Tuesday, 23rd November 2010, 23:00 hrs
It’s a weekday, when a group of nine of us set out to view a recently vacated international school compound that’s up for sale. We’ve discussed it quite extensively and, since our last annual planning meeting retreat, decided to pay a visit there. The result? Well, what we saw was far above what we had thought and expected.
I for one thought it was indeed unpleasantly run down, with the surrounding areas either abandoned or disused, and an atmosphere that was unfriendly and unsafe. However, when we got out of the west rail line, we were immediately greeted by a panoramic view of the sea with a beautifully landscaped public park. We took a leizurely walk in the surrounding neigbourhood and visited the mall opposite. Though the mall is sparsely occupied, we were not particularly perturbed. There are various eateries and even a MacDonald’s!
The school compound is located on the fourth level, with its own private lifts. Since it used to be an international school, the inside was basically designed and planned for educational purposes. The area is more than double our current size and the look of it tells us instinctively that we could use it for the next twenty years without problem. And the entire entourage was consistently positive about it.
We will have to work out some details as to what we could do with regard to our dialogue with the board members, three of whom are quite strongly opposed to the idea. However, our current location simply will not do and does not allow us to continue operating meaningfully.
We’re running out of space at present – the library, the administrative office, the faculty offices, space for students, etc. Besides, our current location is used illegally. Our students are unable to study, hold meetings, pray and share together; nor can our faculty members meet students for confidential discussions, and most of what we’re doing is basically done on constricted space.
Some of the concerns of the board appear to be largely based on misinformation. For example, one reason is the ‘spiritual’ atmosphere that is not present in this new location. However, the sort of spiritual atmosphere referred to is about trees, flowers, fish pond and the like. This is in fact nothing to do with ‘spirituality’. For true ‘spirituality’ is about the inner person.
Some have voiced concern that there’s a lack of grandeur, which, to my mind, borders on absurdity. Under the current dire needs of the seminary, we cannot allow ‘grandeur’ to be a guiding factor in our decision. Further, the hope of some that we could look for a better place is perhaps unrealistic. The truth of the matter is that we don’t even have that sort of resources. We should indeed be going for what we can afford for now.
Now we can only look to the Lord for his provision of another place where we can operate meaningfully and successfully, to the honour and glory of the Lord.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Leadership Failure...
Monday, 15th November 2010, 17:45 hrs
The past two weeks were to some extent challenging again. There was first the problem of a colleague who suddenly went to the dean and complained that I taught Greek wrong, and that I had used the wrong textbook. He further said that he could complete the entire introductory Greek in one trimester, which meant I taught too slowly. I suppose that carried the implication that I wasn't efficient or competent enough.
This happened during a time when our new prospectus was due for revision. The registrar was in charge of this and so needed the course descriptions in the prospectus to be re-written. Since my colleague had some thoughts about me and my teaching, the dean wanted me to sit down and talk to this colleague, an 'instruction' he conveyed through the registrar. However, I thought otherwise and felt it fine to discuss the revision of the course description but not my teaching. But the colleague had in fact wanted me to teach according to the previous course description written by him. This, of course, was something totally absurd. Further, when I first joined the seminary and was asked to teach Greek I had first cleared with the dean as to the use of the textbook I preferred, who gave me the immediate go-ahead.
According to the registrar, the dean revealed that the colleague had done the same with two previous New Testament lecturers. This really angered me, as I failed to understand why the dean would still entertain this colleague and allow him to continue his nonsense.
The registrar wanted me to speak to the colleague, together with her and the dean. However, I had decided against speaking to them, as this would be tantamount to an affirmation of that colleague. What surprised me next was that the registrar went and spoke to the president, who then called me up and, once I had sat down, asked me, 'What's happening to Greek?' This whole approach was most upsetting. Although the president put it quite nicely to me, it gave me the feeling that I was the one at fault, when in fact I had done absolutel nothing!
