An Open Letter to the GTS Board of Trustees
Be Servant Leaders
An Open Letter to the GTS Board of Trustees
William F. Hammond
San Diego
October 21, 2015
Mark 10:42-45
So Jesus called them and said to them,
“You know that among
the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord
it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over
them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to
become great among you must be your servant, and whoever
wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the
Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give
his life a ransom for many.”
It was a dark day in 1962 when I saw my long time friend, a
priest who had graduated from The General Theological
Seminary, fired from his post for daring to call out the
congregation on its racially segregated status. The
darkness was that of institutional power subverting the
Gospel in the name of the Church.
Fortunately I find most days in The Episcopal Church to be
days of light.
But a year ago October 1 was another dark day when the
New York Times published an article entitled
“Seeking Dean's Firing, Seminary Professors End Up
Jobless”.
An eight member majority of the Faculty had found that the
new Dean, far from being a servant leader, was making it
impossible for them to carry out their duties
conscientiously. The conflict was complicated because your
leaders had refused meaningful dialogue and had become a
party to the conflict.
The eight members of the Faculty had written a letter to
Bishop Sisk, then your Chair, beginning “We the majority of
the Faculty,” saying that the hostile authoritarian posture
of the Dean was making it impossible for them to continue
and listing the changes they thought essential for them to
be able to continue. In reply on behalf of the Board's
Executive Committee, Bishop Sisk sent individual letters to
the eight disingenuously dismissing them by “accepting
their resignations” apparently without bothering to check
whether individually any of them had intended to resign.
Several weeks later you ratified that decision with a
majority vote and then insensitively and dishonestly “made
it unanimous” with a second vote where nay voters were
pressured into abstaining.
Another priest friend, a teacher on the staff of a seminary,
said: “The Dean was mean, and the Board sacked the Faculty.”
My friend along with more than 900 seminary professors,
theological scholars, and academically-oriented preachers
signed a petition in protest of an inappropriate abuse of
institutional power by your leaders, who, with your
cooperation, had recently revised the Bylaws so as to make
the Seminary an earthly kingdom with the Dean as king.
A year after the event, it is clear, as many had predicted,
that dismissing eight of ten members of the Faculty was a
nearly fatal blow.
It is not insignificant that since the Dean arrived a dozen
members of the professional staff other than Faculty
members, including three librarians, have left the Seminary.
According to grapevine information, this fall there were only
14 students (though fewer than 14 full-time-equivalent
students) in the entering class. Of those only six are
seeking the M.Div., among whom four are postulants.1
The latest newsletter from the Seminary indicates that
giving in the past year, including giving by Board members,
has greatly declined relative to the previous year.
There was a suddenly scheduled “focused visit” last
December by an accreditation team from the Association of
Theological Schools (ATS), which identified a number of
issues: the broken state of the Faculty, confused
theological vision, questions about workplace ethics, and a
dysfunctional system of shared governance.
The Seminary faces a second focused visit from an ATS
accreditation team before the end of the current term. As
far as church observers from outside can see, there will
be little progress to report on the concerns raised in the
focused visit last year.
Last spring the Seminary submitted a canonically required
triennial report to General Convention. That report
neglected to mention the pending loss of a majority of the
Faculty. In response to the inadequate report and spurred
by complaints the 2015 meeting of General Convention passed
Resolution D075 ordering the formation of a committee to
review the relationship of The Episcopal Church with The
General Theological Seminary.
Those of you who were angered and outraged by what you
called the ultimatums of the Faculty were contributors to a
stifling authoritarianism that has choked the Seminary
nearly to death. That is not your calling nor the calling
of your leaders. You are called to serve.
I think you should take heroic efforts to preserve the
Close. That will take money. But that is far less
important than preserving the Community whose beating heart
is the Faculty. The Seminary could survive a move from the
Close, but it cannot survive without a strong core Faculty
of sufficient breadth. Rebuilding the core Faculty will be
difficult because of the reputation you presently have in
the community from which you will need to hire. You will
need to dispel that.
It is time for the Board to apologize to the Church.
It is time for new leadership.
It is time for the Board to restore a proper role for the
Faculty in the governance of the Seminary2 — not only because that will remove one of the
accreditation issues but also because leadership at the
Seminary can then more closely match the Kingdom standard of
servant leadership rather than the worldly standard of
authoritarian leadership.
It is time to separate the positions of Dean and President,
with the latter position focused primarily on fund raising
(and not operating from a different city).
It is time for the Board to reconsider its size. To the
extent that its present large size might have been established
in the 1990s toward the end of raising funds, it now seems that
end has not been met.
Finally, it is time for The Episcopal Church to find better
ways to help support the seminaries that are able to survive
and their students.
Footnotes
- * Previous
information given to me, which had been in an early draft, was
five entering M.Div. enrollees with one postulant.
- * For
example, by reverting the Bylaws to the end of the year
2006.