D: Mm.
J: So when you say they fear him,…
D: Or it‘s because, or it‘s because during ‘87, he was not out of the strike.
J: Mm, hm.
D: And he was part of the executive committee. He was vice president.
J: Mm.
D: And he had to say, ―No, no‖ to them so they still want to fight against him, back against him.
J: I see.
D: Mm, hm.
J: So all these kinds of arguments are very old that go back almost twenty years at least.
D: Yes.
(P 5.24-5.25; Doreen; 264-265; 955-1035)
Doreen clearly articulates political tension between members of the EC and the Director of the Seminary, and indicates that it has continued for many years. One wonders, however, how there could be communication difficulties at times when the Director was serving as Vice President of the LEC, Secretary of the MTS Board, and Director of the Seminary, concurrently.153 The Director, at the time of his appointment as Principal of the Seminary, informed the faculty members, at an 18 April, 1986 Morija Theological Seminary Staff Meeting, that he would have complete control over the affairs of the school:
It was made clear that the E.C. has given Rev. Moseme full power over the Seminary and all its properties, including finances, and he will be accountable for every cent that belongs to the seminary.
Twenty years later, in 2006, Dr. Moseme indicated a lack of clarity about his role as Director and the expectations of the EC when he spoke with me in an interview:
J: OK, thank you, Ntate. So, can you describe for me what are your responsibilities as the director of the seminary?
M: Mmm, [laugh] well, my main responsibility really is to run the seminary, to see that everything concerning the seminary goes well and the major responsibility really is to see to the recruitment of students. Like now, as you know, you are a member of our faculty here, we do have what we call orientation courses which we have twice a year and it is during those times when we expect people who are searching for a seminary career to come and be with us so we could explain more about the seminary to them. Our seminary, since it‘s so small, my other
153 The specific difficulties between some members of the EC and the Director of the Seminary reported (above) by Doreen seem to be concurrent with or directly prior to the beginning of a trend toward more control and less openness in the Director‘s style of leadership at the seminary (as has been discussed [above]
regarding worship, and will be shown [below] in the presentation of data with regard to the campus prefects).
Miscommunication and interpersonal mistrust at the denominational level affect the culture of the seminary, and (as will be discussed in Chapter Six) the culture of the seminary affects the culture of the LEC.
responsibility would be to go out and visit with parishes and presbyteries and explain more about the seminary but we don‘t do that because of our financial constraints.
And so this is really the main thing, to recruit students and to see to everyday running of the seminary.
J: OK. And are there written terms of reference for your position?
M: Not really. In most cases in the Lesotho Evangelical Church, you don‘t find anything written down really. You have to think yourself as how to do, to fulfil your responsibility.
J: I see.
M: Yes.
J: OK. I was wondering if that were the case because I‘ve been looking around for terms of reference for many different positions and I really can‘t, it‘s hard to find.
M: No, you can‘t, you can‘t.
J: I see. So does that mean that over the years that you‘ve been working at this position, you‘ve had to kind of work to decide what were the most important things?
M: Exactly, exactly. That is the way it‘s done.
J: Now, you‘ve shared that that‘s how it is,…
M: Mm, hm.
J: …I‘d like to ask your opinion. Does that seem well enough to you or would…
M: No.
J: …you like to have…
M: No.
J: …terms of reference?
M: No, terms of reference would be very much appreciated because you know what you‘re expected to do, you know, by the authorities of the church and I know on many occasions what I do have put me in trouble because I might have done what I was not expected to do, you see. So if I had a terms of reference, then I would work within the limits of the terms of reference.
J: So, does that mean there may have been times when you found out after the fact that somebody else didn‘t expect you to do something…
M: Exactly. Exactly.
J: I see.
M: Exactly.
J: So as you relate to the hierarchy of the church as director…
M: Mm, hm.
J: …how do you connect with the rest of the L.E.C. officially, with regard to the structure of the L.E.C.?
M: I really don‘t know what you mean because, for me, it doesn‘t seem like, as a seminary director, I really hold a special position. Being a director of the seminary in the Lesotho Evangelical Church it is like, um, just being like an ordinary pastor in a parish setting. I really don‘t feature there, I don‘t feature as one of the officials of the church so to speak.
164
J: I see. So if it‘s similar to being a pastor, could we compare the board of directors of the seminary to a consistory of a parish in some ways, that this is – how do you work with the board and with the executive committee?M: Mm, hm. Well, it is said that the board of the seminary represents the executive committee which represents the general synod of the church but in a true sense, they really work like a consistory because, even though the seminary is directly responsible to the general synod, which is represented by the executive committee of the church, but in real life, in real practice, I think they are like a consistory because they cannot even decide on who should come and teach. It is only the executive committee of the church who selects instructors for the seminary.
The seminary board can only inform the executive committee about the available positions in the seminary but they cannot appoint somebody to come and teach.
J: I was thinking about that the other day…
M: Mm, hm.