The president made a number of points: (1) that anyone who is teaching Greek will also be the one who writes the course description; (2) whoever is teaching should be given the full trust and freedom to teach; (3) however, it would still be helpful for the two of us (the colleague and I) to sit and discuss what goes into the course. For he (the president) felt that if I were to simply leave it all to the colleague, it might even show I didn't have trust in him, whose logic perhaps my mind is too small to comprehend.
My response was: (1) my colleague could take over the course, and therefore he could write the description; (2) I did not want to discuss the contents of my teaching, save the course description; and (3) that it was alright not to discuss what went into the course description, as I'd trust my colleague.
I've been most upset by the entire turn of events. For one, the registrar in fact was opposed to the idea of robing in the president, when the dean first made the suggestion. Yet, she had finally got the president to speak to me. For all the 'trust' the president spoke about, the fact that I was being spoken to already shows there was no trust. I was relatively angry with the failure in leadership over such a matter. In fact, to my mind, this is tantamount to harrassment by one colleague against another through interference in the latter's work! However, the leadership simply connived at such an ill. That day, after leaving the president's office and returning to my own office I broke down and cried. For I felt so intruded and offended.
I thought to myself: for all that I've given up and this is what I'm getting. What scholar would do what I have done? And having done what I've done, who would have tolerated such nonsense?
I did something else, following the conversation with the president. I spoke to the colleague and said he could take over with immediate effect from the second trimester. He gleefully agreed. I spoke to the president immediately, who then said he would need to confirm with the dean. I further wrote an email to all parties concerned, i.e. the dean, president, registrar, and my colleague, informing them that the two of us had spoken and concluded that he could and would take over the teaching of Greek in the second trimester. Thus, he would also write the course description.
The dean replied, without sending any copies to the others, that he was 'surprised' by the 'very clear conclusions' between my colleague and me and simply stated that there was way to change the lecturer. I replied by pointing out that the 'very clear conclusions' were with regard to the discussion between my colleague and myself, and the discussion was held simply because he wanted us to discuss. That was the only time the dean communicated with me over the matter! So much for his failed leadership!
After thinking through all this, I've decided it's enough. I shall leave upon finding a new job. That week, I sent an email to a friend in another seminary enquiring the possibility of joining his seminary after July next year, when my contract expired. He replied asking for my CV and saying that he and the president would discuss in three weeks' time, when the president returned from overseas.
With the above, I see so clearly so much nonsense in this seminary. The dean, who has been so lazy, inefficient and incompetent, unprofessional and so pre-occupied with 'face', only brings harm to the seminary! Meanwhile, there's so much other nonsense involved with no careful foresight nor thinking. I ask myself again and again, 'What am I doing her?' 'Why am I wasting my life here?'
I think through again and the hymn 'Be Thou My Vision' came to mind. If only we were to allow the Lord Jesus to be our vision. This morning, while looking through the library catalogue for new books I had to decide on whether to purchase a book on B. B. Warfield, I went online to check it out more and found out about how a man of great piety would focus not only on building godly lives of students, but also their learning.
Then, this morning I heard again the rejection of a proposal by the president to the Board for the purchase of a disused school nearby. The school has a net area of 30,000 square feet, about double the entire net area of our current location. Again, I fail to understand how these small, peanut-minds could be making decisions for a seminary! And all this is a strong signal to me to bid farewell...
'Lord, have mercy...'
The past two weeks were to some extent challenging again. There was first the problem of a colleague who suddenly went to the dean and complained that I taught Greek wrong, and that I had used the wrong textbook. He further said that he could complete the entire introductory Greek in one trimester, which meant I taught too slowly. I suppose that carried the implication that I wasn't efficient or competent enough.
This happened during a time when our new prospectus was due for revision. The registrar was in charge of this and so needed the course descriptions in the prospectus to be re-written. Since my colleague had some thoughts about me and my teaching, the dean wanted me to sit down and talk to this colleague, an 'instruction' he conveyed through the registrar. However, I thought otherwise and felt it fine to discuss the revision of the course description but not my teaching. But the colleague had in fact wanted me to teach according to the previous course description written by him. This, of course, was something totally absurd. Further, when I first joined the seminary and was asked to teach Greek I had first cleared with the dean as to the use of the textbook I preferred, who gave me the immediate go-ahead.
