many over the years, and was the topic of a Seminary Governance Proposal suggesting a faculty representative to the Board.164 This was never implemented. MTS Faculty Meeting minutes dated 20 March, 1998, indicate the hope of the faculty members to become more involved with communication with the Board:
Shortage of Teaching Staff: In November the Faculty had requested a meeting with the Seminary Board to discuss this issue. Although the Board actually met in Jan &
March, 1998 this has not transpired. The Director will be asked to inform the Faculty of the next Board meeting and to arrange for this vital issue to be on the agenda, so that all Faculty may attend.
Communication. At the Seminary level the Faculty felt that it would be helpful if greater responsibility could be shared among staff members, allowing for development of experience, and for channels of communication to be increased and broadened. This in turn might alleviate the perceived lack of communication between the Seminary Board and the Executive Committee which undermines the evolution of the Seminary.
During my time at MTS the faculty met with the Board three times. One time was in response to an incident, during the final examinations of the 2003-2004 academic year, when the entire TS5 class were caught cheating on a Hebrew examination.165 The Board invited the faculty to meet with them twice during the 2005-2006 academic year – once as an introductory meeting, and a second time to discuss ways in which the two groups might work together to improve theological education in the LEC. During the second meeting of the 2005-2006 academic year, which was held on 24 March, 2006, and for which I have transcripts, Dr. Moseme referred to the difficulties of communication between the MTS Board and the EC. At that meeting, Professor Sebatane, the chairperson of the Board, ended his remarks by saying that we were ―just beginning
164 This governance proposal (the initial draft of this proposal was written by Paul Frelick, and is dated 20 November, 1997; the draft sent to the Board was dated January, 1998) is mentioned by former expatriate instructor Stephan Fischer in his ―Report about the years 1997-2001,‖ dated 27 March, 2001. Fischer also explicitly discusses miscommunication and his perception that the Director of the Seminary ―withholds‖ and
―manipulates‖ information:
2.7 Authoritarian leadership – withholding and manipulating information
Even within the present structures of the seminary there are democratic rules to be kept.
Several times I experienced that this is not the case. The lack of communication does not only exist between the MTS and the Executive Committee of the LEC but also within the MTS. This has to do with structures, as pointed out above, as well as personalities. It reflects deeper cultural and spiritual problems and leads to negative developments.
[. . .]
Graduates, who are not dependend [sic] on the Seminary anymore have been telling us, how they have been intimidated by being called before the Director and been threatened to be expelled. Since we have seen in some of the cases reported above that the Director misuses structures and withholds information I understand this. He bypasses the staff or invites only a part of it to support his opinion. As Director he is the only one who informs the Board and in his function as secretary of the Board he takes the minutes and writes letters. It is a one man action manipulating and bypassing a democratic structure.
165 This resulted in the delay of graduation for all members of this class. The following January, with the approval of the MTS Board and the Executive Committee, I used funds I earned working as a lecturer at the National University of Lesotho to contract with Newton Brandt to come from Pietermaritzburg to teach a remedial course for these students so that they could finish their theological education at MTS.
our work together.‖ At the time of my departure from Lesotho in June of 2007 there had been no subsequent meetings of the faculty and the Board.
Morija Theological Seminary has been mired in questions and controversies surrounding its external and internal governance for many years. Issues of authority, responsibility, and communication have been the topics of many discussions among Board members, church leaders, MTS faculty members, and the Director of the Seminary. Some of these issues have been unclear due to uncertain constitutional provisions, Executive Committee expectations regarding authority, individual leadership styles, and poor or incomplete patterns of communication between the various individuals and groups involved. Specific issues related to the structures, functions, and procedures of campus governance are connected, in many important ways, it seems, to these external governance realities. In what follows I will present data from inquiries regarding on campus governance at MTS, giving special attention to the roles of the Director of the Seminary and members of the Council of Prefects.
Data from Respondents Regarding Campus Governance
Each of the written questionnaires completed by students, pastors, members of the Seminary Board, members of the LEC Executive Committee, and MTS instructors, contained statements or inquiries regarding the structure and function of campus governance at MTS.
Campus governance was also a focus of my documentary research and interview questions. Pastor Questionnaire item 10 (in ―Campus Life and General Course of Study‖) contains the statement: ―I found the system of campus government (administration, Prefects) to be helpful to campus life.‖
Student Questionnaire item 10 contains the related statement: ―I find the system of campus government (administration, Prefects) to be helpful to campus life.‖ For this item more students and pastors selected ―4, Somewhat Agree‖ than any other category on the Likert scale (see Figure 10 and Figure 11).166 It is noteworthy that, though the preponderance of responses was positive – either ―Strongly Agree‖ or ―Somewhat Agree‖ – the remaining responses distributed rather evenly throughout the provided scale, and a significant percentage (28% of pastors and 28% of students) selected either ―Strongly Disagree‖ (15% of pastors and 19% of students) or ―Somewhat Disagree‖
(13% of pastors and 9% of students).
