The ELCA underwent a deep study of Theological Education (headed by Dr. Phyllis Anderson) in the early 1990s which concluded that 8 seminaries would not be viable in the future. There was a recommendation that "clusters" be formed and educational responsibilities be divided up among the entities. (a crude summary, but I remember it that way - I was on a seminary board at that time).
The reality, in my experience, was that the seminaries instead engaged in entrenchment and were seeking to stake out their territories, so to speak, in order to NOT be merged/purged out of existence. You don't hear much about the clusters anymore. I don't see that the recommendations bore too much fruit.
The
ELCA Study of Theological Education, approved by the 1995 CWA, seems to have gotten lost in the latest ELCA website update. As a 1992 graduate from PLTS, which has just become the school of theology for California Lutheran University, allow me to offer a less bleak picture of the seminary boards and the seminary clusters.
I could not say how, uh, enthusiastically the PLTS Board, Administration, and Faculty truly were about being clustered with Luther Sem. Frankly I expect many of them resented the very idea. But that clustering enabled PLTS to greatly improve a perpetual weakness, the actual administration of the school and its property. PLTS alone had never had the resources to do that well, even in the '50s and '60s, and as the nature of the administration of theological schools grew more complex in the '80s and '90s, PLTS was stuck years behind. (I worked briefly in the business office myself the summer I arrived, and had a nice relationship with the Administrative VPs -- yes, that's plural -- before departing for internship.)
Some of the school's leadership recognized this, but until the ELCA "forced" the clustering, internal forces resisted moving forward. Much of the school's business management was effectively taken over by Luther, and even academics became a more co-operative effort of both schools. Apart from clustering, PLTS would not have survived to the new millennium. But it meant, especially initially, being partially dependent upon the resources of Luther Seminary. While far from an ideal situation (either PLTS competently managing itself or being fully integrated as a West Coast campus for Luther would have been simpler), it might have worked for quite a bit longer had Dr. Bliese's administration recognized the collapsing of Luther's own finances in the latter part of the last decade and acted on it. Of course, church institutions don't seem to do that any better than congregations -- or most other enterprises for that matter. But PLTS could no longer financially or administratively lean on Luther, rather ironic when its current President, Dr. Phyllis Anderson, had been the Director of the ELCA Study of Theological Education. It's very survival depended upon another option.
But this post is about the reception of "clustering," and while I am most familiar with the Western Cluster of PLTS and Luther, I've been able to see some of the workings of the Covenant Cluster (Wartburg, LSTC, Trinity) as a parish pastor, and even a bit of the Eastern (Gettysburg, Mt. Airy, Southern). For "traditional" seminary education, the clustering didn't change things as much as was possible or hoped for, and Wartburg and LSTC did not (when it came to relating to our synod beyond synod assembly reports) always play very well together. But newer forms of seminary education were enabled because of the clustering (whether they are better or not is a separate matter). And I would not be surprised that the actual implementation of clustered, uh, activities hasn't work as well as the PR says. After all, PLTS always lifted up the opportunities of being part of the GTU as an attraction for constituencies, but in "normal" times MDiv students were steered away from actually taking advantage of courses of the other schools.
And, of course, clustering merely stalled the effects of something that not only spurred the 1988-94 Study, but a matter recognized some
50 years ago in the ELCA's predecessor bodies, and noted still earlier by some observers. The ELCA has always had too many seminaries. When I was at PLTS, Luther Northwestern's student body was nearly the same size as the other 7 sems combined! The issue isn't that we
ought to close at least 2 of them, but
which ones to close. Especially when each of the eight offers, or at least has the heritage and continued potential, to offer something unique that the other schools cannot. Then again, whether they are actually doing so is another matter entirely. PLTS' uniqueness as the West Coast seminary made sense when nearly all her grads remained in the Western US and Canada. But does it make sense in today's ELCA, when her grads go across this church?
Cal Lu has deep pockets, at least for now, so we may not be required to face that question for PLTS and the GTU. (Similarly for Lenoir-Rhyne and Southern). Yet, already one GTU school (the Franciscan School of Theology, now affiliated with the University of San Diego) is moving to Southern California. And the Jesuit School of Theology, while remaining in Berkeley, is now a graduate school of Santa Clara University (a Jesuit university near the San Jose airport -- interestingly
not the nearer University of San Francisco, also Jesuit).
Pax, Steven+
