOMY

The review of precedent literature revealed a number of leadership

development training models. These models have been categorized into the following

taxonomy. This initial taxonomy was clarified and strengthened through document

review as well as during and after academic interviews conducted during phase one of the

research. The taxonomic classification following the literature review included:

1. Traditional Classroom Model: Places the academic and curricular focus in a teacher- centered, residential classroom, which is primarily knowledge or content-driven.

2. Extension Site Model: A geographically separate unit generally governed by the parent institution, but with local facilities, curricula, faculty and administration; providing education for students who are unable or unwilling to attend the traditional campus. (A) Complete Degree (B) Programmatic/Course only. (Williamson 2001, 12)

3. Partnership: The seminary creates a strategic partnership with a teaching church or parachurch ministry for a specialized portion of the degree program.

4. Apprentice: Utilizes a field-based, comprehensive, full-immersion, ministry-centered pedagogy for a significant portion of the degree program. Students migrate from the seminary to a field of ministry, which becomes the classroom.

5. Distance Education: Includes educational and instructional activity in which students are separated from faculty and other students for the duration of their degree program. It includes a variety of synchronous and asynchronous learning modes. Designed for students in ministry. (ATS 2008 General Standards, CHEA 2002, 1)

6. Hybrid: Makes use of both traditional and distance education modes over the face-to- face program/course alone or the online program/course alone. (Delamarter 2005, 54)

7. Blended: A pedagogically-driven model purposely incorporating face-to-face and online methodologies to strategically achieve programmatic/curricular objectives. (Bonk and Graham 2005, 8)

218

A P P E N D I X 1

SECONDARY LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT MODEL TAXONOMY

The initiation taxonomic classification was reviewed and edited following

document analysis. Document analysis consisted of examining institutional and degree-

program documents of the participating institutions in the research population. The

current models include:

219

220

Taxonomic Classification of Seminary Leadership Development Models

Model Characteristics Institutional

Example

1. Traditional Classroom Model

Classroom: Residential campus Curriculum: Teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Face-to-face instruction Distinctive: Traditional preparation

Knox Theological Seminary (M.Div.)

2. Extension Site Model

Classroom: Transported Curriculum: Dispersed, teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Educational accessibility

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.Div.)

3. Partnership Model Classroom: Campus + Partnering org. Curriculum: Teacher/Partner-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process- oriented/Active Learning Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Teaching Church/Ministry

Bethel Seminary

4. Apprenticeship Model

Classroom: Residential campus + Field Curriculum: Experience-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process- oriented/Active Learning Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Contextual on-job-training

Southeastern Baptist M.Div. 2+3

5. Distance Model Classroom: "Without walls" Curriculum: Teacher-facilitated Pedagogy: Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Accessibility

Liberty Baptist Seminary (M.Div.) RTS Virtual (MAR)

6. Hybrid Model Classroom: "Bricks and clicks" Curriculum: Teacher-directed/ facilitated Pedagogy: Teacher/Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Convenience-driven

Bethel Seminary InMinistry Program

7. Blended Model Classroom: "Bricks and/or clicks" Curriculum: Teacher/program directed Pedagogy: Appropriate to program, curriculum, and student L earning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Pedagogy-driven

A P P E N D I X 1

FINAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT MODEL TAXONOMY

This final taxonomic classification is the result of a triangulated process. A

review of the literature resulted in an initial taxonomic classification of leadership

development models in theological education. Analysis of institutional documentation of

the research population resulted in modifications to the taxonomy, which was further

developed after interviews with 25 academic administrators within the institutional

research sample from across North America.

221

Taxonomic Classification of Seminary Leadership Development Models

Model/Description Characteristics

Applied: The Applied Model is philosophically and programmatically integrative, intentionally combining theory and practice by embedding throughout the curriculum opportunities for "hands-on" application in the church and community, both locally and globally.

Apprentice: The Apprentice Model utilizes a field-based, comprehensive, full-immersion, ministry-centered pedagogy for a significant portion of the degree program. Students migrate from the seminary to a field of ministry, which becomes the classroom.

Classroom: Residential campus + Field Curriculum: Experience-centered, mission specific Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process-oriented/Active Learning: Mostly synchronous, action-learning Church: Missional preparation through the church Distinctive: Contextual on-the-job-training

Classic: The Classic Model places the academic and curricular focus in a teacher-centered, residential classroom, which is primarily knowledge or content-driven, and augmented by some field-experience and/or internship.

Classroom: Residential campus Curriculum: Teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Face-to-face instruction Church: Introduction to the church Distinctive: Historic campus classroom preparation

Distance Education: The Distance Education Model includes educational and instructional activity in which students are separated from faculty and other students for a significant portion of their degree program (one-half of a M. A. degree or two-thirds of a M.Div. degree).

Taxonomic Classification of Seminary Leadership Development Models - Continued

Model/Description Characteristics

Extension Site: A geographically separate unit generally governed by the parent institution, but with local facilities and administration, a more contextualized faculty, and fewer curricular options — providing education for students who are unable or unwilling to attend the home campus. Extension site may occur for a course, program (4 to 6 courses), or a complete degree.

Hybrid: The Hybrid Model incorporates both traditional classroom instruction, and modular or distance education modes in the degree program and coursework—in preference to the exclusive use of either traditional or technological modes.

Partnership: In the Partnership Model a seminary strategically collaborates with a teaching church, parachurch ministry, or another institution for a specialized portion of the degree program, co-laboring in the task of leadership development through the design and delivery of curriculum, which usually comprises a minimum of four to six course credits.

Classroom: Campus + Partnering organization Curriculum: Seminary/Partner-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process-oriented/Active Learning: Focused, mostly synchronous Church: Collaboration for the church Distinctive: "Teaching Church/Ministry"

M N3 CO

APPENDIX 4

LIKERT-SCALE SURVEY

The instrumentation used to conduct Phase 3, the data gathering, was a Likert

response scale instrument. This instrument was formulated using the Leadership Practices

Inventory created by Dr. James M. Kouzes and Dr. Barry C. Posner, and used with

permission. The research instrument also included the Hoppock Job Satisfaction

Measure. The protocol and procedure for this instrumentation is explained in detail in

Chapter 3 of the research concern.

224

225

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT MODEL ASSESSMENT SURVEY

NOTE: If you prefer, you may complete the survey online by going to the Knox Theological Seminary website (www.knoxseminary.edu). Once there simply click "More Info" under "Features" section on the right-hand side of the homepage

Purpose of Survey: The purpose of this survey is to gather your perceptions as to employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure in ministry. The study is being conducted by Thomas L. Kiedis for purposes of academic research.

Directions: Please select your response to the questions from the options provided. The survey encompasses just 50 questions and will take you approximately 20 minutes to complete.

Confidentiality: All information gathered from this survey is CONFIDENTIAL and will be reported ANONYMOUSLY. The data, as reported, will not be attributed to any individual. Your privacy will be fully protected. At no time will your name be reported or in any way identified with your responses. In this inventory you will be asked a few demographic questions and you will be asked to rate your honest opinion on questions regarding ministry employment, ministry effectiveness, ministry satisfaction, and ministry tenure. Participation in this study is voluntary. You may withdraw from the study at any time.

Clicking the "submit" button at the end of the survey (or returning the completed paper copy) will serve as your informed consent for the use of your anonymous responses to be included in the research project.

Directions: Please select your response to the questions from the options provided by circling, checking, or marking at the appropriate place. The survey encompasses just 48 questions and will take you approximately 20 minutes to complete.

PLEASE ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. This is essential for valid research.

Demographic Information:

1. Age (check one):

• 25 and under • 26-30 • 31-35 • 36-40 • 41-45

• 46-50 • 51-55 • 56-60 • 61-65 • 66 or older

http://www.knoxseminary.edu

2 2 6

2. Gender: Male; Female

3. Post-baccalaureate degree received (check only one): If you do not see your specific degree, please check "Other" and specify in the space provided. If your M.Div. or Th.M. had a specialized track or concentration, check "Other" and specify.

• M.S. in Bible • M.S. in Organizational Leadership (to prepare me for church ministry). • Master of Arts (M. A.) • Master of Arts in Christian Education (M.A.C.E.) • Master of Arts in Ministry (M.M.) • Master of Arts in Pastoral Ministry • Master of Arts in Religion and Education (M.A.R.E.) • Master of Arts in Youth Ministry • Master of Christian Education (M.C.E.) • Master of Divinity (M.Div.) • Master of Religious Education (M.R.E.) • Master of Theological Studies (M.T.S.) • Master of Theology (Th.M.) • Other (please specify):

4. From the drop-down list, please indicate the institution from which you graduated.

Anderson University School of Theology Anderson, IN Apex School of Theology Asbury Theological Seminary Bakke Graduate University of Ministry Beacon University Bethany Theological Seminary Bethel Seminary of Bethel University Biblical Theological Seminary Briercrest Seminary Canadian Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Carey Theological College Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Virginia Chapman Seminary Cincinnati Bible Seminary Columbia International University, Columbia, SC Concordia Lutheran Seminary (AB) Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary (ON) Dallas Theological Seminary Eastern Mennonite Seminary Evangelical Theological Seminary Faith Baptist Theological Seminary George Fox Evangelical Seminary Grace Theological Seminary Heritage Christian University, AL

227

Heritage Theological Seminary, ON CA Knox Theological Seminary Lancaster Bible College and Graduate School Lincoln Christian Seminary M. Christopher White School of Divinity Mars Hill Graduate School Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Michigan Theological Seminary Mid-America Reformed Seminary Nazarene Theological Seminary Northeastern Seminary at Roberts Wesleyan College Northland Baptist Bible College Northwest Baptist Seminary Oral Roberts University School of Theology Philadelphia Biblical University Phoenix Seminary Piedmont Baptist Graduate School Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary Regent University School of Divinity Salt Lake Theology Seminary Seventh Day Adventist Theological Seminary Sioux Falls Seminary Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Southern Evangelical Seminary Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Taylor University College and Seminary Wesley Biblical Seminary Western Seminary OR or CA Western Theological Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary, PA Winebrenner Theological Seminary Wycliffe College

5. Years since you completed your post-baccalaureate (seminary) degree? (check one):

• 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • More than 5

228

About Your Educational Experience:

The following questions relate to different educational models that are used by seminaries and divinity schools. Please read each question and indicate the degree of your involvement in each model. For purposes of definition by COURSE we mean a "class" for which one generally receives 3 semester hours of academic credit or 4 quarter hours of academic credit. 1. Extension Education: An extension site is an off-campus site that is used by a traditional campus to provide education to students who are unable or unwilling to attend the traditional campus for study. Please check the box that best corresponds to the degree to which you were involved in extension education during the completion of your degree program:

• I was NOT engaged in extension education. I completed my entire degree program while "on the campus" of my seminary/divinity school.

• I completed one to three courses of my degree program through an extension site of my seminary/divinity school.

• I completed four to five courses of my degree program through an extension site of my seminary/divinity school.

• I completed six or more courses of my degree program through an extension site of my seminary/divinity school, BUT NOT MY ENTIRE DEGREE.

• I completed my entire degree program at an extension site of my seminary/divinity school.

Comments:

2. Distance Education: The Council for Higher Education Accreditation of the U.S. Government defines distance learning as "any educational or instructional activity in which students are separated from faculty and other students." This includes correspondence instruction, as well as synchronous and asynchronous learning with a variety of instructional modes. Please check the box that best describes the degree to which you participated in distance education during your degree program:

• I did not complete any of my degree program through distance education. • I completed one to three courses of my degree program through distance education. • I completed four to five courses of my degree program through distance education. • I completed six or more courses of my degree program through distance education. • I completed approximately one-half to two-thirds of my degree program through

distance education.

Comments:

PLEASE GO TO THE NEXT PAGE

229

3. Educational Partnerships: An educational partnership is the linking of two institutions for the purpose of effectively preparing the seminary graduate for ministerial leadership. In an educational partnership the student receives some degree-program credit for specialized training received through a partnering organization (e.g. Campus Crusade for Christ, Young Life). Please check the box that best describes the degree to which you participated in an educational partnership in your degree program.

• I was NOT engaged in an educational partnership. I received all my academic credit through courses taken at my seminary/divinity school.

• I received credit for one to three courses for my involvement in an educational partnership.

• I received credit for four to five courses for my involvement in an educational partnership.

• I received credit for six or more courses for my involvement in an educational partnership.

Comments:

4. Apprentice Education: Apprentice education is a comprehensive ministry-centered model that fully immerses the student in a field of ministry for a significant portion of the degree program. Students migrate from the seminary to a field of ministry, which becomes the classroom. Students receive course credit for this extended time on the field. This education exceeds that standard "Field Education" of approximately 3-6 course credits required in degree programs. Please check the box that best describes the degree to which you participated in an apprentice education in your degree program.

• I was NOT engaged in an apprentice education program while at my seminary/divinity school.

• I received credit for one to three courses for my involvement in apprentice education. • I received credit for four to five courses for my involvement in apprentice education. • I received credit for six or more courses for my involvement in apprentice education. Comments:

5. LDM - Internal Use Only (Please skip this question) Applied Apprentice Classic Classic Plus Distance 6 or more Distance 1/2 or 2/3 Extension Site 6 or more Extension Site All Hybrid Hybrid Education Partnership

230

Ministry Employment: Please indicate your responses to the questions below by checking the appropriate box:

1. Have you ever been employed by a church, • Yes parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry • No since your seminary graduation?

2. Approximately how many months elapsed from • the time of your graduation until a church, • parachurch ministry, or other Christian ministry • first hired you? •

0-6 months 7-12 months 12 months or longer I have not been employed in Christian ministry since graduate.

3. Are you currently employed by a church, • Yes parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry? • No

4. Are you currently employed by the same • Yes church, parachurch ministry, or Christian • No ministry that first hired you? If you answered "No" to question #6, please check "No".

5. What is the total number of church, parachurch • 1 ministries, or other Christian ministries you have been employed since your seminary graduation?

• • • • 5 or more • None

6. If you are no longer employed in a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry—or never were so employed—which of the following best explains why? If you are still employed in a church or Christian ministry, please check "I am still employed in a church, parachurch ministry or Christian ministry."

• • • • • •

•

I decided to pursue a different career. I was "burned out" and needed a change. I was forced out. I was fired. I was laid off. I am still employed in a church, parachurch ministry, or Christian ministry. Other (please specify):

231

Ministry Leadership Effectiveness: On the next page you will find thirty statements from the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) describing various leadership behaviors. Please read each statement carefully, and using the RATING SCALE below, ask yourself: "How frequently do I engage in the behavior described?"

• Be realistic about the extent to which you actually engage in the behavior.

• Be as honest and accurate as you can be.

• DO NOT answer in terms of how you would like to behave or in terms of how you think you should behave.

• DO answer in terms of how you typically behave on most days, on most projects, and with most people.

• Be thoughtful about your responses. For example, giving yourself 10s on all items is most likely not an accurate description of your behavior. Similarly, giving yourself all Is or 5s is most likely not an accurate description either. Most people will do some things more or less often than they do other things.

• If you feel that a statement does not apply to you, it is probably because you don't frequently engage in the behavior. In that case, assign a rating of 3 or lower.

