In a historic convergence, about 70 leaders in the denomination's educational programs in religion gathered from around the world at General Conference headquarters July 7 through 10, 2003. The purposes of the International Conference on Ministerial and Theological Education, as stated by its organizers in the GC Department of Education, were:

1. To foster theological unity among Bible/Religion/Theology teachers worldwide.

2. To strengthen the quality of Bible/Religion/Theology teaching.

3. To review and update the curricula of Bible/Religion/Theology programs to respond to the needs of the three groups of students attending Adventist colleges, seminaries, and universities: (a) future ministers, religion teachers and chaplains; (b) undergraduate and graduate Adventist students who take Bible/Religion classes as part of general education or institutional requirements; and (c) a growing number of students from other faiths who are also required to take these courses.

4. To recommend, if appropriate, the development of textbooks.

5. To exchange successful ideas, methods and approaches in Bible/Religion/Theology teaching and learning.

Morning sessions, following worship with the General Conference (GC) personnel, were tightly scheduled around invited papers. From a variety of cultural perspectives, participants addressed such topics as transmitting the Adventist worldview, beliefs, values and mission; finding/developing faculty who will do this; spiritual master-planning; integrating religion into general-education curricula; advances in pastoral education; and the preparation of chaplains for hospitals, military and educational settings.

Afternoons were devoted to break-out groups, with assigned discussion topics. Centering their discussion around a reading of Carnegie Calian's The Ideal Seminary (Westminster: 2001), the five groups each day considered a set of assigned questions stressing the educational institutions' roles and function as servants of the church.

Not until the final day did presenters address aspects of the denomination's recently-adopted strategies for centralized screening and control of programs and personnel (see accompanying box). GC President Jan Paulsen opened the morning by summoning the denomination's educators to theological unity. Careful to recognize that the church's educators have a legitimate role in helping the church reflect creatively upon its doctrines, Paulsen underscored the distinction between that more formative work and the purposes of the classroom. In the lecture hall, he stressed, the purpose is to attractively reaffirm the established Seventh-day Adventist teachings and values, and to foster the sense of mission. Paulsen emphasized that no ministry in our church has greater potential for communicating the Adventist values than does the ministry of teaching-especially teaching religion. But this same ministry, "which you represent," also has great capacity, when misused, to confuse and destabilize our young people and undo these values. While he did not refer to the denomination's plans for monitoring academic programs and personnel, Paulsen's presentation was clearly designed to justify the policies.

In response to a question concerning appropriate occasions and venues for the more searching tasks of the scholar in religion, Paulsen cited the Biblical Research Institute as a primary example.

The sole note of reservation was sounded by Jon Paulien, Professor and Chair of New Testament Studies at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University. In his immediately following paper on "The Role of the Adventist Theologian," Paulien sketched the inevitable tensions between the religion scholar's calling to do thoughtful and creative work, and his or her loyalty to the church-a demanding path made more difficult in an atmosphere of mistrust. "Where a reasonable amount of academic freedom does not exist, scholars of integrity are tempted to reevaluate their loyalty to the church or withhold from the church the fruits of solid and careful study."1

In light of this, Paulien turned to the certification procedures of the International Board for Ministerial and Theological Education (IBMTE). In addition to the instability this mechanism injects into the life and work of the religion scholar, Paulien cited its hierarchical construction of oversight, review and certification as problematic. "An accountability from the top down will result in much trauma, the loss of many talents and, in the end, imbalanced thinking in the wider church."

Citing trends in the secular world toward less centralized management, Paulien appealed to the Christian virtues of humility, openness, honesty and authenticity as especially pertinent today. By contrast, he stated that the IBMTE process appears to work "in the opposite direction. It seems to imply that one group is more qualified than another to define what is right. Our pursuit of such truth is more likely to succeed when we listen to each other and work closely together, as I believe we are seeking to do here today." Accordingly, Paulien called for the church to adhere to those processes that have been established as best practice: processes that are both peer-based and institutionally grounded.

In response, Jan Paulsen rose to assure the group of both the church's need for, and confidence in, its theological educators. The Iguazu action, he stressed, had been intended to affirm a core set of "five or six Adventist values," around which the structure of Adventist thought could continue to develop. "There was no intent of making you feel yourselves to be judged from above," he stated. Nor, on the other hand, was there any intent that each institution should propose on its own, how to deal with local problems in light of the denomination-wide call for unity. Paulsen urged that if some found difficulties with the proposed protocols for implementing the new policies, they should submit alternative proposals through the authorized channels. "We better get this together," he concluded, "and get it right."

No votes were taken regarding the establishing of the IBMTE and its Division-level counterparts; these are already a matter of voted policy. Nor were any actions taken concerning procedures for implementation-though the group did recommend that the GC Office of Strategic Planning should "continue to seek creative means of fostering and promoting theological unity."

Among the 28 recommendations adopted at the close of the conference was one calling for similar gatherings on a regular basis. Regarding the procedural issues in implementing the denomination's plan for monitoring educational programs and personnel, delegates and GC officers recognize that work remains. The conference, it is hoped, has increased the prospect that this work will honor the best Adventist traditions of professional and institutional integrity, mutual trust, and provision for continued openness toward truth.

1 Paulien, Jon: "The Role of the Adventist Theologian," unpublished paper presented to the International Conference on Religion and Theological Education, Silver Spring, Md., July 10, 2003; p. 2.

Dr. John R. Jones is dean of the School of Religion at La Sierra University, Riverside, California.

Brief Historical Sketch

Annual Council: October, 1998: New provisions voted for the worldwide SDA Church, establishing an "International Board of Ministerial and Theological Education" at the level of the General Conference, and in each Division a similar "Board of Ministerial and Theological Education," charged with responsibility for screening and certifying academic programs and personnel in all SDA institutions of higher education. (FE 20 15 and FE 20 20: General Conference Working Policy 2002 edition, pages 233-240.)

November, 1998: Statement of concern voted by Adventist Society for Religious Studies. Submitted to GC, but it received no acknowledgment.

September 2001: Subcommittee of GC IBMTE completed its 112-page Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Ministerial and Theological Education, stipulating protocols for implementation and associated documents. The Handbook, drafted in strict confidentiality, was voted by the full IBMTE in September. It was scheduled for ratification by the world church in Annual Council October 2001. It was withdrawn from the agenda shortly before the Council met.

November, 2001: Second statement of concern voted by Adventist Society for Religious Studies. ASRS officers sought to present the statement and accompanying signatures personally to a vice-president of the GC, and to discuss the Society's concerns, but were not granted an appointment.

At the same ASRS session, at the request of the North American Division, representatives were appointed by NAD religion chairs and deans to a task force to develop alternative procedures for the NAD. This working group produced a 4-page proposal, on which they voted their approval on February, 2002. It was subsequently modified into a second version, which the group has not yet met to consider.

Late 2002: Representatives of the GC institutions of higher education submitted their 16-page proposal to the IBMTE, containing a philosophical statement and alternative protocols for implementation.

July 2003: Four-day International Conference on Religious and Theological Education, under the aegis of the GC Department of Education, attended primarily by deans/chairs of religion schools/departments.

1 Paulien, Jon: "The Role of the Adventist Theologian," unpublished paper presented to the International Conference on Religion and Theological Education, Silver Spring, Md., July 10, 2003; p. 2.