J: …and I was thinking that, when I came to teach here,…
M: Mm, hm.
J: …I was never interviewed…
M: Mm, hm.
J: …by you.
M: Exactly.
J: Or by the board.
M: Exactly.
J: Or even really by the executive committee. Some Americans interviewed me and put me on an airplane and I showed up.
M: Yeah.
J: And I thought, ―What if the director or the board had heard something in an interview and they thought, ‗Well, this isn‘t exactly the person we would like to have for this position.‘‖
M: Mm. Mm.
J: Does that make it difficult for you?
M: Yes, it does. It does because we always have no choice. We are only told that we have so-and-so; he is coming to teach. And we have no say. We have no say which is really, according to me, very, very strange because I thought the seminary board would have the responsibility to recruit instructors and to interview them and to see to it that they are the right people to come and teach at the seminary.
But this is not the case at all. This is not the way it works here.
J: I see. And as far as you know, has it always been that way?
M: Oh, yes, oh, yes. It has been this way. It has been like this.
J: So, do you think that‘s because of the way the L.E.C. is designed that everything really flows just through that executive committee?
M: I think so. I think so because I remember one time, just to give a small example, at one time, the seminary board recruited temporarily somebody for the seminary who was a Roman Catholic by denomination and they did not inform the then executive committee of the church. And when they discovered that this professor from the university, from the National University of Lesotho, was teaching Sesotho, not theology, they were so furious, so upset, because the instructor was a Roman Catholic and they said the seminary had nothing to do with the Roman
Catholics. And this is the man who teaches at the National University of Lesotho, teaches the future leaders of the nation and we thought it was right that he could be recruited to come and teach on part-time basis students who are going to be church leaders but that was not approved by the church. In fact, he had to leave immediately after they discovered that he was here. So I think the executive committee always wants to have absolute power as far as the seminary‘s concerned and they don‘t want anybody to stand in their way. In fact, they even say this is their only school while other schools for the church they share with the government but they say this is our one and only school and we are responsible. No one else should stand in our way. So I think it is just because they want to do things like this because I don‘t see why they cannot delegate and give power to the seminary board to do the work even if they don‘t approve, if they think the approval, the final decision, should still be theirs. But the seminary board should really recruit and identify people because they are the people who are very close to the seminary and in collaboration with the seminary staff I‘m sure that could be done in a better way.
But they are out there. They‘re standing – it‘s like when they want to take pastors, recent graduates of the seminary for further theological training, one would expect that the first thing they would come to the seminary, come to the director, come to the board, and ask about the academic record for that particular person they want to take for further theological training but they don‘t do that. They just identify the person because this person is in their good books and they take the person for further theological training without any consultation at all. So this is somehow strange, really, the way we operate and I personally don‘t approve this kind of a thing because I think the seminary, even in this case, is the one who knows who should be considered for further theological training and who should be considered for what course in particular on the basis of their performance when they were students at the seminary.154
154 Regarding Dr. Moseme‘s frustration around the Executive Committee‘s role in instructor selection, text from a 29 July, 1994 letter from Dr. Moseme to Professor J. H. Smit, Head of the Missiology Department of the (at that time) University of the Orange Free State is illustrative:
Thanks for your letter dated 12 April 1994 in which you invited me to visit your institution as a guest lecturer in your department.
Our institution is a fully church-run seminary which takes instructions from the executive body of the church (Lesotho Evangelical Church), including the appointment of lecturers to the seminary. As the procedure, the seminary board, which supported your invitation 100 per cent [sic], forwarded your letter of invitation with their covering letter to the Executive Committee of the L.E.C. for approval on 28 April 1994. Regrettably, we still have not received a response!
I apologize for any inconvenience that our delay in replying to your letter may have caused.
I do hope that you will understand the difficult situation under which we operate as an institution. Never-the-less, I hope and trust that this negative reply will not hamper the intended good working relations between our institutions.
Perhaps the ―negative reply‖ of Moseme‘s letter did not ―hamper the intended good working relations,‖ but the intended relations never materialized. MTS Staff Meeting minutes, dated 18 November, 1994 include the following under the heading ―A.O.B.‖:
The E.C. does not approve of a relation between MTS and UOFS because the UOFS is a DRC institution which condoned apartheid in the past. Concern was expressed because this is one of the areas in which the WARC Evaluation criticized MTS. Furthermore, this refusal to engage in relations with an institution that is seeking reconciliation is hypocritical.
It was also noted that the E.C. is refusing to send a delegate to an ATISCA [Association of Theological Institutions in Southern and Central Africa] meeting in Botswana, although the seminary has been criticized for failing to be members of various theological-related institutions and is struggling to pay ATISCA affiliation fees.