For each statement, decide on a response and then record the corresponding number in the box to the right of the statement. After you have responded to all thirty statements, go back through the LPI one more time to make sure you have responded to each statement. Every statement must have a rating in order to successfully complete the survey.

The RATING SCALE runs from 1 to 10. Choose the number that best applies to each statement.

1 = Almost never 2 = Rarely

3 = Seldom

4 = Once in a While

5 = Occasionally

6 = Sometimes

7 = Fairly Often

8 = Usually

9 = Very Frequently

10 = = Almost always

232

To what extent to you typically engage in the following behaviors? Choose the response number from the rating scale on page 4 that best applies to each statement and record it in the box to the right of that statement.

1 I set a personal example of what I expect of others. 2 I talk about the future trends that will influence how our work gets done. 3 I seek out challenging opportunities that test my own skills and abilities. 4 I develop cooperative relationships among the people I work with. 5 I praise people for job well done. 6 I spend time and energy making certain that the people I work with adhere

to the principles and standards we have agree on. 7 I describe a compelling image of what our future could look like. 8 I challenge people to try out new and innovative ways to do their work. 9 I actively listen to diverse points of view. 10 I make it a point to let people know about my confidence in their abilities. 11 I follow through on the promises and commitments that I make. 12 I appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future. 13 I search outside the formal boundaries of my organization for innovative

ways to improve what we do. 14 I treat others with dignity and respect. 15 I make sure that people are creatively rewarded for their contributions to the

success of our projects. 16 I ask for feedback on how my actions affect other people's performance. 17 I show others how their long-term interests can be realized by enlisting in a

common vision. 18 I ask "What can we learn?" when things don't go as expected. 19 I support the decisions that people make on their own. 20 I publicly recognize people who exemplify commitment to shared values. 21 I build consensus around a common set of values for running our

organization. 22 I paint the "big picture" of what we aspire to accomplish. 23 I make certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete plans, and

establish measurable milestones for the projects and programs that we work on.

24 I give people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding how to do their work.

25 I find ways to celebrate accomplishments. 26 I am clear about my philosophy of leadership. 27 I speak with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and purpose of

our work. 28 I experiment and take risks, even when there is a chance of failure. 29 I ensure that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills and developing

themselves. 30 I give the members of the team lots of appreciation and support for their

contributions.

233

Ministry Satisfaction Below you will find five statements regarding various aspects of satisfaction regarding your job. Please read each statement carefully and, using the RATING SCALE, choose the response that best applies to each statement. Record your response by checking its corresponding box:

1. Which one o f the f o l l o w i n g shows how much of the time you feel satisfied with your m i n i s t r y / j o b ?

• Never • Seldom • Occasionally • About half of the time • A good deal of the time • Most of the time • All the time.

2. Choose one of the following statements which best tells how well you like your ministry/job.

• I hate it • I dislike it • I don't like it • I am indifferent to it • I like it • I am enthusiastic about it • I love it.

3. Which one of the following best tells how you feel about changing your ministry/job? • I would quit this job at once if I could. • I would take almost any other job in which I could earn as much as I am

earning now. • I would like to change both my job and my occupation. • I would like to exchange my present job for another one. • I am not eager to change my job, but I would do so if I could get a better job. • I cannot think of any jobs for which I would exchange. • I would not exchange my job for any other.

4. Which one of the following shows how you think you compare with other people? • No one dislikes his job more than I dislike mine. • I dislike my job much more than most people dislike theirs. • I dislike my job more than most people dislike theirs. • I like my job about as well as most people like theirs. • I like my job better than most people like theirs. • I like my job much better than most people like theirs. • No one likes his job better than I like mine.

234

5. All in all, how satisfied are you in your current ministry position? • Very satisfied • Satisfied • Mixed Feelings • Dissatisfied • Very Dissatisfied

PLEASE PROVIDE any additional comments you feel are important regarding your employment, effectiveness, satisfaction or tenure in ministry:

THANK YOU for completing this survey. If you would like to receive a summary of the research results, please check one of the boxes below.

1. Yes, please send me a PDF summary of your research results. My email address is:

2. Please select the gift card you would like sent to you. Dunkin' Donuts Gift Card Starbucks Gift Card

3. Please provide a mailing address for your gift card. Your address will ONLY be used to send this gift card. Your address WILL NOT be distributed to ANYONE.

You may also contact the researcher at the address below and a PDF summary will be provided to you upon completion of the research.

Thomas L. Kiedis 2400 Yamato Road Boca Raton, FL 33431

APPENDIX 5

ABHE, ATS, TRACS QUALIFYING INSTITUTIONS

The researcher established inclusion criteria based on ATS categorical

distinctions between degree programs that are intentionally designed to equip students for

ministerial leadership and those that are designed to acquaint students with general

theological studies. Only those graduates of degree programs (both MDiv and Non-

MDiv) designed to equip students for ministerial leadership were included in the

population. Since ATS makes this categorical distinction, the researcher looked on the

ATS website and located the list of institutions that met this requirement. They are

included below. For graduates of ABHE or TRACS accredited institutions, only those

institutions, and their accompanying MDiv and Non-MDiv programs, that have

leadership in their mission statement or program objectives were included in the research

population.

235

ABHE Qualifying Institutions

1. Ambrose Seminary (also ATS) 2. Appalachian Bible College 3. Baptist Bible College and Graduate School of Theology, MO 4. Baptist Bible College, Graduate School and Seminary, PA 5. Bethesda Christian University (also TRACS) 6. Beulah Heights University 7. Booth College through University of Winnipeg) 8. Briercrest Seminary, Caronport, SK, Canada 9. Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO 10. Canadian Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 11. Cincinnati Bible Seminary 12. Columbia International University, Columbia, SC 13. Crown College 14. Faith Baptist Theological Seminary 15. Grace University 16. Heritage Christian University, AL 17. Heritage College and Seminary, ON CA 18. Hope International University 19. Horizon College and Seminary 20. The King's Seminary 21. Lancaster Bible College and Graduate School 22. Lincoln Christian College and Seminary (also ATS) 23. Master's College and Seminary, ON CA 24. Moody Bible Institute 25. Multnomah Biblical Seminary (also ATS) 26. Philadelphia Biblical University 27. Providence Theological Seminary, Manitoba, CA, ATS 28. Tyndale Seminary, ON CA (also ATS) 29. World Mission University, (ATS/TRACS)

ATS Qualifying Institutions

1. Abilene Christian University Graduate School of Theology (Abilene, TX) 2. Acadia Divinity College, NS CA 3. Alliance Theological Seminary 4. Ambrose Seminary of Ambrose University College, AB CA (also ABHE) 5. Anderson University School of Theology Anderson, IN 6. Asbury Theological Seminary 7. Ashland Theological Seminary 8. Assemblies of God Theological Seminary 9. Associated Canadian Theological Schools of Trinity Western University 10. Associated Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary 11. Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary 12. Beeson Divinity School of Samford University 13. Bethany Theological Seminary 14. Bethel Seminary of Bethel University 15. Biblical Theological Seminary 16. Briercrest College and Seminary (also ABHE) 17. Calvin Theological Seminary 18. Campbell University Divinity School 19. Canadian Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (also ABHE)

237

20. Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, MD 21. Carey Theological College 22. Carolina Evangelical Divinity School (also ABHE) 23. Chapman Seminary 24. Church of God Theological Seminary 25. Cincinnati Bible Seminary (also ABHE) 26. Columbia International University (also ABHE) 27. Concordia Lutheran Seminary, AB 28. Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, ON 29. Concordia Seminary, MO 30. Concordia Theological Seminary, IN 31. Covenant Theological Seminary 32. Dallas Theological Seminary 33. Denver Seminary 34. Eastern Mennonite Seminary 35. Emmanuel School of Religion 36. Erskine Theological Seminary 37. Evangelical Theological Seminary 38. Fuller Theological Seminary 39. George Fox Evangelical Seminary 40. George W. Truett Theological Seminary 41. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary 42. Gordon-Con well Theological Seminary 43. Grace Theological Seminary 44. Grand Rapids Theological Seminary 45. Harding Graduate School of Theology 46. Harding University Graduate School of Religion 47. Heritage Theological Seminary, ON CA 48. International Theological School 49. John Leland Center for Theological Studies 50. The King's Seminary 51. Knox Theological Seminary 52. Lincoln Christian Seminary (also ABHE) 53. Logsdon Seminary of Logsdon School of Theology 54. M. Christopher White School of Divinity 55. Mars Hill Graduate School (also TRACS) 56. McGill Faculty of Religious Studies 57. McMaster Divinity College 58. Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary 59. Michigan Theological Seminary (also TRACS) 60. Mid-America Reformed Seminary (also TRACS) 61. Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary 62. Multnomah Biblical Seminary, Portland, OR (also ABHE) 63. Nazarene Theological Seminary 64. New Brunswick Theological Seminary 65. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary 66. North Park Theological Seminary 67. Northeastern Seminary at Roberts Wesley an College 68. Oral Roberts University School of Theology 69. Palmer Theological Seminary 70. Phoenix Seminary 71. Providence Theological Seminary, Manitoba, CA (also ABHE) 72. Reformed Episcopal Seminary 73. Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

74. Reformed Theological Seminary 75. Regent College 76. Regent University School of Divinity 77. Salt Lake Theology Seminary 78. Seventh Day Adventist Theological Seminary 79. Sioux Falls Seminary 80. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 81. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 82. Southern Evangelical Seminary (also TRACS) 83. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary 84. Talbot School of Theology 85. Taylor University College and Seminary 86. Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry 87. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 88. Tyndale University College and Seminary (also ABHE) 89. Washington Baptist Theological Seminary 90. Wesley Biblical Seminary 91. Western Seminary 92. Western Theological Seminary 93. Westminster Theological Seminary in California 94. Winebrenner Theological Seminary 95. World Mission University (also ABHE) 96. Wycliffe College

TRACS Qualifying Institutions

1. Apex School of Theology 2. Bakke Graduate University of Ministry 3. Beacon University 4. Bethesda Christian University 5. Beulah Heights University 6. Bob Jones University 7. Carolina Evangelical Divinity School 8. Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Virginia 9. Faith Evangelical Seminary 10. Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College 11. International Baptist College 12. The King's Seminary (also ABHE) 13. Luther Rice Seminary 14. Maple Springs Baptist Seminary 15. Mars Hill Graduate School (also ATS) 16. Michigan Theological Seminary (also ATS) 17. Mid-America Reformed Seminary (also ATS) 18. Midwest University 19. New Saint Andrews College 20. Northland Baptist Bible College 21. Northwest Baptist Seminary 22. Piedmont Baptist Graduate School

239

23. Shasta Bible College and Graduate School 24. Southern California Seminary 25. Southern Evangelical Seminary (also ATS) 26. St. Petersburg Theological Seminary 27. Temple Baptist Seminary 28. Virginia University of Lynchburg

A P P E N D I X 6

ABHE, ATS, TRACS PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

Anderson University School of Theology ATS Asbury Theological Seminary ATS Bakke Graduate University TRACS Beacon University TRACS Bethany Theological Seminary ATS Bethel Seminary of Bethel University ATS Biblical Theological Seminary ATS Briercrest College - Seminary ABHE, ATS Canadian Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ABHE, ATS Carey Theological College ATS Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Virginia TRACS Chapman Seminary ATS Cincinnati Bible Seminary ABHE, ATS Columbia International University ABHE, ATS Concordia Lutheran Seminary, Alberta, Canada ATS Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, Ontario, Canada ATS Dallas Theological Seminary ATS Eastern Mennonite Seminary ATS Faith Baptist Theological Seminary ABHE George Fox Evangelical Seminary ATS Grand Rapids Theological Seminary ATS Heritage Christian University, AL ABHE Heritage Theological Seminary, Ontario, Canada ABHE, ATS Knox Theological Seminary ATS Lincoln Christian Seminary ABHE, ABHE M. Christopher White School of Divinity ATS Mars Hill Graduate School ATS, TRACS Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary ATS Michigan Theological Seminary ATS, TRACS Mid-America Reformed Seminary ATS, TRACS Nazarene Theological Seminary ATS Northeastern Seminary at Roberts Wesleyan College ATS Northland Baptist Bible College TRACS Northwest Baptist Seminary TRACS Oral Roberts University School of Theology ATS Philadelphia Biblical University ABHE

2 4 0

241

Phoenix Seminary ATS Regent University School of Divinity ATS Seventh Day Adventist Theological Seminary ATS Sioux Falls Seminary ATS Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary ATS Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ATS Southern Evangelical Seminary ATS, TRACS Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary ATS Taylor University College and Seminary ATS Wesley Biblical Seminary ATS Western Seminary, OR or CA ATS Western Theological Seminary, MI ATS Westminster Theological Seminary, PA ATS Winebrenner Theological Seminary ATS Wycliffe College ATS

APPENDIX 7

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS CODING PROTOCOL

To establish a greater validity and reliability, the researcher drew on guidelines

established by Weber (1990), Leedy and Ormrod (2001), Stemler (2001), Fraenkel and

Wallen (2003), and Krippendorff (2004). The following protocol was established for the

review of institutional documents.

1. Establish the qualifications that coders must have. Any coders who provide analysis of institutional documents must 1) Read the research prospectus in its entirety to become familiar with the purpose of the study; 2) Read Stemler (2001) to become familiar with the research method of content analysis; 3) Be personally known and approved by the researcher; 4) Participate in training as outlined below.

2. Train coders for the task of document analysis. Step 1: The researcher will follow the Document Analysis Coding Protocol with the coder watching. Step 2: The researcher will watch the coder follow the coding protocol with the coder explaining the process. Step 3: Both the researcher and the coder will separately examine the same institution and compare coding results. The researcher and any coder will repeat Step 3, three times (using different institutions each time) to ensure consistency of coding.

3. Address issues of syntax and semantics so coding is more efficient and reliable. The researcher will provide coders with a Document Analysis Coding Protocol template. This template will provide the steps coders are to follow as well as definitions for key terms in the document analysis.

4. Design records and procedures to record and store the data. The Document Analysis Coding Protocol is located on the next pages. It provides directions for both recording and storage of data. Both paper copies and electronic copies of data will be stored with the researcher. Additionally, compiled data will be stored in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

242

243

DIRECTIONS FOR THE DOCUMENT ANALYSIS CODING PROTOCOL

Purpose: The purpose of reviewing documentation from graduate institutions is 1) to obtain data that will help in developing a taxonomic list of leadership development models employed by seminaries in the research population; 2) to help categorize institutional M.Div. and Non-M.Div. degree programs to achieve the research purpose; 3) ultimately, to discover more effective ways to equip people for ministerial leadership.

Terms:

Understanding the following terms is essential to proper coding:

Leader. One who is engaged in leadership. Leadership. "Leadership is an influencing relationship between leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes" (Rost 1993, 102).

Ministerial leadership. The act of leadership carried out in the context of ministry.

Leadership development. The intentional act of equipping another person, through a variety of means (including seminary education), to assume leadership.

Seminary. "A graduate school for ministerial training generally offering a variety of masters degrees . . . geared toward the graduate preparation of pastor and other professional church s t a f f ' (Gangel and Benson 1983, 361).

Institutional mission/purpose statement. A statement of institutional "reason for being."