166 For thirty-four (34) of the fifty (50) positively-worded items in the section, ―Campus Life and General Course of Study,‖ more pastors selected ―5, ―Strongly Agree‖ than any other category on the Likert scale.
For thirty-nine (39) of the fifty (50) positively-worded items in the section, ―Campus Life and General Course of Study,‖ more students selected ―5, Strongly Agree‖ than any other category on the Likert scale.
Items (such as item 10, referring to campus governance) which received the most responses in one of the four other categories on the Likert scale, were accorded additional attention, and were included for inquiry during interviews.
182
LEC Executive Committee members and MTS Board members were asked, on the written questionnaire they received, to respond to item 10: ―Students find the system of campus government (administration, Prefects) to be helpful to campus life.‖ Six (6) of these questionnaires were returned. Four (4) of these included a response to item 10.167 Of the four (4) responses to this item, two (2) marked ―Uncertain‖ and two (2) marked ―Somewhat Agree.‖ MTS instructors were less positive about the system of campus governance, with only one instructor responding
―Strongly Agree‖ to the statement: ―The system of campus government works well at MTS.‖ The majority of instructors who responded to this item selected ―Strongly Disagree‖ (see Figure 12).
167 The respondents completing the questionnaires subsequently labeled, ―EB 3‖ and ―EB 4‖ did not respond to this item. It is the only item for which there was no response in the main body of questionnaire EB 3, and one of only two items for which there was no response in the main body of questionnaire EB 4. The respondents completing these questionnaires each selected informational items (at the top of the questionnaire form) indicating that she or he (gender information was left unmarked) was a pastor, and a current member of the MTS Board. Though four (4) respondents provided a response for item 10, it seems, upon reflection, that perhaps the wording of the item (the item asks respondents to have knowledge about or to speculate about student opinions) made an informed response difficult.
Instructor narrative responses on the same written questionnaire included the following remarks related to general campus life, and, for some respondents, the system of campus governance:168
L1: It is not conducive for the welfare of the students. Engagement of both students and staff is okay. However needs to be improved by making students to feel at easy to approach staff members w/o fear of any sort.
L2: Campus life at MTS is controlled by the director. There is an atmosphere of fear and intimidation which is unhelpful for the development of future church leaders in the LEC. The leadership that is modelled is one of harsh authority rather than loving service. The style of leadership that is propagated at MTS is very different to the leadership models promoted in the NT. There is little I find helpful about campus life. Both students and staff need to take seriously the biblical imperatives to love and encourage one another.
L3: At least on the surface of it staff and students are in an environment designed towards students‘ development or their favour.
For married couples to have independent homes where family life and conditions are not different is commendable; - i.e. in mind here, is a particular sector of students.
arrangement
Provision of administrative structures, viz. prefects structures, in a situation where a number of persons must live together is a helpful one.
L4: a. There seems to be a feeling of fear, unhappiness, and suspicion/distrust.
b. I think that the students feel comfortable with and benefit from the guidance of some lecturers but not all of them.
L5: a. General impression of campus life: - Teacher Student, Parent Child, Master Slave, Warden Prisoner.
b. Because of the environment is basically not about joined efforts for students‘
development but giving and receiving in the manner of a) above.
c. Given the Warden Prisoner status nothing seems helpful as all would are done on obligation.
d. Interpersonal relationships between faculty members, faculty-students, Administration Faculty, Admin. Student should be improved to provide freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights.
L6: It is a kind of life that does not help students to end up as leaders who can stand on their on. They are in a position to always feel inferior. The situation at the seminary students together with the lecturers have some reservations lest they do not ofense the director or the board (if so). But it is not a free place for both parties, yet there is quite a lot that needs to be changed. The environment does not give students enough development to become future spiritual leaders, but it produces leaders who are poor spiritually but somehow full of anger. The Library and the computer that is introduced to students are helpful.
168 The Instructor responses presented here (with spelling and grammatical irregularities uncorrected) include responses I have deemed relevant to the issue of campus governance, and were written in response to the queries:
What is your general impression of campus life at MTS? Are students and staff engaged together in an environment that is helpful to students‟ development as future spiritual leaders? Are there elements of campus life you find helpful? Are there areas where MTS could improve?