Both the Old and New Testaments (Daniel 2:21; I Thessalonians 5:1) instruct us that awareness of the times and seasons is a gift to be sought. Such awareness requires leaders with the gift of insight to distinguish between chronos—you might say, markingtime—and kairos—you might say, making the most of time in terms of redemptive engagement.  I ardently believe that the times in which we live represent a Kairos moment for Christian higher education.

As we continue our conversation about faculty development, let’s recap. I suggested five key capacities and competencies your faculty members should they possess in increasing measure: self-awareness, scholarly currency, interdisciplinary engagement, teaching and learning proficiency, and biblical/theological worldview integration. Having begun with a discussion of the importance of self-awareness, we now turn to what we might call subject matter awareness.

In this present blog post series, I have been writing about the central executive leadership responsibility of alignment: ensuring that the institution and its resources are aligned with its mission and vision. Specifically, I have been writing about the critical need to ensure that your faculty is selected, retained, developed, and rewarded in full alignment with your institution’s biblical higher education mission and values. I believe an educational institution’s missional success ultimately depends, not on its executive leadership, but on its faculty.

In my previous post, I attempted to summarize the arguments for and against the emerging Competency Based Education (CBE) phenomenon that is gaining momentum in North American higher education. How should we respond to this phenomenon? In my opinion, we should thoughtfully welcome this development, seeking both to get ahead of the curve and to shape its trajectory. Why? First, because the concerns driving this trend are legitimate and long standing. Second, because infusion of CBE into the higher education landscape is inevitable. And third, because CBE offers great opportunity to collaborate and innovate in ministry formation and leadership development.

It has probably been more than two decades now since I heard these words from a speaker at an accreditation gathering: About the only thing a US high school diploma tells you is that a person has been institutionalized for 12 years. The speaker argued—rather arrestingly, I would say—that this was the inevitable consequence of a primary-secondary educational system in which time is the constant and achievement is the variable. Efforts over the past two decades to restore primary-secondary education to a more achievement-based enterprise, featuring heavy doses of standardized testing, have met entrenched resistance from those invested in the status quo. Meanwhile, even the strongest proponents of testing are beginning to acknowledge the ill effects of an examination glut.

Thus far in considering the mission-critical matter of faculty selection, I have proposed two important criteria: credentials (first in sequence but least in importance), and contagious character. A third criterion is competence. You may be thinking that a faculty member’s competence is validated by strong credentials. And you could well be tragically wrong. Just as credentials and qualifications are not synonymous, neither are credentials and competence synonymous. As much as this is true for faculty selection, this may especially be the case when it comes to faculty retention and promotion.

Why should you care about whether your studies are accredited? To be candid, accreditation does not always guarantee the quality or value of what you are studying. Some accredited institutions are of poor quality and some unaccredited educational institutions are of high quality. So accreditation is not the first and most important question to ask yourself about a course of study you are contemplating. On the other hand, in most cases, accreditation does matter for a number of very good reasons. Here are just a few:

ABHE’s collective understanding regarding the essence of our educational approach has become crystallized in terms of the following four concepts:  biblical, transformational, experiential, and missional. In my previous post, I asserted that when we describe education as biblical we mean that we engage intentionally and pervasively in education that involves extensive and serious study of the text of God’s eternal Word based on our conviction that the Bible is infallible, essential, authoritative, and understandable.

Board ownership In this series on good governance, I have thus far stressed the critical role governance plays in the success or failure of any college and urged that boards get serious about assessing their effectiveness. Working from the assertion that good governance requires that the board itself must own the responsibility and make provision for high functioning, we examined the essential role of written policies addressing the board’s culture, conduct, and commitments; ways to optimize board composition and continuity; and the importance of a board committee empowered to assess and improve the board’s individual and collective performance. I say again, good governance begins with board ownership.

Sentiment or substance? A familiar Negro Spiritual rightly muses, Everybody talkin’ ‘bout heaven ain’t goin’ there. The truth is, a great deal of lip service is paid in Christian higher education to “integration of faith and learning” or “Christian worldview formation.” These are admirable sentiments but they will remain just that—sentiments, not substance—unless faculty members acquire the requisite knowledge and develop proficiency in the intellectual pursuits that make true integration possible. Your faculty ain’t goin’ there unless you sustain the vision for it and provide the necessary encouragement and opportunities.