Institutional core values. Essential guiding principles which undergird the institution.

Educational learning goals and objectives. The overarching statement of learning intent of an institution or degree program, and the specific cognitive, affective and psychomotor outcomes relative to them.

Degree program description. A description of an educational program of study leading to a graduate degree in ministerial leadership from an accredited institution. This includes MDiv degrees with a focus on ministerial leadership and Non-MDiv degrees (MRE, MCE, MARE, MACE, MA, MM).

Degree program mission/purpose statement. A statement of purpose or "reason for being" for an educational program of study within an institution.

Program-specific objectives. A statement of intended outcomes of a degree program.

Curriculum. An explicitly and implicitly intentional set of interactions designed to facilitate learning and development and to improve meaning or experience.

Course description. The description of each course in the graduate degree program, usually located in the institution catalog.

Leadership development model. The primary philosophical and pedagogical bridge designed to organize and deliver the institutional leadership degree program in order to effectively develop the student.

244

Units of Analysis: Coders will examine the following documentary items from each school in the research population with a view to determining the primary institutional leadership development model for MDiv (ministerial leadership) and Non-MDiv degrees.

1. Institutional mission/purpose statement. 2. Institutional core values. 3. Institutional educational learning goals and objectives. 4. Degree program description. 5. Degree program mission statement. 6. Degree program learning goals/outcomes.

Examine "outcomes-based language" found in learning goals and objectives for both MDiv and Non-MDiv ministerial leadership degree programs.

7. As necessary: Curriculum. 8. As necessary: Course descriptions. 9. As necessary: Course syllabi.

Location of Data: All ABHE, ATS, and TRACS member institutions have active hyperlinks. Coders will be given a list of institutions to examine. Each list will include both the name of the institution and its corresponding accrediting association. Coders will search institutional websites to find the units of analysis. Most information will be on the websites or available in the institutional catalog. Catalogs, when not available online, are generally available for download in PDF format. If enough information is not available to make a final determinant relative to the institutional leadership development model, the coder is to note the documents needed on the coding protocol template and return the template to the researcher.

245

Coding Categories for Taxonomic Classification

1. Traditional Classroom Model: Places the academic and curricular focus in a teacher- centered, residential classroom, which is primarily knowledge or content-driven.

3. Partnership: The seminary creates a strategic partnership with a teaching church or parachurch ministry for a specialized portion of the degree program.

6. Hybrid: Makes use of both traditional and distance education modes over the face-to- face program/course alone or the online program/course alone (Delamarter 2005, 54).

7. Blended: A pedagogically-driven model purposely incorporating face-to-face and online methodologies to strategically achieve programmatic/curricular objectives (Bonk and Graham 2005, 8).

8. Other. If a review of the documents reveals a model that is not covered by one of the descriptions write your rationale in the space provided next to

246

Taxonomic Classification of Seminary Leadership Development Models

Model Characteristics Institutional Example

1. Traditional Classroom Model

Classroom: Residential campus Curriculum: Teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Face-to-face instruction Distinctive: Traditional preparation

Knox Theological Seminary (M.Div.)

2. Extension Site Model

Classroom: Transported Curriculum: Dispersed, teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Educational accessibility

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.Div.)

Bethel Seminary

4. Apprenticeship Model

Classroom: Residential campus + Field Curriculum: Experience-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process- oriented/Active Learning Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Contextual on-job-training

Southeastern Baptist M.Div. 2+3

5. Distance Model Classroom: "Without walls" Curriculum: Teacher-facilitated Pedagogy: Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Accessibility

Liberty Baptist Seminary (M.Div.) RTS Virtual (MAR)

6. Hybrid Model Classroom: "Bricks and clicks" Curriculum: Teacher-directed/ facilitated Pedagogy: Teacher/Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Convenience-driven

Bethel Seminary InMinistry Program

7. Blended Model Classroom: "Bricks and/or clicks" Curriculum: Teacher/program directed Pedagogy: Appropriate to program, curriculum, and student Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Pedagogy-driven

247

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS CODING PROTOCOL TEMPLATE

Please follow, in order, each of the steps below.

1. Your name:

2. Name of Institution:

3. Institution web address:

4. Accreditation Affiliation: ABHE; ATS; TRACS

5. Does the institution meet the research rationale? You must be able to check "Yes" next to each of the statements below:

• Yes • No The institution is accredited by ABHE, ATS, or TRACS. • Yes • No The institution is evangelical Protestant. • Yes • No The institution has ministerial leadership (or an equivalent)

in its mission statement or educational learning goals and objectives.

• Yes • No The degree program under consideration is focused on ministerial leadership rather than purely theological studies.

6. Carefully read the following institutional documents. Check all those documents you were able to locate and read.

• Institutional mission statement.

• Institutional core values

• Institutional educational learning goals and objectives.

• Degree program description.

• Degree program mission statement.

• Degree program learning goals. Examine educational learning goals and objectives for both MDiv and Non-MDiv ministerial leadership degree programs.

• As necessary: Curriculum overview.

• As necessary: Course descriptions.

• Documents not available and needed to make determination:

6. Circle the appropriate characteristics next to Model/Description. Provide notations at bottom for clarification. Use "Other" if your review reveals a model not provided.

248

Taxonomic Classification of Seminary Leadership Development Models

Institution: Degree (circle): M.Div. Non-M.Div. Model/Description Characteristics 1. Classic Classroom: Places the academic and curricular focus in a teacher-centered, residential classroom, which is primarily knowledge or content-driven.

Classroom: Residential campus Curriculum: Teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Face-to-face instruction Distinctive: Traditional preparation

2. Extension Site: A geographically separate unit generally governed by the parent institution, but with local facilities, curricula, faculty and administration; providing education for students who are unable or unwilling to attend the traditional campus. (A) Complete Degree (B) Program/Course

Classroom: Transported Curriculum: Dispersed, teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Educational accessibility

3. Partnership: The seminary creates a strategic partnership with a teaching church or parachurch ministry for a specialized portion of the degree program.

Classroom: Campus + Partnering org. Curriculum: Teacher/Partner-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process- oriented/Active Learning Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: "Teaching Church/Ministry'

4. Apprentice: Utilizes a field-based, comprehensive, full-immersion, ministry- centered pedagogy for a significant portion of the degree program. Students migrate from the seminary to a field of ministry, which becomes the classroom.

Classroom: Residential campus + Field Curriculum: Experience-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process- oriented/Active Learning Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Contextual on-job-training

Classroom: "Without walls" Curriculum: Teacher-facilitated Pedagogy: Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Accessibility

6. Hybrid: Makes use of both traditional and distance education modes over the face-to- face program/course alone or the online program/course alone.

Classroom: "Bricks and clicks" Curriculum: Teacher-directed/facilitated Pedagogy: Teacher/Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Convenience-driven

7. Blended: A pedagogically-driven model purposely incorporating face-to-face and online methodologies to strategically achieve programmatic/curricular objectives.

8. Other:

Classroom: "Bricks and/or clicks" Curriculum: Teacher/program directed Pedagogy: Appropriate to program, curriculum, and student Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Pedagogy-driven

APPENDIX 8

ACADEMIC INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

The researcher used the following protocol in conducting interviews with the

appropriate academic administrators. The interview questions were designed to solicit

descriptive information relating to the primary leadership development training models

used for each degree program.

249

250

ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Interview project: A Comparative Analysis of Leadership Development Training Models in Christian Higher Education.

Time of the interview:

Date of the interview:

Place of the interview: Phone; In person (location: )

Interviewer: Thomas L. Kiedis

Interviewee:

Interviewee's academic institution:

Interviewee's phone number:

Description of the research project:

This research study is concerned with higher education, leadership

development, and understanding and examining the training models that are employed to

prepare men and women for Christian ministry. The study examines the growing number

of leadership development training models in Christian higher education and considers

their relationship to the employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure of

the graduates who were developed as a result of them.

From a review of precedent literature, I developed an initial taxonomic

classification of leadership development training models. This taxonomy was clarified

and modified as a result of examining the institutional degree program documents of over

fifty evangelical seminaries affiliated with ABHE, ATS and TRACS.

This interview is the final step in formulating the taxonomy. I appreciate your

time and value your expertise as an educator in Christian higher education. With your

permission I would like to ask you four questions that should take no more than twenty

minutes of your time.

251

A Comparative Analysis of Leadership Development Models In Post-Baccalaureate Theological Education

From: Thomas L. Kiedis To: Academic Administrators Re: Kiedis Ph.D. research (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY)

I value your expertise as an educator in Christian higher education. I would like to discuss your response to the four questions below. The interview should take no more than twenty minutes.

As part of my Ph.D. research, I am working on a comparative analysis of leadership development models in post-baccalaureate theological education. I am focusing on those institutions and programs within them that are preparing men and women for basic ministerial leadership as opposed to general theological studies. Specifically, the purpose of this research is to understand the relationship between seminary leadership development models and select outcomes assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure.

The research defines a leadership development model as the primary philosophical and pedagogical bridge designed to organize and deliver the institutional ministerial leadership degree program in order to effectively develop the student.

This interview plays an important part in the research. After reviewing precedent literature, I developed an initial taxonomic classification of leadership development training models. This taxonomy was revised as a result of examining the institutional degree program documents of over fifty evangelical seminaries affiliated with ABHE, ATS, or TRACS.

Your comments will help to refine the taxonomy. All information gathered from this follow-up survey is CONFIDENTIAL and will be reported ANONYMOUSLY. The data, as reported, will not be attributed to any individual. Your privacy will be fully protected. At no time will your name be reported or in any way identified with your responses.

Interview questions:

1. When it comes to equipping students for ministerial leadership, what are some of the "best practices" and/or distinctives of your institution?

2. If you were to change one aspect of your educational design in order to better prepare students for ministerial leadership, what would you change? Why?

3. Assuming all seminaries expect students to be engaged in the life of the local church, how do you collaborate with the church in your degree program/s?

4. Using the taxonomy on the next page, which of the following leadership development models best describes your institution?

252

Taxonomic Classification of Seminary Leadership Development Models

Model/Description Characteristics Applied: The Applied Model is philosophically and programmatically integrative, intentionally combining theory and practice by embedding throughout the curriculum opportunities for "hands-on" application in the church and community.

Classroom: Intentional springboard to applied learning Curriculum: Praxis-centered Pedagogy: Intentional "hands-on" integration Learning: Face-to-face followed by Action- Learning Distinctive: Embedded application/authentic assessment

Apprentice: The Apprentice Model utilizes a field-based, comprehensive, full- immersion, ministry-centered pedagogy for a significant portion of the degree program. Students migrate from the seminary to a field of ministry, which becomes the classroom.

Classroom: Residential campus + Field Curriculum: Experience-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process- oriented/Active Learning: Mostly synchronous, action- learning Distinctive: Contextual on-the-job-training

Classic: The Classic Model places the academic and curricular focus in a teacher- centered, residential classroom, which is primarily knowledge or content-driven, and augmented by some field-experience and/or internship.

Classroom: Residential campus Curriculum: Teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Face-to-face instruction Distinctive: Historic campus classroom preparation

Distance Education: The Distance Education Model includes educational and instructional activity in which students are separated from faculty and other students for a significant portion of their degree program (one-half of a M. A. degree or two-thirds of a M.Div. degree).

Classroom: "Without walls" Curriculum: Teacher-facilitated Pedagogy: Learner-centered; Teacher/learner partnership Learning: Asynchronous/Synchronous, Contextualized Distinctive: Accessibility for those "in- ministry"

Extension Site: A geographically separate unit generally governed by the parent institution, but with local facilities, curricula, faculty and administration; providing education for students who are unable or unwilling to attend the traditional campus. Extension site may occur for a course, program (4 to 6 courses), or a complete degree.

Classroom: Transported Curriculum: Dispersed, teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Contextualized, Mostly Synchronous Distinctive: Educational accessibility

Hybrid: The Hybrid Model incorporates both traditional classroom and distance education modes in the degree program and coursework in preference to the exclusive use of either traditional or technological modes.

Classroom: "Bricks and clicks" Curriculum: Teacher-directed/facilitated Pedagogy: Teacher/Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous, Contextualized Distinctive: Flexibility, Convenience, Technology

253

Partnership: In the Partnership Model a seminary strategically collaborates with a teaching church or parachurch ministry for a specialized portion of the degree program usually comprising a minimum of four to six course credits.

Classroom: Campus + Partnering organization Curriculum: Teacher/Partner-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process- oriented/Active Learning: Focused, Mostly synchronous Distinctive: "Teaching Church/Ministry"

A P P E N D I X 6

ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS INTERVIEWED

This appendix lists the academic administrators that participated in the

interview portion of this research study.

254

255

Academic Administrators Consulted

Administrator Institution Model

Dr. Bruce Ashford Southeastern Baptist Seminary Apprentice

Mr. Clint Banz Northwest Baptist Seminary Classic

Dr. Deron Biles

Dr. Grace Barnes

Southwestern Baptist Seminary

Bakke Graduate University

Extension Applied Partnership

Dr. George Brown Western Theological Seminary Applied

Dr. Chuck Conniry George Fox Evangelical Seminary Applied, Hybrid

Dr. Ray Easley Wesley Biblical Seminary Classic, Apprentice

Dr. Leland Eliason Bethel Seminary Distance, Hybrid

Dr. Doug Fombelle Bethel Seminary of the East Hybrid, Applied

Dr. Denis' Fortin Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

Various

Dr. Stan Fowler Heritage Seminary, Ontario Classic, Hybrid

Dr. Dwight Friesen Mars Hill Graduate School Applied

Dr. Adam Greenway Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Extension

Dr. R. Kunjummen Michigan Theological Seminary Classic

Dr. Dale Hale Dr. Bob Kallgren Dr. J. Venugopal

Asbury Theological Seminary

Columbia International University

Distance, Hybrid Classic Plus

Dr. Todd Mangum Biblical Seminary Classic

Dr. John McLean Heritage Seminary, Ontario Extension

Dr. Chip Moody Phoenix Seminary Classic Plus Partnership

Dr. John Nissley Winebrenner Theological Seminary Various

Dr. Michael Palmer Regent University School of Divinity Distance, Hybrid

Dr. Gene Pond Dallas Theological Seminary Classic

Dr. David Sills Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Apprentice

Dr. Ron Sisk Sioux Falls Seminary Classic Plus

Rev. M. VanderHart Mid-America Reformed Seminary Classic Plus

Dr. J. VerBerkmoes Grand Rapids Theological Seminary Classic, Partnership

Dr. Rob Wiggins Western Seminary Various

APPENDIX 10

INTERVIEW REQUEST LETTER

This appendix provides the letter that was sent to academic administrators to

request their participation in the interview process.

256

257

A Comparative Analysis of Leadership Development Models In Post-Baccalaureate Theological Education

From: Thomas L. Kiedis To: Academic Administrators Re: Kiedis Ph.D. research (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY)

I value your expertise as an educator in Christian higher education. I would like to discuss your response to the four questions below. The interview should take no more than twenty minutes.

Your comments will help to further refine the taxonomy. All information gathered from this follow-up survey is CONFIDENTIAL and will be reported ANONYMOUSLY. The data, as reported, will not be attributed to any individual. Your privacy will be fully protected. At no time will your name be reported or in any way identified with your responses.

