dissertation

256
9.3.4 What Is Emphasized in Regard to the Institutional Dimension?
The previous chapter ended by showing that in EMC thinking, a local missional church
would have to become a learning community (or learning organization): adaptive, creative,
experimenting, flexible, networked, and open to its contextual surroundings – in
short, “the antithesis of bureaucracy.” 211 Furthermore, foundational to such an institute
is a clear and widely shared vision and mission that is understood and supported by all.
One would expect that the institutes which train leaders for such communities would
strive to be such learning communities (or learning organizations) themselves. 212
It is revealing to discover that, in regard to Luther Seminary, at least, this is indeed
the case. 213 For one thing, the term mission has become “embedded in the consciousness
and imagination of most of the faculty.” 214 For another, one of their stated goals is outlined
as follows: “To accomplish our mission, we must become a responsive learning organization
[emphasis added] that actively and consistently anticipates the needs of the
church and the world, assesses our efforts to meet those needs, monitors change in the
church and society, and adapts and responds faithfully to what we learn about ourselves
and the world in light of our mission.” 215
Educating for missional leadership has two other consequences for theological institutes.
The first is that the “highly departmentalized structures of theological education” 216
are called into question. Again, Luther Seminary may serve as a representative example.
217 Historically, the academic organization at Luther Seminary was structured
around departments. Prior to the early 1990s, each department (Old Testament, New
Testament, Systematic Theology, etc.) functioned separately from the others. A shared
211
Peter Jarvis, “The Church and the Learning Society,” British Journal of Theological Education 14, no. 2
(2004), 146.
212
Cf. Banks, Reenvisioning Theological Education, 213-214.
213
It is not farfetched to assume that other seminaries that are in the process of adopting a ‘missional model’
of theological education strive to be a learning organization, just like Luther Seminary. As Clinton Lowin
found out, at least ten American graduate theological education institutions are evaluating how a ‘missional
model’ would alter the mission and ethos, pedagogical strategies, desired student outcomes, and programs
of their institutions. As a result, they are making “paradigm shifts in how their institutions are cultivating
leaders with the necessary competencies for congregational ministry.” Clinton William Lowin, “Assessment
of the Missional Model of Graduate Theological Education: A Case Study,” (EdD thesis, Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 3.
214
James L. Boyce and Richard W. Nysse, “Preparing Leaders for Mission: The Experience of Assessment at
Luther Seminary,” Theological Education 41, no. 2 (2006), 48. “Luther Seminary educates leaders for Christian
communities,” says the headline of its mission statement. This is followed by three specifications concerning
these leaders: they are called and sent by the Holy Spirit; to witness to salvation through Jesus
Christ; and to serve in God's world. http://www.luthersem.edu/about/our_mission.aspx?m=3382 (last accessed
November 5, 2011).
215
Cf. The Strategic Plan of Luther Seminary (2010-2011 Update), at Goal 5. http://www.luthersem.edu/
strategic_plan/pdfs/StrategicPlanFINAL.pdf (last accessed August 1, 2011).
216
Eddie Gibbs, ChurchNext: Quantum Changes in How We Do Ministry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000),
104-5.
217
Sheila Strobel Smith, “Serving the Promise of Our Mission: Leadership at Luther Seminary,” Journal of
Religious Leadership 4, nos. 1 and 2 (Spring/Fall 2005), 51-72.