According to the registrar, the dean revealed that the colleague had done the same with two previous New Testament lecturers. This really angered me, as I failed to understand why the dean would still entertain this colleague and allow him to continue his nonsense.
The registrar wanted me to speak to the colleague, together with her and the dean. However, I had decided against speaking to them, as this would be tantamount to an affirmation of that colleague. What surprised me next was that the registrar went and spoke to the president, who then called me up and, once I had sat down, asked me, 'What's happening to Greek?' This whole approach was most upsetting. Although the president put it quite nicely to me, it gave me the feeling that I was the one at fault, when in fact I had done absolutel nothing!
The president made a number of points: (1) that anyone who is teaching Greek will also be the one who writes the course description; (2) whoever is teaching should be given the full trust and freedom to teach; (3) however, it would still be helpful for the two of us (the colleague and I) to sit and discuss what goes into the course. For he (the president) felt that if I were to simply leave it all to the colleague, it might even show I didn't have trust in him, whose logic perhaps my mind is too small to comprehend.
My response was: (1) my colleague could take over the course, and therefore he could write the description; (2) I did not want to discuss the contents of my teaching, save the course description; and (3) that it was alright not to discuss what went into the course description, as I'd trust my colleague.
I've been most upset by the entire turn of events. For one, the registrar in fact was opposed to the idea of robing in the president, when the dean first made the suggestion. Yet, she had finally got the president to speak to me. For all the 'trust' the president spoke about, the fact that I was being spoken to already shows there was no trust. I was relatively angry with the failure in leadership over such a matter. In fact, to my mind, this is tantamount to harrassment by one colleague against another through interference in the latter's work! However, the leadership simply connived at such an ill. That day, after leaving the president's office and returning to my own office I broke down and cried. For I felt so intruded and offended.
I thought to myself: for all that I've given up and this is what I'm getting. What scholar would do what I have done? And having done what I've done, who would have tolerated such nonsense?
I did something else, following the conversation with the president. I spoke to the colleague and said he could take over with immediate effect from the second trimester. He gleefully agreed. I spoke to the president immediately, who then said he would need to confirm with the dean. I further wrote an email to all parties concerned, i.e. the dean, president, registrar, and my colleague, informing them that the two of us had spoken and concluded that he could and would take over the teaching of Greek in the second trimester. Thus, he would also write the course description.
The dean replied, without sending any copies to the others, that he was 'surprised' by the 'very clear conclusions' between my colleague and me and simply stated that there was way to change the lecturer. I replied by pointing out that the 'very clear conclusions' were with regard to the discussion between my colleague and myself, and the discussion was held simply because he wanted us to discuss. That was the only time the dean communicated with me over the matter! So much for his failed leadership!
After thinking through all this, I've decided it's enough. I shall leave upon finding a new job. That week, I sent an email to a friend in another seminary enquiring the possibility of joining his seminary after July next year, when my contract expired. He replied asking for my CV and saying that he and the president would discuss in three weeks' time, when the president returned from overseas.
With the above, I see so clearly so much nonsense in this seminary. The dean, who has been so lazy, inefficient and incompetent, unprofessional and so pre-occupied with 'face', only brings harm to the seminary! Meanwhile, there's so much other nonsense involved with no careful foresight nor thinking. I ask myself again and again, 'What am I doing her?' 'Why am I wasting my life here?'
I think through again and the hymn 'Be Thou My Vision' came to mind. If only we were to allow the Lord Jesus to be our vision. This morning, while looking through the library catalogue for new books I had to decide on whether to purchase a book on B. B. Warfield, I went online to check it out more and found out about how a man of great piety would focus not only on building godly lives of students, but also their learning.
Then, this morning I heard again the rejection of a proposal by the president to the Board for the purchase of a disused school nearby. The school has a net area of 30,000 square feet, about double the entire net area of our current location. Again, I fail to understand how these small, peanut-minds could be making decisions for a seminary! And all this is a strong signal to me to bid farewell...
'Lord, have mercy...'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)