Interview questions:

1. When it comes to equipping students for ministerial leadership, what are some of the "strengths" and "weaknesses" of extension education?

2. If you were to change one aspect of your extension education design in order to better prepare students for ministerial leadership, what would you change? Why?

3. Assuming all seminaries expect students to be engaged in the life of the local church, how do you collaborate with the church when it comes to distance and extension education?

4. To what degree does the taxonomy accurately reflect extension education?

2 5 8

T a x o n o m i c C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f S e m i n a r y L e a d e r s h i p D e v e l o p m e n t M o d e l s

M o d e l / D e s c r i p t i o n Characteristics Applied: The Applied Model is philosophically and programmatically integrative, intentionally combining theory and practice by embedding throughout the curriculum opportunities for "hands-on" application in the church and community, both locally and globally.

Apprentice: The Apprentice Model utilizes a field-based, comprehensive, full-immersion, ministry-centered pedagogy for a significant portion o f the degree program. Students migrate from the seminary to a field o f ministry, which becomes the classroom.

Classroom: Residential campus + Field Curriculum: Experience-centered, mission specific Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process-oriented/Active Learning: Mostly synchronous, action-learning Church. Missional preparation through the church Distinctive: Contextual on-the-job-training

Classic: The Classic Model places the academic and curricular focus in a teacher-centered, residential classroom, which is primarily knowledge or content- driven, and augmented by some field-experience and/or internship.

Classroom: Residential campus Curriculum: Teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with superv ised mentoring/ministry Learning: Face-to-face instruction Church: Introduction to the church Distinctive: Historic c a m p u s classroom preparation

Distance Education. T h e Distance Education Model includes educational and instructional activity in which students are separated from faculty and other students for a significant portion o f their d e g r e e program (one-half of a M A . degree or two-thirds o f a M.Div degree).

Classroom: "Without walls" Curriculum: Teacher-facilitated Pedagogy: Learner-centered; Teacher/learner partnership Learning; Asynchronous/Synchronous, Contextualized Church: Preparation while in the church Distinctive: Accessibility for those "in-ministry"

Extension Site: A geographically separate unit generally governed by the parent institution, but with local facilities and administration, a more contextualized faculty, and f e w e r curricular options — providing education for students w h o are unable or unwilling t o attend the home campus. Extension site may occur for a course, p r o g r a m ( 4 to 6 courses), or a complete degree.

Classroom: Transported to the extension site Curriculum: Dispersed, teacher-centered P e d a g o g y : Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning. Contextualized, mostly synchronous Church: Preparation while in the church Distinctive: Convenience, connectivity, economy

Hybrid: T h e Hybrid Model incorporates both traditional c l a s s r o o m instruction, and modular or distance education modes in the degree program and coursework — in preference to the exclusive use of either traditional or technological modes

Classroom: "Bricks and clicks" Curriculum: Teacher-directed/facilitated Pedagogy: Teacher/Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous.Asynchronous, Contextualized Church: Expand the role in the church Distinctive: Convenience, technology, p e d a g o g y

Partnership: In the Partnership Model a seminary strategically collaborates with a teaching c h u r c h , parachurch ministry, or another institution for a specialized portion of the degree program, co-laboring in the joint take o f leadership through the design and delivery of curriculum, which usually comprises a minimum of four to six course credits.

Classroom: Campus + Partnering organization Curriculum: Seminary'Partner-centered Pedagogy Transmissive + Process-oriented Active Learning: Focused, mostly synchronous Church: Collaboration for the church Distinctive: "Teaching Church/Ministry"

APPENDIX 11

INSTITUTIONAL CALLING PROTOCOL

A 10-person calling team was formed to contact institutional research

population (n=131). The following protocol was established and followed to ensure a

consistent process.

259

260

Date: Friday, November 20, 2008

From: Tommy Kiedis

To: Callers

Re: Contacting Theological Institutions for Ph.D. Research

Thanks for your willingness to help out with my Ph.D. research. I am asking you to contact approximately 10 educational institutions. These institutions are either post- baccalaureate theological training institutions (seminaries), or provide post-baccalaureate theological education in addition to undergraduate studies. For the purposes of this research, our focus is ONLY on post-baccalaureate graduates, i.e. master's degree graduates. I will survey these graduates using a Leadership Development Assessment Survey.

When you call you will be asked to do three things: First, introduce this Ph.D. research effort; Second, ask the institutional administrator to release email addresses of their 2004 graduates; Third, offer to provide the institutional representative a copy of the research results.

The part you play is absolutely essential. In the few pages that follow you will find:

1. An overview of the research project. This will provide some essential background information which will help frame the project and assist you as you contact institutions.

2. A copy of the Leadership Development Taxonomic Classification. This is also provided to help you understand the scope of the research.

3. A list of approximately 10 institutions with both their web address and phone number.

4. A Research Calling Protocol. This will give you step-by-step instructions for contacting each institution.

The timing of these calls is critical. Since most institutions will be closed during the Thanksgiving Holidays, we are attempting to make these calls on November 24 and 25 (Monday and Tuesday) and on December 1 and 2 (Monday and Tuesday).

Once again, thank you very much for your willingness to help out. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional help understanding the project or how to carrying out this essential task.

Gratefully,

Tommy Kiedis Associate Professor of Leadership Development, Knox Theological Seminary Lead Pastor, Spanish River Church

261

Researcher: Thomas L. Kiedis, D.Min., Ph.D. (candidate) Associate Professor of Leadership Development, Knox Theological Seminary, 5554 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 [email protected]; 561-358-8777

Research Institution: Dr. Kiedis is conducting this research to complete his Ph.D. in Leadership from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. This research is being conducted through the School of Leadership and Church Ministry at Southern.

Research Title: A Comparative Analysis of Leadership Development Models in Post-Baccalaureate Theological Education

Research Summary and Purpose: This study is a comparative analysis of leadership development models in post- baccalaureate theological education. It focuses on those institutions and programs within them that are preparing men and women for basic ministerial leadership as opposed to general theological studies. Specifically, the purpose of this research is to understand the relationship between seminary leadership development models and select outcomes assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure.

Research Population:

The 2004 graduating class of 139 post-baccalaureate theological institutions.

Research Design and Process: 1. Taxonomic Classification Phase - The research involved developing a taxonomy

(classification) of seminary leadership development models. TK did this by reviewing literature in the field of theological education, by examining the degree programs of the 139 institutions in the research population, and by talking with select academic administrators from those institutions. See page 3 for an overview of the models.

2. Survey Phase - Each of the degree programs from the 139 institutions will be categorized according to its taxonomic classification. Next, the graduates of these degree programs will be surveyed. The survey instrument will be used to gather the graduates' perceptions regarding: ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, ministry satisfaction, and ministry tenure. You may use this link to examine the survey: Leadership Development Assessment Survey or cut and paste this address in your: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=LTJ4ujjNXWHkA_2fT2RWm6nQ_3d_3d

3. Survey - The researcher will follow phases one and two by examining the collected data. The researcher will look for relationships between the predominant leadership development models used to equip the graduates for ministry, and the following outcomes: ministry employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure.

Your part - Helping to secure a list of 2004 graduates from each of the 139 institutions.

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=LTJ4ujjNXWHkA_2fT2RWm6nQ_3d_3d

262

Taxonomic Classification of Seminary Leadership Development Models

Model

1. Traditional Classroom Model

2. Extension Site Model

3. Partnership Model

4. Apprenticeship Model

5. Distance Model

6. Hybrid Model

7. Blended Model

Characteristics

Classroom: Residential campus Curriculum: Teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Face-to-face instruction Distinctive: Traditional preparation

Classroom: Transported Curriculum: Dispersed, teacher-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive (lecture), with supervised mentoring/ministry Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Educational accessibility

Classroom: Campus + Partnering org. Curriculum: Teacher/Partner-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process- oriented/Active Learning Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Teaching Church/Ministry

Classroom: Residential campus + Field Curriculum: Experience-centered Pedagogy: Transmissive + Process- oriented/Active Learning Learning: Mostly synchronous Distinctive: Contextual on-job-training

Classroom: "Without walls" Curriculum: Teacher-facilitated Pedagogy: Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Accessibility

Classroom: "Bricks and clicks" Curriculum: Teacher-directed/ facilitated Pedagogy: Teacher/Learner-centered Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Convenience-driven

Classroom: "Bricks and/or clicks" Curriculum: Teacher/program directed Pedagogy: Appropriate to program, curriculum, and student Learning: Synchronous/Asynchronous Distinctive: Pedagogy-driven

Institutional Example

Knox Theological Seminary (M.Div.)

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.Div.)

Bethel Seminary

Southeastern Baptist M.Div. 2+3

Liberty Baptist Seminary (M.Div.) RTS Virtual (MAR)

Bethel Seminary InMinistry Program

263

Contacting Theological Institutions for Ph.D. Research Calling Protocol

Please read pages 1-3 above (Memo, Project Overview, Taxonomy). Next, follow each of the steps below for each institution you contact.

1. Your name:

2. Name of Institution:

3. Accreditation Affiliation: ABHE; ATS; TRACS

4. Institution web address/phone:

5. Day/Time of Call:

6. When you call, ask for:

For ABHE: Registrar's Office (supervisor is usually Chief Academic Officer) or Alumni Director (supervisor is usually Director of Development) For ATS: Registrar's office or Chief Academic Officer For TRACS: Vice President for Academic Affairs or the Registrar's office

7. Follow the calling protocol on page 5:

8. Results of the phone contact (check those that apply):

• The institution will send the 2004 graduate information (no follow-up necessary). • The institutional representative had to secure permission from a supervisor. I will

call that representative back on .

• The institution requested the Research Project Overview before moving forward.

• The institution requested the ABHE, ATS, or TRACS Reference letter before moving forward. .

• The institution was not willing to participate by releasing 2004 graduate information.

264

Contacting Theological Institutions for Ph.D. Research Calling Protocol

Introduce yourself Tommy Kiedis, and the research project:

"Hello, I am . I am calling on behalf of Dr. Tommy Kiedis. Dr. Kiedis is the Associate Professor of Leadership Development at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He is completing Ph.D. research through the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He has met all the ethics protocols of Southern Seminary and is conducting his research with the full knowledge, help, and blessing of (select the appropriate person):

ABHE: Dr. Randy Bell, Director, Commission on Accreditation of ABHE ATS: Dr. Daniel Aleshire, President of ATS TRACS: Dr. Russell Fitzgerald, Executive Director of TRACS

I am happy to provide a verification letter to that extent if necessary.

This research is a comparative analysis of leadership development models in post- baccalaureate theological education. It is looking at relationships between the predominant model by which a student was equipped for ministry and four variables: employment, ministry effectiveness, ministry satisfaction, and tenure. The research population is the 2004 graduating class of 139 post-baccalaureate educational institutions. He will be using a 48-question instrument to survey this population.

Ask the institution to release email addresses of the 2004 graduating class:

Dr. Kiedis is requesting a list of the email addresses or physical addresses of the 2004 graduating class (preferably email). We want to assure you that we will handle this information with the utmost care. This design has passed the scrutiny of the Ethics Committee at Southern Seminary. All Dr. Kiedis needs is a mailing or email address for each graduate. He will only use this information to request the graduates' participation in the survey phase. All information gathered from this survey is CONFIDENTIAL and will be reported ANONYMOUSLY. The data, as reported, will not be attributed to any individual. The privacy of all survey participants will be fully protected.

Offer to provide the following:

1. A copy of the research results upon completion of the research (March 2009). 2. If they are hesitant about cooperating: Research Project Overview 3. If they are hesitant about cooperating: ABHE, ATS, TRACS Reference Letter

Ask them to send (E-MAIL THE LIST IF POSSIBLE) 2004 graduate information to: Dr. Tommy Kiedis Associate Professor of Leadership Development Knox Theological Seminary 5554 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 t k i e d i s @ k n o x s e m i n a r y . e d u 561-358-8777

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX 12

INSTITUTIONAL INVITATION

The researcher sent this note in the body of an email to request institutional

participation in the research project.

Institutional Personnel Title

Institution

Dear ,

I am following up on a phone call you received from earlier today regarding my Ph.D. research. Thanks for taking her call.

I serve as the Associate Professor of Leadership Development at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. I am completing my Ph.D. research through the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Gary Bredfeldt is my dissertation supervisor. I have met the research and ethics protocols of Southern. Additionally, I am conducting this research with the full knowledge and blessing of:

Dr. Dan Aleshire, Executive Director, ATS Dr. Randall Bell, Associate Director, ABHE Dr. Russell Fitzgerald, Executive Director of TRACS

The research being conducted is a comparative analysis of leadership development models in post-baccalaureate theological education. The purpose is to understand the relationship between seminary leadership development models and select outcomes: employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure.

A 48-question online survey has been developed and will be used to survey the 2004 graduating class of 139 post-baccalaureate theological education institutions. Please see the attached "Research Project Overview" for more details.

I am requesting a list of the email addresses or physical addresses of the 2004 graduating class (email is preferable). This information will be handled with the utmost care and confidentiality. All information gathered from this survey is confidential and will be reported anonymously. The data, as reported, will not be attributed to any individual (or

265

266

institution). The privacy of all survey participants will be fully protected. There are no FERPA conflicts with this research.

I would be grateful for your assistance in providing the email (or physical) addresses of the 2004 graduating class. If possible, please email the list to [email protected]. Alternatively, you may send a hard copy listing via mail to Dr. Tommy Kiedis, Associate Professor of Leadership Development, Knox Theological Seminary, 5554 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308.

I would be happy to provide a copy of the research results as they are finalized, which is targeted for the spring of 2009. Please request a copy of the results when you send the list of graduates.

I am sure there is much going on in your office, especially at this time of the year, so thanks for your consideration.

Tommy Kiedis, D.Min., Ph.D. (cand) Associate Professor of Leadership Development Knox Theological Seminary 5554 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 [email protected]

561-358-87

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX 13

RESEARCH PROJECT OVERVIEW

This letter was included with the initial institutional email in order to provide

an overview of the research project, thus making it easier to secure institutional

participation.

267

268

THEOLOGICAL S E M I N A R Y

From: T o m m y Kiedis, D.Min., Ph.D. (candidate) To: A B H E , ATS, T R A C S M e m b e r Institutions

I am contacting you regarding my Ph.D. research, which I am conducting through the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Gary Bredfeldt is my dissertation supervisor. My prospectus has been written and approved, including passing our Ethics Committee at Southern.

I am working on a comparative analysis of leadership development models in post-baccalaureate theological education. My focus is on those institutions and programs within them that are preparing men and women for basic ministerial leadership as opposed to general theological studies. Specifically, the purpose of this research is to understand the relationship between seminary leadership development models and select outcomes assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure.

