PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES TOWARD CLUSTERING
A Proposal to the Boards of Directors of
Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary
and Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary

August, 1993

Table of Contents: Mission Urgency and Church Mandate | Partnering with Local Initiatives | Other Initiatives | Governance | Implementation Schedule | Recommendations to the Boards of Directors of LNTS and PLTS

I. Mission Urgency and Church Mandate (TOC)

Since the formation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in 1988, our two seminaries have been paired for the exploration of cooperative possibilities. We have developed collegial administrative relationships, have shared Board and Executive Committee retreats, have received several grants jointly, have begun common planning for Continuing Education in Regions I, II and III and worked together in a variety of other ways. While our faculties have not met together formally, we have become better acquainted at a number of conferences in these five years, and have enjoyed working together on special projects like the editing of several of the Lutheran journals.

Despite historical differences, size disparity, and great distance of our two main campuses, we have discovered the joys and possibilities of working together in a time of limited resources and expanding need for services. We have found in each other not only a common and deep loyalty to our Lutheran heritage, but a sense of urgency for mission. While the concrete church situation varies from place to place in the vast territories that we serve, in every location the church is struggling to find its contemporary mission. This demands fresh vision and bold initiatives from our schools.

This sense of mission urgency is also reflected in proposals from the Task Force on Theological Education, through which the Division for Ministry challenges the eight ELCA seminaries to form clusters of schools which "will function corporately to provide basic theological education in their geographical areas, with programs and specializations deployed among the cluster member---."

In this statement of intention we wish to pledge our two seminaries to work together in the formation of such a cluster and to indicate some of the first steps that we intend to take together .n the years 1993-1999.

II. Partnering with Local Initiatives (TOC)

In all parts of our country local leaders are pressing to have resources for theological education locally available. Each of our seminaries has already responded to such requests, Luther North-western through its work with the program in Western North Dakota and Pacific Lutheran through its extension programs in Southern California.

A major goal of our cluster should be to strengthen and extend these cooperative ventures. This would include the following steps:

a). Sharing and expanding participation in the existing North Dakota and Southern California programs with the other institution.

b). Developing a third extension site in Western Washington, building on local Initiatives and on several exploratory meetings in which both schools have already participated. This should include development of several levels of theological education, Including the offering of initial MDiv courses for credit in a cooperative arrangement to be worked out by the two seminaries and local Lutheran institutions, with possible broader ecumencal participation.

c). Surveying the needs for theological education services in other parts of our three regions and developing a master plan for additional offerings and how they are to be funded.

d). Developing the technological capacity to link our two schools, the extension sites, and eventually other locations for a network for distance learning.

In every case the seminaries pledge themselves to work lkith local leadership so that programs may accurately respond to local needs and so that new resources may be generated that do not undercut the quality of the basic programs offered at the St. Paul and Berkeley campuses.

III. Other Initiatives (TOC)

The seminaries also pledge themselves in the first stage of this new clustering arrangement to:

a). continue developing a coordinated plan for continuing education for pastors in their first three years after seminary in cooperation with the synods in our three regions.

b). consult on joint faculty development, with special attention to areas that will need attention because of retirements and to our common goals of faculty diversification.

c). coordinate curriculum and academic policy matters in such a way that student transfer for a term or a year between our schools is easily available.

d). work cooperatively in recruiting and in sharing of standards for admission.

e). develop faculty exchanges that will bring our faculties Into closer contact with each other and enrich both of our communities.

f'). commission and share research findings about the emerging reeds of the church in mission, and the pressures and problems of our congregations and leaders today.

g). explore the possibility of Luther Norrhwestern offering its Doctor or Ministry program on sites in Regions I and II and with the cooperation of Pacific Lutheran.

h). continue to share information about our academic doctoral programs, and with the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, to develop plans for the future of Lutheran participation in the preparation of scholars and teachers for the future.

i). explore ways we might cooperate in church and synod relationships.

j). work together and with other cluster entities to secure grants for training

k). explore opportunities for cooperation through LNTS' Global Mission Institute and PLTS' Center for Lutheran Church Growth and Mission.

IV. Governance (TOC)

While the Task Force on Theological Education Report calls for cluster governance and administrative structures by the period 1999-2003, we believe that the path to clustering for our two institutions should begin with program initiatives and then build toward governance questions at a later stage. This is a recognition both of the mission urgency of these initiatives and the practical problems of coramon governance for schools of such size disparity and at such a distance.

Nevertheless, we pledge ourselves in the years before 1999

a). to continue to meet together as Presidents, Board Chairs and other administrators.

b). to involve our faculty, whose support for a developed cluster arrangement is crucial, in the next stages of both program development and administrative consultation.

c). to look for areas of administrative coordination that might be mutually beneficial short of common governance

d). to find areas of common concern in this agreement with benevolent organizations and foundations to help fund initial efforts

e). to involve our constituencies in a discussion of the mission future of the church in our regions and of the role that they hope for the seminaries in that mission, and

f). to continue to work at every stage with representatives of the Division for Ministry and, where relevant to program initiatives, to consult with other Churchwide units.

We charge the two Presidents and two Board Chairs to develop the specific mechanisms for the development of this plan, including both board and faculty participation at every stage, and with regular reports to both Boards and to both faculties on meetings held, steps proposed, and results achieved.

V. Implementation Schedule (TOC)

Timing factors:

1. Region I senses urgency.

2. LNTS and PLTS sense importance of board deliberation. and leadership.

3. The rate of availability and accessibility of technology is not known.

4. The pace and method of fostering local initiatives must be learned.

5. Clear progress must be evidert by the 1995 Churchwide Assembly.

VI. Recommendations to the Boards of Directors of LNTS and PLTS (TOC)

1. That the above statement of principles and strategies toward clustering be approved.

2. That both boards advise their chairs and presidents on implementation steps prior to their scheduled meeting on November 2-3, 1993 in Chicago with specific attention to synchronizing diverse timetables.

3. That the boards request an implementation plan be brought to the next regular meeting of the full boards

• after consultation with both faculties,
• with representation from both seminaries pre-sent for the board discussions, and
• with each board deliberating the plan in executive session with its president and academic dean prior to voting.