Rev. J. R. Mokhahlane, the President of the Seboka, talked about OUFS discussions in our 14 June, 2006 interview:
166
(A 4.2-4.4; Moseme; 421-423; 58-174)Regarding communications and governance, the President of the LEC, during his 2006 interview with me, seemed unaware of the many letters that the faculty had written to the Board of the Seminary over the years of his several terms as President, asking that the Board make specific requests to the Executive Committee, or of the many letters the Director told the faculty the Board had sent to the Executive Committee:
J: Mm. Yeah. And, Ntate, even though we agreed that we would not speak Sesotho during this interview, it is interesting that Morija once was called selibeng sa thuto,155 and now, as you say, our seminary seems to be falling behind. So I agree with you. Now you mentioned that you weren‘t sure why it was that we‘re not moving forward and I‘d like you to think about that a little more if you could.
M: Yes, you know, what I don‘t understand, since you know our church, we have the staff at Koapeng, we have teachers, professors at the seminary. We have the board and above the board we have the executive committee. We have to work hard and see where the bottleneck is. I was expecting that the staff itself would move, would come up with ideas and push the board. And the board would come up and push the executive committee. But I don‘t see that happening. Maybe the staff is not looking forward to that. Because we don‘t hear them, you know, pushing this thing, you know, talking about this thing, you know, and once they tell them that, I‘m sure even the board will feel the pressure and then it will pressurize the executive committee.
J: Now, I will share with you that, in my ongoing research, that I have questionnaires filled out by members of the teaching staff and also by members of the teaching staff who are also pastors. All of them have suggested they want the school to be upgraded. They want external examiners. They want a Bachelor‘s Degree to be offered and they want upgrading. So I‘m wondering, it‘s probably not
But I think there is something that is blocking our way forward concerning the education or the upgrading of our seminary. I don‘t understand what that is. The executive committee a few years ago went to Bloemfontein. We visited the University of Free State. And the intention of the visit was to build relations between our seminary and the University of Free State. We were looking forward to this at the University of Free State that, you know, to assist us maybe with ministers, not ministers, but professors, not only that but also that we should have free access, our students could move freely between our seminary and the university. We went as far as agreeing, you know, with these people at the university that we can even go as far as exchanging professors. Those at the theological seminary should go and teach at Bloemfontein and those at Bloemfontein should visit our seminary. And the students, no matter what class they are, those people were willing to admit them and upgrade them and help them. I don‘t understand what happened. I had a group of people with me when we visited. I led a group of members of the executive committee. I had even invited some who were not in the executive committee. Even the director of the seminary was included in my delegation to Bloemfontein. I don‘t understand why it is not like that. What came into my mind was that this would even help us, you know, to have these external examinations which would, you know, help in upgrading the seminary. Previously, before I came into the office of the presidency, the executive committee had invited WARC, World Alliance of Reformed Churches, to assist, to make researches and assist in upgrading the seminary. Those people left the report for us but I don‘t know what is happening. I don‘t know what is happening. We are still left with this five years diploma education, I don‘t understand what it means but it is like that. We, together with this other group would like to see the seminary upgraded.
(A 2.1-2.2; Mokhahlane; 389-390; 38-61)
155 ―Wellspring of education (learning)‖
from the faculty. Now I do not have information yet from the director of the seminary.
M: But, do you know, another good thing is if the staff would like the school upgraded, why does that not come up to the executive? The board, then, is in between.
J: Mm, hm.
M: The board – maybe there is something wrong somewhere.
J: I see. It could be. And, of course, now you know the staff, we do not have direct access to the board of the seminary. We‘re represented only by the secretary of the board who is the director of the seminary.
M: If you dislike that it means that we also have to sit down and review the regulations and the – for the seminary.
J: It may be.
M: There is something wrong there.
J: Of course, we could write a letter.
M: Please, and the letter should be written to the board.
J: Mm.
M: And the board should come up to the executive committee.
J: Now…
M: You have to be proper like that.
J: If it is part of your vision to upgrade the seminary, and you mentioned that the staff could push the board and the board could push the executive committee, is it possible for the pushing to move in the other direction? Since you mentioned that the synod also seems to be in favour of this.
M: I‘m sure it is. I‘m sure it is. It is possible, you know, and I think we have to do it like that.
J: Mm. I see.
M: Yes.
(A 2.2-2.3; Mokhahlane; 390-391; 74-117)
Reverend Mokhahlane, here, seems interested in improved communications and in improving the manner in which the seminary provides ministerial training. He even seems concerned about the possible ways in which the current structure might impede communication and progress. Note, however, that he offers the current system as the medium through which progress might be made to address the current system: ―You have to be proper like that.‖ My personal experience with the channels of communication between the Executive Committee and members of the church was limited, but disappointing. As HIV and AIDS Coordinator for the LEC, I wrote five letters to the Executive Committee in the course of four months, none of which ever received a response. One reason for this, no doubt, is that the EC concerns itself with the inner workings of each of the Presbyteries, all of the pastors, all church institutions (including schools, hospitals, printing works, book shops), commercial land deals, political and ecumenical involvement, and more, and its members and Executive Secretary are surely pressed for time to respond to all of the necessary