The study follows a sequential mixed methods design incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methods. A taxonomic classification and a forty-eight question online survey are at the heart o f the work. The taxonomy is being developed through a review of precedent literature, an extensive content analysis of 139 seminaries accredited by ATS, ABHE or TRACS, and by follow-up interviews with academic administrators who oversee the degree programs. I will survey the 2004 graduating class of the seminaries under consideration. I am glad to say that this research is being conducted with the full knowledge, cooperation, and blessing of:

I am writing to request the email addresses or physical addresses of the 2004 graduating class (preferably email). I can assure you that this information will be handled with the utmost care. My design has passed the scrutiny of the Ethics Committee at Southern Seminary. I will only use this information to request the graduates' participation in the survey phase of my research. All information gathered from this survey is C O N F I D E N T I A L and will be reported A N O N Y M O U S L Y . The data, as reported, will not be attributed to any individual. The privacy of all survey participants will be fully protected. There are no FERPA conflicts in this research.

Thank you for your help in this matter. It is my desire that this project contribute to stronger theological education for many. You may send the list of 2004 graduates and their email and/or physical addresses to my Knox email account or physical address.

Dr. Dan Aleshire, Executive Director, A T S Dr. Randall Bell, Associate Director, A B H E Dr. Russell Fitzgerald, Executive Director of T R A C S

Tommy Kiedis, D.Min., Ph.D. (Candidate) Associate Professor of Leadership Development Knox Theological Seminary, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX 14

RECOMMENDATION LETTERS

The following letters were written by ABHE and ATS personnel as

endorsements to encourage institutional response.

2 6 9

270

mm ^K^l The Association for ^ ^ Biblical Higher Education ABHE ^ • • • t ' ^ i m c ; - • • • »

November 14, 2008 Dr. Tommy Kiedis 8589 Nashua Dr. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418

Dear Dr. Kiedis:

I am writing to indicate my support for your dissertation project at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. As you know, it has been my privilege to serve on your jury panel for the purpose of refining your research instrumentation. I have been pleased with your response to my observations and recommendations for refining your materials.

As I understand the purpose of your research, you are attempting to understand the relationship between institutional leadership development models and select outcomes assessment criteria: employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure. You are examining models among institutions accredited by ATS and TRACS as well as

I am confident that the ABHE member institutions will find the results of your research to be very helpful. It is my impression that there is a growing emphasis on leadership development among the institutions that are accredited by ABHE. I am reasonably sure that a similar emphasis will be found among ATS and TRACS members as well. We, of course, work with a number of institutions who hold both accreditation with ABHE and one of these other agencies.

I trust that the ABHE members that you canvass will fully cooperate with you in completing this research. I know that you need contact information for their graduates. Please be assured that, if they contact me regarding your project, I will encourage them to supply you with the names and addresses of their graduates so that you will have good research samples essential to the effective completion of your project.

If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ABHE.

Sincerely,

Randall E. Bell Director, Commission on Accreditation

271

B The Association for Biblical Higher Education ABHE * < .>

N o v e m b e r 14, 2 0 0 8

Dr. T o m m y Kiedis 8 5 8 9 N a s h u a Dr. P a l m B e a c h Gardens, FL 3 3 4 1 8

D e a r D r . Kiedis:

I a m writing t o i n d i c a t e t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e A B H E ' s P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e f o r y o u r d i s s e r t a t i o n p r o j e c t at S o u t h e r n B a p t i s t T h e o l o g i c a l S e m i n a r y . T h e C o m m i t t e e believes t h a t t h e results o f y o u r r e s e a r c h will p r o v i d e valuable i n f o r m a t i o n regarding t h e association and its s e r v i c e t o its a f f i l i a t e , a p p l i c a n t , and m e m b e r i n s t i t u t i o n s .

T h e P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e e n c o u r a g e s m e m b e r i n s t i t u t i o n s t o p a r t i c i p a t e in y o u r research so t h a t y o u h a v e t h e best r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f data. As I understand t h e p u r p o s e o f y o u r r e s e a r c h , y o u are a t t e m p t i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n s t i t u t i o n a l leadership d e v e l o p m e n t m o d e l s and select o u t c o m e s assessment criteria: e m p l o y m e n t , leadership e f f e c t i v e n e s s , s a t i s f a c t i o n , and t e n u r e . Y o u are e x a m i n i n g models a m o n g i n s t i t u t i o n s accredited by A T S and T R A C S as well as A B H E .

I am c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e A B H E m e m b e r i n s t i t u t i o n s will find t h e results o f y o u r research to be v e r y h e l p f u l . It is my i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e r e is a growing e m p h a s i s on leadership d e v e l o p m e n t a m o n g t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t are accredited by A B H E . I am r e a s o n a b l y sure t h a t a similar e m p h a s i s will be f o u n d a m o n g A T S and T R A C S m e m b e r s as well. We, of course, work with a n u m b e r o f i n s t i t u t i o n s w h o hold a c c r e d i t a t i o n w i t h A B H E and o n e of t h e s e o t h e r agencies.

I e n c o u r a g e A B H E m e m b e r i n s t i t u t i o n s t o p a r t i c i p a t e in y o u r research. Please be assured t h a t , if t h e y c o n t a c t m e regarding y o u r p r o j e c t , I will e n c o u r a g e t h e m t o supply y o u with t h e n a m e s and addresses o f t h e i r graduates so t h a t y o u will h a v e good research s a m p l e s essential t o t h e e f f e c t i v e c o m p l e t i o n o f y o u r p r o j e c t .

If I can be o f f u r t h e r assistance t o y o u , please do n o t h e s i t a t e t o c o n t a c t me.

Sincerely,

J. R. ( T o n y ) B u c h a n a n D i r e c t o r o f T r a i n i n g and P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t

The A s s o c i a t i o n of T h e o l o g i c a l Schools T h - C o m m i s s i o n o n ,V crediting

Dear C o l l e a g u e s in T h e o l o g i c a l E d u c a t i o n :

Three years ago, the A u b u r n C e n t e r conducted the first m a j o r study of g r a d u a t e s of A T S m e m b e r schools, f o c u s i n g on those w h o had b e e n out of seminary f o r five and ten years. T h e s e data, c o m b i n e d with A T S data, helped its understand m o r e a b o u t t e n u r e in ministry, attitudes about their work, and p e r c e p t i o n s a b o u t their s e m i n a r y education, t he results of that study were published as an issue of Auburn Studies last year (HOW ARE WE DOING? The Effectiveness of Theological Schools as Measured by the Vocations and Views of Graduates). T h i s study was possible because A T S s c h o o l s provided lists of graduates to A u b u r n for its survey.

Professor T o m m y K e i d i s at K n o x S e m i n a r y is u n d e r t a k i n g a s t u d y of p e r s o n s w h o graduated from Evangelical s e m i n a r i e s in 2 0 0 4 . His study will d i f f e r in significant w a y s f r o m the Auburn study and will e n h a n c e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Evangelical s e m i n a r y graduates, i n c l u d i n g their current w o r k . In addition. P r o f e s s o r K e i d i s ' study will provide useful i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t leadership style and the relationship b e t w e e n l e a d e r s h i p and s e m i n a r y e d u c a t i o n .

Both Charles Willard. p r e v i o u s A T S Director o f Accreditation a n d Institutional Evaluation, and I hav e consulted with T o m m y , and w e think that this project h a s significant potential for understanding aspects of E v a n g e l i c a l theological education that have not b e e n studied a great deal. I want to e x p r e s s m y e n d o r s e m e n t of this project, and hope that you can help.

Sincerely.

Daniel O. A l e s h i r e

APPENDIX 15

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

The researcher provided the following invitation paragraph for institutions that

were interested in facilitating the online survey themselves.

Subject Line: Share Your Thoughts - Receive a Gift Card for Coffee

With the permission of Apex School of Theology, I am writing to see if you would be willing to complete a brief survey. YOU WILL BE OFFERED YOUR CHOICE OF A FREE $5.00 GIFT CARD FROM EITHER DUNKIN DONUTS OR STARBUCKS at the conclusion of the survey as an expression of thanks for your participation.

I serve as the Associate Professor of Leadership Development at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. I am conducting Ph.D. research through the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. The purpose of this survey is to gather your perceptions as to employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure in ministry. All information gathered from this survey is CONFIDENTIAL and will be reported ANONYMOUSLY. The data, as reported, will not be attributed to any individual. Your privacy will be fully protected. You may withdraw from participating in the survey at any time.

The survey is comprised of about 50 questions and will take about twenty minutes to complete. If you would like to participate in this research, please click the link below.

Thank you for your help.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=LTJ4ujjNXWHkA_2fr2RWm6nQ_3d_3d

273

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=LTJ4ujjNXWHkA_2fr2RWm6nQ_3d_3d

APPENDIX 16

EMAIL INVITATION LETTER

The researcher provided the following invitation paragraph for graduates

through Survey Monkey.

Dear [FirstName],

With the permission of , I am writing to see if you would be willing to complete a brief survey. YOU WILL BE OFFERED YOUR CHOICE OF A FREE $5.00 GIFT CARD FROM EITHER DUNKIN DONUTS OR STARBUCKS at the conclusion of the survey as an expression of thanks for your participation,

The purpose of this survey is to gather your perceptions as to employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure in ministry. All information gathered from this survey is CONFIDENTIAL and will be reported ANONYMOUSLY. The data, as reported, will not be attributed to any individual. Your privacy will be fully protected. You may withdraw from participating in the survey at any time.

The survey is comprised of 48 questions and will take about twenty minutes to complete. If you would like to participate in this research, please click the link below. Thanks for your help.

Here is a link to the survey: [SurveyLink]

This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message. If you know other 2004 seminary graduates who might be willing to participate in this project, please ask them to send an email to Tommy Kiedis at [email protected].

Tommy Kiedis, D.Min., Ph.D. (cand) Associate Professor of Leadership Development Knox Theological Seminary 5554 North Federal Highway

274

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX 17

U.S. MAIL INVITATION LETTER

The following letter was sent to graduates for whom there was no email

address.

275

276

D e c e m b e r 16, 2 0 0 8

Dear Southern Seminary Graduate,

With the permission of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, I am writing to see if you would be willing to complete a brief survey. Y O U W I L L B E O F F E R E D Y O U R C H O I C E O F A F R E E $5.00 G I F T C A R D F R O M E I T H E R D U N K I N D O N U T S OR S T A R B U C K S at the conclusion of the survey as an expression of thanks for y o u r participation,

The purpose of this survey is t o gather y o u r perceptions as to employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction and tenure in ministry. All information gathered f r o m this survey is C O N F I D E N T I A L and will be reported A N O N Y M O U S L Y . The data, as reported, will not be attributed to any individual. Your privacy will be fully protected. You may withdraw f r o m participating in the survey at any time.

The survey is comprised of 48 questions and will take about twenty minutes to complete. There are t w o ways to complete this survey:

1. You may complete the enclosed paper copy of the survey and return it in the self- addressed, stamped envelope, which I h a v e provided.

2. You may complete the survey online by going to Knox Theological Seminary website ( w w w . k n o x s e m i n a r y . e d u ) . Once there simply click on "Leadership Development Model Survey" under " L i n k s " on the right-hand side of the homepage.

If y o u w a n t m o r e information on this research project, please see the enclosed Research Project Overview. Thank you f o r y o u r help.

T o m m y Kiedis, D.Min., Ph.D. (Candidate) Associate Professor of Leadership Development Knox Theological Seminary 5554 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 561-994-5000, x305 [email protected]

http://www.knoxseminary.edu

mailto:[email protected]

REFERENCE LIST

Adams, J. Stacy. 1963. Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 67: 422-36.

. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social psychology, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, 2: 267-99. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. 1974. A religious history of the American people. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Aleshire, Daniel, Executive Director. 2008. Association of Theological Schools, Pittsburgh, PA. Interview by author, 10 September, Boca Raton, FL.

Aleshire, Daniel O. 1990. ATS profiles of ministry project. In Clergy assessment and career development, ed. Richard A. Hunt, John E. Hinkle, Jr., and H. Newton Malony, 97-103. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Anderson, Garry. 1998. Fundamentals of educational research. 2nd ed. Falmer Press Teacher's Library Series. Philadelphia, PA: RoutledgeFalmer.

Anderson, Kristin M. 2007. A case narrative of Bethel Seminary's InMinistry program. Theological Education 42 (2): 67-78.

Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krawthwohl, Peter W. Airasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, eds. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Abridged ed. New York, NY: Longman.

Anderson, Neil Thomas. 1982. The perceptions of pastoral leader behavior and its correlation with the moral of the associate staff in the Southwest Baptist General Conference. Ed.D. diss., Pepperdine University.

Anthony, Michael J., ed. 2001. Evangelical dictionary of Christian education. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Ascough, Richard S. 2002. Designing for online distance education: Putting pedagogy before technology. Teaching Theology and Religion 5 (1): 17-29.

Ashbrook, J. B. 1962. Evaluating seminary students as potential ministers. M.A. thesis, Ohio State University.

. 1967. Ministerial leadership in church organization. Ministry Studies. 1(1).

Ashford, Bruce, Dean of the College. 2009. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC. Interview by author, 22 January, Boca Raton, FL.

277

278

Atkinson, Harley T., and Fred R. Wilson. 1991. Career development cycles and job satisfaction of youth pastors in the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Christian Education Journal 11 (2): 39-50.

Aukerman, John H. 1991. Competencies needed for effective ministry by beginning pastors in church of God congregations in the United States. Ed.D. diss., Ball State University.

Banks, Robert. 1999. Reenvisioning theological education: Exploring a missional alternative to current models. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Banks, Robert J., and Bernice M. Ledbetter. 2004. Reviewing leadership: A Christian evaluation of current approaches. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Barker, Lance R., and B. Edmon Martin. 2000. Alternatives in theological education: An examination of the characteristics and outcomes of denominational judicatory study programs which prepare persons for commissioned, licensed, ordained or otherwise authorized ministries. New Brighton, MN: United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities.

. eds. 2004. Multiple paths to ministry: New models for theological education. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press.

Barlow, Brian Jerrel. 1997. A study of perceptions of determinative factors in the placement in ministry of selected Louisiana Southern Baptist pastors and other church staff. Ed.D. diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Barna, George. 1993. Today's pastors: A revealing look at what pastors are saying about themselves, their peers and the pressures they face. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.

. ed. 1997. Leaders on leadership: Wisdom, advice, and encouragement on the art of leading God's people. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.

Barnett, David Charles. 2003. A comparative analysis of critical competencies of the assessment of ministry effectiveness. Ed.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Baxter, Richard. 2007. The reformed pastor. 5th ed. Whitefish, MT: Kessenger Publications. [Orig. pub. 1655, 5th ed. orig. pub. 1829]

Bebbington, David. 1989. Evangelicalism in modern Britain: A history from the 1730s to the 1980s. London: Unwin Hyman. Quoted in Mark Noll, The scandal of the evangelical mind (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994).

Beck, John Harold. 1997. The effects of the number of roles, the time spent in different roles, and selected demographic variables on burnout and job satisfaction among Iowa Lutheran clergy. Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa.

Beekmann, Darold H. 1993. Leadership for pastoral development. Word and World 13

279

Belcher, Gregory David. 2002. The relationship of mentoring to ministerial effectiveness among pastors of the Southern Baptist Convention. Ed.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Belenky, Mary Field, and Ann V. Stanton. 2000. Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In Learning as transformation, ed. Jack Mezirow, 71-102. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bell, Randy, Associate Director. 2008. Association for Biblical Higher Education, Orlando, FL. Interview by author, 29 September, Boca Raton, FL.

Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1991. The good society. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf

Benne, Robert. 2001. Quality with soul. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Bennis, Warren, and Bert Nanus. 1986. Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Bethel Theological Seminary. Catalog, www.seminary.bethel.edu[2009]

Biles, Deron, Dean of Extension Education. 2009. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, TX. Interview by author, 24 February, Boca Raton, FL.

Bivins, Dallas Calhoun, III. 2005. A study between the correlation between servant leadership and ministry satisfaction in church leaders in Alaska. Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Blizzard, S. W. 1956. The minister's dilemma The Christian Century (April 25): 508-50.

Bloom, Alan. 1987. The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Bloomer, Thomas A. 1999. Formative educational experiences of leaders as factors influencing innovation in organizations. Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Boersma, Michael Jon. 1994. The relationship between mentoring and ministry satisfaction among early career Protestant clergy.

Boersma, Stephen A. 1988. Managerial competencies for church administration as perceived by seminary faculties, church lay leaders, and ministers. Ph.D. diss., Oregon State University.

Bolt, James F. 1996. Developing Three-Dimensional Leaders. In The leader of the future, ed. Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith and Richard Beckhard, 161-73. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bonk, Curtis J., and Charles R. Graham. 2005. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

280

Boos, Merel W. 1985. A new face of town and country and its challenge for the church. Word and World 5 (Winter): 43-48.

Boyatzis, Richard E., Scott S. Cowen, David A. Kolb, and Associates. 1995. Innovation in professional education: steps on a journey from teaching to learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Boyce, James Petigru. n.d. Abstract of systematic theology. Reprint ed. Pompano Beach, FL: Christian Gospel Foundation. (Orig. pub. 1887).

Brannagan, Timothy M. 1997. The relationship between mentoring and ministry satisfaction among early career interdenominational faith missionaries. Ed.D. diss., Talbot School of Theology.

Brayfield, Arthur H., and Harold F. Rothe. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 35 (October): 307-11.

Bredfeldt, Gary J. 2006. Great leader, great teacher: Recovering the biblical vision for leadership. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

Brekke, Milo L., Merton P. Strommen, and Dorothy L. Williams. 1979. Ten faces of ministry: Perspectives on pastoral and congregational effectiveness based on a survey of5000 Lutherans. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press.

Brown, William Adams. 1922. The church in America: A study of the present condition and future prospects of American Protestantism. New York, NY: The MacMillian Company.

. 1926. A century of theological education and after. The Journal of Religion 6 (4): 363-83.

. 1934. The education of American ministers. Vol. 1, Ministerial education in America. New York, NY: Institute of social and Religious Research.

Browning, Don S., ed. 1983. Practical theology: The emerging field in theology, church, and world. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row Publishers.

Browning, Don S., David Polk, and Ian S. Evison, eds. 1989. The education of the practical theologian: Responses to Joseph Hough and John Cobb's Christian identity and theological education. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Brubacher, John Seiler, and Willis Rudy. 1968. Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities, 1636-1968. Rev. ed. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Buckingham, Marcus, and Curt Coffman. 1999. First, break all the rules. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Buckingham, Marcus, and Donald O. Clifton. 2001. Now discover your strengths. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Bunn, Timothy Paul Eugene. 1998. A study of the difference between senior pastors and laity perceptions of senior pastoral effectiveness. Ph.D. diss., University of Idaho.

281

Burgess, William Harold. 2001. Models of religious education: Theory and practice in historical and contemporary perspective. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Burhalter, Betty B. 1996. How can institutions of higher education achieve quality within a new economy? Total Quality Management 7 (2): 153-60.

Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers.

Burns, Robert W., and Ronald M. Cervero. 2002. How pastors learn the politics of ministry practice. Religious Education 97 (4): 304-21.

Buros Institute, http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/search.jsp

Butler, D. Martin. 1994. Effective pastoral leadership: A study of ministers within the Church of the Nazarene. Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri—Kansas City.

Buzzell, Sid S. 1983. Preparation for church leadership: trends in student's leadership orientation after one year in Dallas Theological Seminary. Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University.

Byrne, Herbert W. 1977. A Christian approach to education: Educational theory and application. 2nd ed. Milford, MI: Mott Media.

Calian, Carnegie Samuel. 2002. The ideal seminary: Pursuing excellence in theological education. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Callahan, Kennon L. 2002. The future that has come: The possibilities for reaching and growing the grassroots. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

. 1990. Effective church leadership: Building on the twelve keys. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Callahan, Sharon Henderson. 1996. A Delphi study of the competencies needed by leaders of Roman Catholic faith communities in western Washington through the year 2000 (Leadership). Ed.D. diss., Seattle University.

Canadian Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. 2008. Catalog 2008.

Cannell, Linda. 1999. A review of the literature on distance education. Theological Education 36 (1): 1-70.

Cardoza, Frederick II. 2005. Perceptions of ministerial effectiveness by leaders of urban churches in the Southern Baptist Convention. Ed.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Carr, Jane Lisa. 2000. An investigation into job satisfaction among female and male Protestant children's ministry professionals. Ph.D. diss., Biola University.

Carroll, Jackson W., Barbara Wheeler, Daniel Aleshire, and Penny Long Masler. 1997. Being there: Culture and formation in two theological schools. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/search.jsp

282

Caswell, Hollis, and Doak Campbell. 1935. Curriculum development. New York, NY: American Book Company.

Chang, Patricia M. Y. 2004. Assessing the clergy supply in the 21st century. In Pulpit and Pew Research in Pastoral Leadership. Duke Divinity School.

Chronicle of Higher Education. 2008. IT on the campuses: What the future holds. 54 (30): B6-9.

Clark, Kenneth, and Miriam Clark. 1990. Measures of leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Coalter, Milton J., John M. Mulder, Louis B. Weeks, ed. 1992. The pluralistic vision: Presbyterians and mainstream protestant education and leadership. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Coggins, James David. 2004. A comparative analysis of leadership competencies and characteristics for vocational ministry leaders as identified by ministry professionals. Ed.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Coleman, J.S. 1976. Difference between experiential and classroom learning. In Experiential learning, eds. Morris T. Keeton and Associates, 49-61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Collins, Jim. 2001. Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don't. New York, NY: Harper Business.

Congo, Curtis Larry. 1986. A study of job factors as satisfiers and dissatisfiers of members of the national association of directors of Christian education. Ed.D. diss., Oregon State University.

Cook, Carey W. 2002. Leadership development in a higher education institution: A case study of students in a leadership development program and the effect of their leadership styles on their leadership. Ph.D. diss., University of Idaho.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation. 2002. Accreditation and assuring quality in distance learning. CHE A Monograph Series 2002, No. 1. Washington DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation. The fundamentals of accreditation: What do you need to know? http://www.chea.org/public_info/index.asp (accessed September 12, 2007).

Covey, Stephen R. 1996. Three roles of the leader in the new paradigm. In The leader of the future, ed. Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith and Richard Beckhard, 161- 73. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Creswell, John W. 1998. Qualitative inquire and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

http://www.chea.org/public_info/index.asp

283

Cross, Patricia. 1987. Adults as learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cunningham, David S., ed. 2004. To teach, to delight, and to move: Theological education in a post-Christian world. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

Dale, Robert D. 1986. Pastoral leadership. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Damazio, Frank. 1988. The making of a leader. Portland, OR: BT Publishing.

Daniel, William Andrew. 1925. The education of Negro ministers. New York, NY: J. & J. Harper Editions.

Davis, Brent, and Dennis J. Sumara. 1997. Cognition, complexity and teacher education. Harvard Educational Review 67 (1): 105-25.

Day, Heather F. 1985. Protestant theological education in America. ATLA Bibliography Series, No. 15. Metuchen, N.J. & London: The American Theological Library Association and The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Dearborn, Tim. 1996. Preparing new leaders for the church of the future: Transforming theological education through multi-institutional partnerships. In Transformation (December 1996).

Deegan, Arthur X. 1969. The priest as a manager. New York, NY: Bruce Publishing Co.

Delamarter, Steve. 2004. A typology of the use of technology in theological education. Teaching Theology and Religion 7 (3): 134-140.

. 2005. Theological educators, technology and the path ahead. Teaching Theology and Religion 8 (1): 51-55.

. 2005. A new tool or a new way of doing theological education? Theological Education 41 (1): 105-116.

Delamarter, Steve, and Daniel L. Brunner. 2005. Theological education and hybrid models of distance learning. Theological Education 40 (2): 145-64.

Demuth, Carol Mae. 1990. A profile of student leadership development in American doctoral higher education programs. Ed.D. diss., Oklahoma State University.

Diekema, Anthony J. 2000. Academic freedom and Christian scholarship. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Dittes, James E. 1962. Research on clergymen: Factors influencing decisions for religious service and effectiveness in the vocation. Religious Education (57): S141-S165.

Dobbins, Gaines Stanley. 1968. Learning to Lead. Nashville, TN: The Baptist Sunday School Board.

Dockery, David S., and Gregory Allen Thornbury. 2002. Shaping a Christian worldview: The foundation of Christian higher education. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

284

Dodds, Agnes E., Jeanette A. Lawrence, and Patrick de C. Guiton. 1981. Distance university students' perceptions of the influences on their studies. Unpublished report.

Douglas, William P. 1957. Predicting ministerial effectiveness. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.

Drake, Timothy Glenn. 2003. The impact of leadership development training experiences on the development of senior pastors' effectiveness as leaders of member churches in an American, evangelical denomination. Ph.D. diss., Regent University.

Driscoll, Mark. 2006. Confessions of a reformission Rev.: Hard lessons from an emerging missional church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Drucker, Peter F. 1993. Post-capitalist society. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Dukes, Jimmy, and Gregory W. Bourgond. 1999. Summaries of two experimental distance education programs. Theological Education 36 (1): 117-24.

Ebeling, Gerhard. 1978. The study of theology. Trans. Duane A. Priebe. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Eisner, Elliot W. 2002. The educational imagination. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Eliason, Leland, Executive Vice President and Provost. 2009. Bethel Seminary, St. Paul, MN. Interview by author, 13 February, Boca Raton, FL.

Ellington, Kevin T. 2004. Strategic church/seminary partnerships: An emerging paradigm of contextually-based theological education. Ph.D. diss., Regent University.

Ellis, Arthur K. 2004. Exemplars of curriculum theory. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

Elmer, Duane. 2006. Cross-cultural servanthood: Serving the world in Christlike humility. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Ennis, Leslie Sturdivant. 2002. Environmental factors in the development of a community of learning in doctoral level theological instruction. Ed.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Esa, Donald R. 1996. Issues in ministry effectiveness for the associate pastor. D.Min. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary.

Esterline, David V., and Ogbu U. Kalu. eds. 2006. Shaping beloved community: Multicultural theological education. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Farley, Edward. 1983. Theologia: The fragmentation and unity of theological education. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

.1988. The fragility of knowledge: Theological education in the church and the university. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

285

Farnsworth, Kirk E. 1985. Furthering the kingdom in psychology. In The making of a Christian mind: A Christian world view and the academic enterprise, ed. Arthur F. Holmes, 81-103. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Ferris, Robert Weston. 1982. The emphasis on leadership as servanthood: An analysis of curriculum commitments. Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University.

Fiorenza, F. S. 1988. Thinking theologically about theological education. Theological Education (2), 89-119.

Fitzgerald, Russell, Executive Director. 2008. TransNational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Forest, VA. Interview by author, 16 October, Boca Raton, FL.

Ford, Leroy. 2002. A curriculum design manual for theological education. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Fortune, Anne E., Mary McCarthy, and Julie S. Abramson. 1997. Student learning processes in field education: Relationship of learning activities to quality of field instruction, satisfaction and performance among MSW students. Organizational Dynamics 25 no. 4 (Spring): 59-72.

. 2001. Student learning processes in field education: Relationship of learning activities to quality of field instruction, satisfaction and performance among MSW students. Journal of Social Work Education 35: 111-119.

Foster, Charles R. 2007. Teaching and learning in the service of transformation. Change May/June: 38-42.

Foster, Charles R., Lisa Dahill, Larry Golemon, Barbara Wang Tolentino, Lee S. Schulman, and William M. Sullivan. 2006. Educating clergy: Teaching practices and pastoral imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fraenkel, Jack R., and Norman E. Wallen. 2003. How to design and evaluate research in education. 5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Frankena, William K. 1965. Philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Franklin, Robert Michael. 2001. Future directed trends in theological education. Theological Education 37 (2): 113-16.

Fraser, J.W. 1988. Schooling the preachers: The development of Protestant theological education in the U.S. 1740-1875. Lanham, MD: University Press of America

Frick, Don M., and Larry C. Spears. 1996. On becoming a servant leader: The private writings of Robert K. Greenleaf San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Frieson, Dwight, Assistant Professor of Practical Theology. 2009. Mars Hill Graduate School, Seattle, WA. Interview by author, 22 January, Boca Raton, FL.

Fulmer, Robert M. 1997. The evolving paradigm of leadership development. Organizational Dynamics 25 (4): 59-72.

286

Furlong, Kathy. 2008. Preparing for lifelong work and ministry. Christianity Today (February): S1-S21.

Gaebelein, Frank E. 1979. The pattern of God's truth. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Gaiser, Frederick G. 1993. To lead or to serve. Word & World 13 (1): 3-5.

Gall, Meredith D., Joyce P. Gall, and Walter R. Borg. 2007. Educational research: An introduction. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gambrell, Mary Latimer. 1937. Ministerial training in eighteenth-century New England. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Gangel, Kenneth O. 1970. Leadership for church education. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

. 1980. A theology of church leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

. 1991. Biblical theology of leadership. The Christian Journal 12 (1): 13-32.

. 1997. Team leadership in Christian ministry. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Gangel, Kenneth O., and Warren S. Benson. 1983. Christian education: It's history and philosophy. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Gardner, Howard. 1983. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. 10th ed. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, John W. 1990. On leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillian, Inc.

. 1995. The cry for leadership. In The leader's companion, ed. J. Thomas Wren, 3-7. New York, NY: The Free Press.

George Fox Evangelical Seminary. Catalog 2000-2001.

Gilpin, W. Clark. 1984. The seminary ideal in American protestant ministerial education, 1700-1808. Theological Education (Spring): 85-106.

Goodwin, Wayne, ed. Leadership in the 21st Century: Calling, character, competence and community [CD-ROM]. Charlotte, NC: Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Center for the Development of Evangelical Leadership, 2001.

Graham, Billy. 1997. Just as I am: The autobiography of Billy Graham. New York, NY: Harper San Francisco.

Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. Catalog. www.grts.cornerstone.edu[2009]

Greenleaf, Robert K., Peter B. Vaill, and Larry C. Spears. 1998. The power of servant leadership. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Greenway, Adam, Assistant Professor of Evangelism and Applied Apologetics. 2009. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY. Interview by author, 14 January, Boca Raton, FL.

287

Groeling, Jeff, and Lester Ruth. 2007. The times, they are a-changin': How a training seminar for online education changed a seminary one faculty member at a time. Theological Education 42 (2): 57-66.

Groome, Thomas H. 1980. Christian religious education: Sharing our story and vision. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

. 1989. A religious educator's response. In The education of the practical theologian, eds. Don S. Browning, David Polk and Ian S. Evison, 77-91. Atlanta, GA: Scholar's Press.

Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Guion, Robert M. 1965. Personnel testing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Guns, Geoffrey V. 2000. Spiritual leadership: A guide to developing spiritual leaders in the church. Lithonia, GA: Orman Press, Inc.

Gustafson, James M. 1988. Reflections on the literature on theological education published between 1955 and 1985. Theological education (2): 9-82.

Habermas, Ron. 2001. Teaching for reconciliation: Foundations and practice of Christian education ministry. 10th anniversary edition. Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Haight, Emily S. 1980. Psychological criteria for the selection of ministerial candidates. Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University.

Hancock, Steve. 1992. Nurseries of piety? Spiritual formation at four Presbyterian seminaries. In The pluralistic vision: Presbyterians and mainstream protestant education and leadership, ed. Milton J. Coalter, John M. Mulder and Louis B. Weeks, 71-98. Lousiville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Harington, A. 1985. What the Bible says about leadership. Joplin, MO: College Press.

Harper, W. R. 1899. "Shall the theological curriculum be modified and h o w T American Journal of Theology 3 (1): 45-66.

Harris, Robert Laird, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. 1980. Aleph, Mem, Vol.1, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago, IL: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago.

Harrison, Patricia J. 2004. Forty years on: The evolution of theological education by extension (TEE). Evangelical Review of Theology 28 (4): 315-28.

Harrisville, R.A. 1987. Ministry in crisis: Changing perspective on ordination and the priesthood of all believers. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Harrod, Philip. 2006. A place somewhat apart: The private worlds of a late nineteenth- century public university. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.

288

Hartford Institute for Religion Research (2006). Fast Facts. Retrieved 11 July, 2007 from http://hirr.hartsem.edu.

Hass, G. 1987. Curriculum planning: A new approach. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hawkes, Mark. 1992. Facilitating educational restructuring: Apply lessons learned from the past. Education 113 (1): 96-101.

Henry, Douglas V., and Bob R. Agee, eds. 2003. Faithful learning and the Christian scholarly vocation. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Herman, R., and R. Heimovics. 1990. "An investigation of leadership skill difference in chief executives of nonprofit organizations." American review of public administration (22): 107-24.

Hersey, Paul, Kenneth H. Blanchard, and Dewey E. Johnson. 2000. Management of organizational behavior. 8th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Herzberg, Frederick, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. 1959. The motivation to work. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

. 2005. The motivation to work. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Higgins, B.S., and J.B. Dittes. 1968. Change in layman's expectations of the minister's roles. Ministry Studies (2): 5-23.

Hill, E. Wayne, Sheila Baillie, and Connor M. Walters. 1991. Determinants of employment satisfaction for pastoral counselors. The Journal of Pastoral Care 45 (1): 71-82.

Hinkle, John E., Jr., and Emily D. Haight. 1990. Issues and models in criterion development. In Clergy assessment and career development, eds. Richard A. Hunt, John E. Hinkle, Jr. and H. Newton Malony, 61-66. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Hodgson, Peter C. A. 1999. God's wisdom: Toward a theology of education. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Hoekema, Anthony A. 1994. Created in God's image. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hogue, David A. 1985. The measurement of job satisfaction for clergy. Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University.

. 1990. Development of an assessment instrument. In Clergy assessment and career development, eds. Richard A. Hunt, John E. Hinkle, Jr., and H. Newton Malony, 67-77. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Holmes, Arthur F., ed. 1985. The making of a Christian mind: A Christian world view and the academic enterprise. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

. 2001. Building the Christian academy. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://hirr.hartsem.edu

289

Holsti, Ole R. 1969. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hope, Barbara. 1987. Alternative models of field education. The Association for Field Education, Louisville, KY. Cassette.

Hopewell, David. 2004. Keys to becoming an effective associate minister and church leader. Lithonia, GA: Orman Press.

Hopewell, James F. 1987. Congregations: Stories and structures. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Hoppock, Robert. 1935. Job satisfaction. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

Hopwood, Barbara Jean. 1993. Faculty perceptions of pastoral competencies and the task of the seminary: A study of one theological school. Ed.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Hough, Joseph C. 1984. The education of practical theologians. Theological Education 20 (Spring): 55-84.

. 2001. Reading the signs. Theological Education 37 (2): 101-16.

Hough, Joseph, and Joseph Cobb. 1985. Christian identity and theological education. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Hudson, Frederic M. 1999. The adult years: Mastering the art of self-renewal. Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Huggins, Michael Lawrence. 2004. Lay ecclesial ministers in Roman Catholic parishes in the Archdiocese of Louisville: A study in the exercise of leadership (Kentucky). Ed.D. diss., Spalding University.

Hull, James R. 2005. The nature and status of leadership development in United States community colleges. Ph.D. diss., Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

Hull, William. 2001. Southern Baptist Higher education: Retrospect and prospect. Birmingham, AL: Samford University.

Hunt, Richard A., John E. Hinkle, and H. Newton Malony. 1990. Clergy assessment and career development. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Hunter, G.I. 1982. Supervision and education-formation for ministry. Cambridge, MA: Episcopal Divinity School.

Huntington, Marilynn Mabee. 1985. Working together: Power and authority in the relationship between senior and associate ministers in the United Methodist System. D.Min. diss., School of Theology at Claremont.

290

Hutchins, Robert M. 1995. The conflict in education. In Selected writings on philosophy and adult education. 2nd ed., ed. Sharan B. Merriam, 7-11. Malabar, FL; Krieger Publishing Company.

Hybels, Bill. 2002. Courageous leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Illich, Ivan. 1969. Celebration of awareness: A call for institutional revolution. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

. 1971. Deschooling society. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

. 1971. Education without school: How it can be done. In Farewell to schools, ed. Daniel U. Levine and Robert J. Havighurst, 35-58. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company.

Jacobsen, W. 1992. A case of mistaken ministerial identity. Leadership 13 (1): 92-95.

Jaeger, Werner Wilhelm. 1961. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Pres of Harvard University Press.

Jarausch, Konrad H., ed. 1983. The transformation of higher learning 1860-1930: Expansion, diversification, social opening, and professionalization in England, Germany, Russia, and the United States. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Javidan, M. 1992. "Managers or leaders: Developing a profile of effective leadership in top management." In K. Clark, M. Clark, and D. Campbell, (Eds.), Impact of Leadership, 47-58. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Jones, L. Gregory, and Stephanie Paulsell, eds. 2002. The scope of our art: The vocation of a theological teacher. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Kelly, Robert Lincoln. 1924. Theological education in America: A study of one hundred sixty-one theological schools in the United States and Canada. New York, NY: George H. Doran Company.

Kelsey, D.H. 1992. To understand God truly: What's theological about a theological school? Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

. 1993. Between Athens and Berlin: The theological education debate. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Kiemele, John S. 2002. An investigation of the relationship between quality of friendships and ministry satisfaction among vocational church ministry leadership teams from four Protestant evangelical denominations. Ph.D. diss., Biola University.

Kimball, Dan, Mark Driscoll, and Leith Anderson. 2006. Three kinds of leadership: For three different situations. Leadership Journal 27 (Spring): 33.

291

Kitagawa, Joseph Mitsuo, ed. 1992. Religious studies, theological studies and the university-divinity school (studies in theological education). Atlanta, GA: Scholar's Press.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. 1968. Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 6. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Klopfensein, D.E. 1991. A selected bibliography on Christian leading. The Christian Journal 12 (1): 33-54.

Knight, George R. 1998. Philosophy and education. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.

Knowles, Malcolm S. 1993. Contributions of Malcolm Knowles. In The Christian educator's handbook on adult education, ed. Kenneth O. Gangel and James C. Wilhoit, 91-103. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books/Scripture Press Publications.

Koenig, John. 1993. Hierarchy transfigured: Perspectives on leadership in the New Testament. Word & World 13 (1): 26-33.

Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 2003. The leadership challenge. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

. 2003. Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lawler, Edward E. 1994. Motivation in work organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass Publishers.

Lawrence, William D. 1987. Distinctives of Christian leadership. Bibleotheca Sacra 144, no. 575 (July): 317-29.

. 1992. A vision for personal and leadership development. Paper presented at the national Association of Professors of Theological Education Conference, Dallas.

Lawson, Kevin Ethan. 1992. Length of tenure and career change among directors of Christian education in American Baptist churches, United States of America (Baptist). Ed.D. diss., University of Maine.

. 2000. How to thrive in associate staff ministry. Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute.

. 2007. Christian Education: A field in motion. Christian Education Journal 4 (1): 49-61.

Layman, F.D. 1986. Contemporary issues in theological education. The Asbury Theological Journal 41 (1): 91-115.

292

Leadership Practices Inventory. The leadership practices inventory: Theory and evidence behind the five practices of exemplary leaders. The Leadership Challenge online. http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-131362.html (accessed March 23, 2008).

Lee, James Michael. 1971. The shape of religious instruction: A social science approach. Dayton, OH: Pflaum.

Lee, Jong Hwa. 2005. An analysis of the relationship between the senior pastor leadership style and the job satisfaction of associate pastors in churches in Korea. Ed.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Leedy, Paul D., and Jeanne Ellis Ormrod. 2001. Practical research: Planning and design. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Leith, John H. 1997. Crisis in the church: The plight of theological education. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Lenzer, Robert, and Stephen S. Johnson. 1997. Seeing things as they really are. Forbes 159 (March 10): 122-8.

Lewin, Kurt. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

Lindner, Eileen, ed. 2007. Yearbook of American and Canadian churches. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Lockerbie, Bruce. 1994. A passion for learning: The history of Christian thought on education. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Long, T.G. 1991. Liturgical storm clouds. Theology Today 48 (1): 1-5.

Lorentz, Robert L, Jo Ann C. Carland, and James W. Carland. 1993. Learning by doing in marketing research: An experiment in experiential learning. College Student Journal 27 (3): 284-7.

Lumsden, Barry D., Abby A., Stephen D. Lowe, and Ron W. Newsome. 1999. Theological education via distance learning. Part one: participants and program strengths. Christian Education Journal 3 (1): 109-17.

MacArthur, J.F. 1989. Church leadership. Chicago, IL: Moody.

MacMillan, Pat. 2001. The performance factor: Unlocking the secrets of teamwork. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman.

Majovski, Laura F. 1982. The role of psychological assessment in ministerial selection. Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary.

. 1983. Ministerial Effectiveness Inventory from unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.

Majovski, Laura F., and H. Newton Malony. 1990. Predicting ministerial effectiveness. In Clergy assessment and career development, ed. Richard A. Hunt, John E. Hinkle, and H. Newton Malony, 86-89. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-131362.html

293

Malcolm, Lois. 2002. Teaching as cultivating wisdom for a complex world. In The scope of our art: The vocation of the theological teacher, ed. L. Gregory Jones and Stephanie Paulsell, 135-54. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Malony, H. Newton. 1976. Current research on performance effectiveness among religious leaders. In Research in mental health and religious behavior, ed. J. Donaldson, Jr., 242-61. Atlanta, GA: Psychological Studies Institute.

Malony, H. Newton, and Laura Fogwell Majovski. 1986. The role of psychological assessment in predicting ministerial effectiveness. Review of Religious Research 28 (1): 29-39.

Marsden, George M. 1994. The soul of the American university. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Marshall, T. 1991. Understanding leadership: Fresh perspectives on the essentials of New Testament leadership. Lynnwood, WA: Emerald.

Marty, Martin. 1962. Seminary enrollments 1962. The Christian Century (Nov. 7): 66-69.

May, Mark A. 1934. The profession of the ministry: Its status and problems. Vol. 2, The education of American ministers. New York, NY: Institute of Social and Religious Research.

McCloy, Frank Dixon. 1962. The history of theological education in America. Church History 31 (4): 449-53.

McDuff, Elaine M. 2001. The gender paradox in work satisfaction in the protestant clergy. Sociology of Religion 62 (1): 1-21.

Mclntyre, Alisdair. 1981. After virture. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

McKenzie, Leon. 1995. Adult education and worldview construction. In Selected writings on philosophy and adult education. 2nd ed., ed. Sharan B. Merriam, 93-108. Malabar, FL; Krieger Publishing Company.

McNeal, Reggie. 1998. Revolution in leadership: Training apostles for tomorrow's church. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

. 1999. Getting real: What does authentic leadership look like and why it is important. NEXT 5 (4): 1-2.

McNichols, Charles W., Michael J. Stahl, and T. Roger Manley. 1978. A validation of Hoppock's job satisfaction measure. The Academy of Management Journal 21 (4): 737-42.

McNutt, W. Buswell, Chief Operating Officer. 2009. Interview by author, 15 January, Boca Raton, FL. Knox Theological Seminary, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

Medved, James A. 1982. The applicability of Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory. Educational Leadership 39 (7): 555.

294

Meinzer, Chris A., and Nancy Merrill, eds. 2003. Fact book on theological education, 2002-2003. Pittsburgh, PA: Assocation of Theological Schools.

Merriam, Sharan B. 2001. The new update on adult learning theory: New directions for adult and continuing education (J-B ACE Single Issue).

Messer, Donald E. 1995. Calling church and seminary into the 21s' Century. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Mezirow, Jack. 1990. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipator learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

. 1994. Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly 44 (4): 222-32.

. 2000. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Michael, Haile Wolde. 1993. A comparative study of leadership development methods with reference to the Ethiopian Full-Gospel Church. D.Miss. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, School of World Mission.

Mid-America Reformed Seminary. Catalog 2008-2010.

Middelmann, Udo. Creativity and the value of work. The Highway. Retrieved 12 December 2007 from http://www.the-highway.com.

Miller, Glenn T. 1990. Piety and intellect: The aims and purposes of ante-bellum theological education. Studies in Theological Education. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Miller, Glenn, and Robert Lynn. 1988. Christian theological education. In Encyclopedia of the American religious experience: Studies of traditions and movements, eds. Charles H. Lippy and Peter W. Williams, New York, NY: Scribner.

Miller, John P., and Wayne Seller. 1985. Curriculum perspectives and practice. New York, NY: Longman.

Morgan, Timothy C. 1994. Re-engineering the seminary. Christianity Today 38 (12): 74- 78.

Morris, Van Cleve, and Young Pai. 1976. Philosophy and the American School: An introduction to the philosophy of education. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Mouw, Richard J. Theological education and the larger culture. Theological Education 37 (2): 107-13.

Mud Flower Collective. 1985. God's fierce whimsy: Christian feminism and theological education. New York, NY: Pilgrim Press.

http://www.the-highway.com

295

Mulder, John M., and Lee A. Wyatt. 1992. The predicament of pluralism: The study of theology in Presbyterian seminaries since the 1920s. In The pluralistic vision: Presbyterians and mainstream protestant education and leadership, ed. Milton J. Coalter, John M. Mulder and Louis B. Weeks, 37-70. Lousiville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Nauss, Allen H. 1972. Problems in measuring ministerial effectiveness. Journal for the scientific Study of Religion 11 (2): 141-51.

. 1983. Seven profiles of effective ministers. Review of Religious Research 24 (4): 334-46.

. 1994. Ministerial effectiveness in ten functions. Review of Religious Research 36 (1): 58-69.

. 1996. Assessing Ministerial Effectiveness: A review of measures and their use. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 11 (2): 221-51.

. 1997. Stereoscopic vision: A projected goal for seminary personality assessment with recommendations for action. Unpublished paper.

. 1999. The Vicar Evaluation Inventory: validity, reliability and norms. Unpublished paper.

. 2001. A case for using the Vicar Evaluation Inventory as a measure of ministerial performance. Unpublished paper.

. 2003. The form F revision of the Vicar Evaluation Inventory. Unpublished paper.

. 2007. Using your brain in ministry: Neural bases of five effectiveness factors. Unpublished paper.

Nelson, Alan. E. 1994. Leadership training of ministerial students in evangelical institutions of higher education. Ed.D. diss., University of San Diego.

Nelson, W.R. 1988. Ministry formation for effective leadership. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Neuhaus, Richard John. 1992. Freedom for ministry. Rev. ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Newell, Edward J. 2006. Education has nothing to do with theology: James Michael Lee's social science religious instruction. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 61. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

Niebuhr, H. R. 1956. The purpose of the church and its ministry: Reflections on the aims of theological education. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers.

Niebuhr, H. Richard, and Daniel Day Williams, eds. 1956. The ministry in historical perspectives. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers Publishing.

296

Niebuhr, H. Richard, Daniel Day Williams, and James M. Gustafson. 1957. The advancement of theological education: The summary report of a mid-century study. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers Publishing.

No Significant Difference Phenomen. http://www.nosignificantdifference.org (accessed April 5, 2008).

Noll, Mark A. 1985. Christian world views and some lessons of history. In The making of a Christian mind: A Christian world view and the academic enterprise, ed. Arthur F. Holmes, 29-54. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

. 1994. Scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Nott, P. 1986. Towards a theology of leadership. The Expository Times 97 (5): 138-142.

Oakley, Ed, and Doug Krug. 1991. Enlightened leadership. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Oden, Thomas C. 1984. Care of souls in the classic tradition. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

. 1995. Requiem: A lament in three movements. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Oswald, Roy. 1993. Finding leaders for tomorrow's churches: The growing crisis in clergy recruitment. Washington, D.C.: Alban Institute.

Palmer, Michael, Dean. 2009. Regent University School of Divinity, Virginia Beach, VA. Interview by author, 15 January, Boca Raton, FL.

Paver, John E. 2006. Theological reflection and education for ministry: The search for integration in theology. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Pazmino, Robert W. 1997. Foundational issues in Christian education. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

. 2001. God our teacher: Theological basics in Christian education. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Peak, James Franklin. 1996. A qualitative study of a ministerial leadership development program. Ph.D. diss., Virginia Commonwealth University.

Pearcey, Nancy. 2004. Total truth: Liberating Christianity from Its cultural captivity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Pipa, Joseph A. Jr. 2001. Seminary Education. The Chalcedon Report. August, 2001. http://www.gpts.edu/resources/resource_seminary.html (accessed December 28, 2007).

Poole, S. 1965. Seminary in crisis. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.

http://www.nosignificantdifference.org

http://www.gpts.edu/resources/resource_seminary.html

297

Price, J. Matthew. 2002. After the revolution: A review of mainline Protestant clergy leadership literature since the 1960s. Theology Today 59 (2002): 428-450.

Pritchard, G.A. 1995. Willow Creek seeker services. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Purcell, Larry Joe. 2001. A comparative analysis of a congregation's perception and a pastor's perception of ministerial leadership. Ed.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Quinn, Robert E. 1996. Deep change: discovering the leader within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Radcliffe, Robert J. 1998. Effective Ministry as an associate pastor: making beautiful music as a ministry team. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Ramsey, Duane. 1982. Our call to set-apart ministry. Brethren Life and Thought 27 (September): 101-105.

Reed, J. 1992. Church-based theological education: Creating a new paradigm. Paper presented at the North American Professors of Christian Education Conference, Dallas.

Reiland, Dan. 2002. A Fresh Look at the Role of "Number Two." The Pastor's Coach. 3 (15). Retrieved 26 June 2007 from http://www.injoy.com.

. 2002. "Called and Competent — 'Number Two. "' 3(16). Retrieved 26 June 2007 from http://www.injoy.com.

Rhodes, Lynn N., and Nancy D. Richardson. 1991. Mending severed connections. San Francisco, CA: Network Ministries.

Richards, Lawrence. 1980. Theology of Christian education. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Richards, Lawrence O., and Clyde Hoeldtke. 1980. Church leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Richards, Lawrence O., and Gary J. Bredfeldt. 1998. Creative Bible teaching. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Riley, Naomi Schaefer. 2005. God on the quad: how religious colleges and the missionary generation are changing America. Chicago, IL: IvanR. Dee.

Ringenberg, William. 2006. The Christian college: A history of protestant higher education in America. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Robinson, A.B. 1992. Authority and leadership in ministry. The Christian Century (May 20-27): 550-52.

Rogers, G. 1992. What is needed in theological education. Journal of Pastoral Care 46 (Spring): 53-56.

http://www.injoy.com

298

Root, Michael. 1985. Called to the office of ministry: the New Testament and today. Currents in Theology and Mission 12 June: 157-66.

Rost, Joseph. 1993. Leadership in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Ruppel, Margie. 2008. Blended learning: Tools for teaching and training. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34 (4): 372-3.

Sam, Francis Kwame. 1995. The formation, mentoring, and socialization of the associate pastor into the pastorate of the Roman Catholic Church. Ed.D. diss., Fordham University.

Schaeffer, Francis. 1974. No little people, no little places. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Schaffer, Robert H. 1953. Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction in work. Psychological Monographs 67 (14): 1-29.

Schaller, Lyle. 1980. The Multiple Staff and the Larger Church. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1811. A brief outline on the study of theology. Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox Press.

Schon, Donald A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schuller, David S., Merton P. Strommen, and Milo L. Breeke, eds. 1980. Ministry in America: A complete report and analysis, based on an in-depth survey of 47 denominations in the United States and Canada, with interpretation by 18 experts.

Schwehn, Mark R. 1993. Exiles from eden: Religion and the academic vocation in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Segler, F.M. 1987. Theological foundations for ministry. Southwestern Journal of Theology 29 (2): 5-17.

Seidman, Irving. 2006. Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Shaw, C.N. 1989. A philosophy of education for leadership development through theological studies. School of World Misions at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.

Shawchuck, Norman, and Roger Heuser. 1993. Leading the congregation: Caring for yourself while serving others. Nashvillle, TN: Abingdon Press.

Sheckley, Barry G., and Morris T. Keeton. 1997. Service Learning: A theoretical model. In Service learning: Ninety-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, ed. Joan Schine, 32-55. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Shelley, B.L. 1992. Evangelical seminaries and the large churches. Paper delivered at NAPCE, Dallas.

299

Sherman, Stratford. 1995. How tomorrow's leaders are learning their stuff. Fortune 132 (November 27): 64-72.

Shields, Harry, and Gary Bredfeldt. 2001. Caring for souls. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

Simpson, Mark Edward. 1992. A taxonomic profile analysis of cognitive educational objectives in theological education. Ed.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Sire, James W. 2004. The universe next door: A basic worldview catalog. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Smith, Gordon. 2002. Attending to the collective vocation. In The scope of our art: The vocation of the theological teacher, ed. L. Gregory Jones and Stephanie Paulsell, 135-54. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Smith, Page. 1989. Killing the spirit: Higher education in America. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. 2008. Catalog 2007-2008.

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. 2008. Catalog 2008-2009.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. 2008. Catalog 2006-2007.

Spender, Dale. 1982. Invisible women. The schooling scandal. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.

Stackhouse, Max. 1988.Apologia: Contextualization, globalization, and mission in theological education. Grand Rapids, MI: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Steckel, Clyde J. 1981. The ministry as profession and calling. Word and World 1 (4): 373-381.

Steele, D.A. 1986. Images of leadership and authority for the church. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Stemler, Steve (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved February 13, 2009 from http ://P AREonline.net/getvn. asp?v=7&n= 17.

Stogdill, Ralph M. 1974. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Stott, John R. 1985. What makes leadership. Christianity Today (August): 24-27.

Sweet, Leonard. 1999. Aqua church: Essential leadership arts for piloting your church in today's fluid culture. Loveland, CO: Group.

300

Swindoll, Charles R. 1978. Hand me another brick. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

. 1985. Leadership: Influence that inspires. Waco, TX: Word.

Tanner, Daniel, and Laurel Tanner. 1994. Curriculum development: Theory into practice. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Thiemann, R. F. 1987. The scholarly vocation: Its future challenges and threat. Theological Educator 24 (1): 123-29.

Thistlethwaite, Susan B., and George F. Cairns, eds. 1994. Beyond theological tourism: Mentoring as a grassroots approach to theological education. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.

Thoman, Richard Charles. 2001. A profile analysis of the perceived Situational Leadership II and servant leadership styles of senior associate pastors. Ed.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Thompson, Allen J. 1995. Church planter competencies as perceived by church planters and assessment center leaders: A protestant North American study. Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Thrall, Bill, Bruce McNicol, and Ken McElrath. 1999. The ascent of a leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Tichy, Noel M. 2002. The leadership engine. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Tierney, William G. 1999. Building a responsive campus: Creating high performance colleges and universities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Trammel, Madison. Retooling seminary: Northern Baptist's new strategy: to reach more students with less. Christianity Today 51 (9): 19-20.

Tucker, Eric J. 2006. Competencies of effective Hispanic church planters in Miami, Florida as perceived by reformed Hispanic church planters and pastors. Ph.D. diss., Trinity International University.

Tucker, G. L. 1985. A theological analysis of evaluation within Protestantism. Theological Education 22 (1): 49-70.

Turner, T. Christopher. 2001. Seminary practice and ministerial realities: A dichotomy that calls for change. Ph.D. diss., Washington State University.

Tyler, Ralph. 1969. Effective principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Paperback ed. (Orig. pub. 1949).

Volz. Carl A. 1990. Pastoral life and practice in the early church. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Vroom, Victor Harold. 1964. Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Wakefield, Gary A. 1983. An examination of the master's degree level Christian education preparation programs offered by selected seminaries and divinity schools. Ed.D. diss., West Virginia University.

301

Ward, Frances. 2005. Lifelong learning: Theological education and supervision. St. Albans Place, London, England: SCM Press.

Ward, Ted. 1996. Servants, leaders, and tyrants. In With an eye on the future: Development and mission in the 21s century, ed. Duane Elmer and Lois McKinney, 27-42. Monrovia, CA: MARC Publications.

Webber, G.W. 1973. Learning in context: The search for innovative patterns in theological education. Kent, England: The Theological Education Fund.

. 1968. Economy and society. (Ephraim Fischoff et al., trans.) Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, eds. New York, NY: Bedminster Press.

Weber, Robert Philip. 1990. Basic content analysis. 2nd ed. Sage University Paper Series, ed. Michael S. Lewis-Beck, no. 49. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Weems, L. 1993. Church leadership. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Weese, Carolyn. 1991. Eagles in tall steeples. Nashville, TN: Oliver-Nelson Books.

Weseman, Kenneth R. 1995. Predicting ministerial effectiveness. Ph.D. diss., Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Westing, Harold J. 1998. Multiple Church staff handbook. Rev. ed Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Wheeler, Barbara G. 1985. Program Evaluation: Some practical guidelines. Theological Education 22 (1): 93-118.

Wheeler, Barbara G., and Edward Farley, eds. 1991. Shifting Boundaries: Contextual approaches to the structure of theological education. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Whitehead, Alfred North. 1929. The aims of education and other essays. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

Wiggins, Rob, Dean of Student Development and Registrar. 2009. Western Seminary, Portland, OR. Interview by author, 16 January, Boca Raton, FL.

Wilhoit, James C., and John M. Dettoni, eds. 1995. Nurture that is Christian: Developmental perspectives on Christian education. Grand Rapids, NY: Baker Books.

Willard, Louis Charles. 2005. A response regarding ATS standard 10: Multiple locations and distance education. Theological Education 40 (2): 162-63.

Williams, Dennis E. Curriculum planning for evangelical churches. Denver: Published by the author.

302

Williamson, Margret F. 2001. An assessment of how age, the number of years in any extension program, and the commute distance impact the student services needs of nontraditional extension students on the north Georgia campus. Ph.D. diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Willimon, William H. 2000. Calling and character: Virtues of the ordained life. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Wilson, Frederic Rowland. 1983. The relationship of job satisfaction, demographic variables and motives for ministry of religious youth workers in a para-church organization. Ph.D. diss., Kansas State University.

. 1987. Professional ministry satisfaction in evangelical education agencies. Journal of Psychology and Theology 15 (2): 148-60.

Wood, Charles M. 1985. Vision and discernment: An orientation in theological study. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

. 1990. Theological education and education for church leadership. Quarterly Review 10(2): 65-81.

Wood, W. Jay. 1998. Epistemology: Becoming intellectually virtuous. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Woodruff, Timothy Rowland. 2004. Executive pastors' perception of leadership and management competencies needed for local church administration. Ed.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Woodward, Gordon Delayne. 1988. Two types of people-oriented leaders: An exploration of servant leadership in the church educational system using Gestalt therapy. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara.

Wright, David W. 1995. Choosing appropriate curricular models for Christian education. Christian Education Journal 15 (2): 25-39.

Wyant, R. M. 1906. Without the seminary. Semi-Centennial Celebration: Garrett Biblical Institute. Evanston, IL: Garrett Biblical Institute.

Yukl, G. 1989. Leadership in organizations. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

. 1990. Managerial practices survey. Albany, NY: Gary Yukl and Manu Associates.

Zenger, John H., and Joseph Folkman. 2002. The extraordinary leader: Turning good managers into great leaders. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ziegler, J. 1984. ATS through two decades: Reflections of theological education 1960- 1980. Worcester, MA: Hefferman.

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT MODELS IN POST-BACCALAUREATE

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

Thomas Lee Kiedis, Ph.D. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009 Chairperson: Dr. Gary J. Bredfeldt

This research study was concerned with higher education, leadership

development, and understanding and examining the training models that are employed to

prepare men and women for Christian ministry. The study combines qualitative and

quantitative research elements to examine the growing number of leadership development

training models in Christian higher education and consider their relationship to the

employment, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, and tenure of the graduates who were

developed as a result of them. The study attempts to broaden the research base related to

leadership development and to initiate a conversation in the research community

regarding possible relationships between leadership development training models used in

seminaries and select outcome criteria.

The research population for this study was five-year seminary graduates of

ministerial leadership degree programs of institutions accredited by ABHE, ATS, and

TRACS. The researcher established a taxonomic classification of leadership development

training models from precedent literature, document analysis of 57 institutions in the

research population, and interviews with select academic administrators. Study

participants completed an online survey that combined the Leadership Practices

Inventory (Kouzes and Posner) and the Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank, and other

questions related to employment and tenure.

From the self-reported data, possible relationships between the training model

categories and variables were examined ANOVA, Post-Hoc Tukey Tests, and

MANOVA. This research study sought to identify and examine leadership development