Resources
2026 Hybrid Workshop for Faculty of Asian DescentSchedule of SessionsFebruary 6, 2026, 3–5:00 pm ETMarch 6, 2026, 3–5:00 pm ETApril 10, 2026, 3–5:00 pm ETMay 1, 2026, 3–5:00 pm ETJune 1–5, 2026 in person (Wabash Center, Crawfordsville, IN)July 10, 2026, 3–5:00 pm ETAugust 7, 2026, 3–5:00 pm ETLeadership TeamKhyati Joshi, Ph.D., Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityTat-siong Benny Liew, Ph.D., College of the Holy CrossParticipantsJane Naomi Iwamura, University of the WestAnjana Narayan, California State Polytechnic University PomonaJanette Ok, Fuller SeminaryStephanie Wong, Villanova UniversityBrett Esaki, University of ArizonaMartin Nguyen, Fairfield UniversityEkaputra Tupamahu, George Fox UniversityJonathan Tran, Duke UniversityJane Hong, Occidental CollegeChrissy Lau, San Francisco State UniversityJohn Boopalan, Canadian Mennonite UniversityHimanee Gupta-Carlson, SUNY Empire State CollegeGrace Kao, Claremont School of TheologyDong Hyeon Jeong, Garrett Evangelical Theological SeminaryApplication ClosedWabash Center Staff Contact:Rachelle Green, Ph.D.Associate DirectorWabash Center301 West Wabash Ave.Crawfordsville, IN 47933greenr@wabash.eduDescriptionThis hybrid workshop gathers faculty of Asian descent from diverse religious specializations and across the different career stages to participate in a community for six monthly online sessions and an in-person meeting in June 2026. Centering our Asian and Asian American identities, spiritualities, histories, and knowledges, this community seeks to co-create conditions for our renewed imagination, professional alignment, and agency.As a learning community of committed and skilled teachers, this hybrid workshop will explore issues such as:pedagogy and politics of faculty, especially the realities of racismthriving in one’s institutional contextteaching religious, social, racial/ethnic, and learning diversities in the classroomconnecting the classroom to broader social issuesaddressing the changing landscape in higher educationremembering the joy, wonder, awe, and purposes of our teacher-scholar-artist professionssharing the stories and re-crafting the narratives that shape our personal and professional trajectoriesThere will be a balance of plenary sessions, small group discussions, structured and unstructured social time, and time for relaxation, exercise, meditation, discovery, laughter, karaoke, and – during the in-person session – lots of good food and drink.GoalsTo develop a professional network of mutually supportive teachers/scholars of Asian descentTo speak candidly about the politics and pressures of teaching and learning in higher education, including in mono- or multicultural contextsTo promote the possibilities of teaching in a religiously pluralistic contextTo unearth and curate a repository of resources for our teaching styles, specializations, and toolsTo explore the different pathways of engaging in public scholarshipTo interrogate the institutional reward systems that shape our agency, desires, and imaginationsTo examine the dynamic, evolving relationship between our professional formation and community-focused aspirations toward wholeness and liberation. HonorariumParticipants will receive an honorarium of $3,000 for full participation in the hybrid workshop.Read More about Payment of Participants Important InformationForeign National Information Form Policy on Participation
Storytelling-Based Pedagogy RoundtableApplication Dates:Opens: August 16, 2024Deadline: January 7, 2025GatheringMay 19 – 22, 2025Atlanta, GALeadership TeamRichelle White, Kuyper CollegeAlmeda Wright, Yale UniversityParticipantsMonique Moultrie, Georgia State UniversityMatthew Lynch, Oregon State UniversityJamal-Dominique Hopkins, Baylor UniversityMeg Richardson, Starr King School for the MinistryMolly Greening, Loyola University ChicagoDannis Matteson, Saint Mary’s CollegeSeth Gaiters, North Carolina State UniversityMareike Koertner, Trinity CollegeSharon Jacob, Claremont School of TheologyGrace Ji-Sun Kim, Earlham School of ReligionAshlyn Strozier, Georgia State UniversityJoseph Tucker Edmonds, Indiana University IndianapolisWabash Center Staff Contact:Sarah Farmer, Ph.DAssociate DirectorWabash Center301 West Wabash Ave.Crawfordsville, IN 47933farmers@wabash.eduApplication ClosedDescriptionThis roundtable will explore the intersection of storytelling and pedagogy. Teachers have been sharing stories throughout the ages. African griots preserve oral histories of entire communities through storytelling. Indigenous storytellers connect the past, present and future tightening familial and tribal bonds. Culturally, storytelling is important for passing on oral tradition, knowledge, history, and moral lessons. Pedagogically, storytelling serves as a tool to educate, increase knowledge, create meaning and improve society. Stories serve multiple purposes in the classroom. This storytelling immersion invites participants to engage the following pedagogical purposes for the classroom:Storytelling for creative expressionStorytelling for empathyStorytelling for influenceStorytelling for coming to voiceStorytelling for collective communal wisdom sharingParticipants will be asked to bring a course syllabus or assignment in which they have already been exploring storytelling and pedagogy or a course in which they are curious about how storytelling could enrich the classroom experience. QuestionsOur work together will be guided by questions such as:What is the role of storytelling in course design?How do you define storytelling?What is the purpose of storytelling (in general and in the classroom)?What are the ways that storytelling and narrative can positively transform course design and classroom engagementHow do we develop the skills to tell stories and invite storytelling in our classrooms, as opposed to only critically dissecting/reflecting on/analyzing stories?How do we cultivate new storytelling skills/practices in our teaching, scholarship and service?What is the value of curating a list of resources on storytelling and pedagogy? What items are on your list? What resources would you recommend to the roundtable?Of the storytelling purposes mentioned above, which ones resonate with you? Which ones present an area for growth?How are learning activities or assignments that use storytelling or narrative approaches developed or implemented?EligibilityTenured, tenure track, continuing term, and/or full-time contingency.Doctoral degree awarded by the time of applicationTeaching religion, religious studies, or theology in an accredited college or university in the United States, Puerto Rico, or CanadaInstitutional support and personal commitment to participate fully in all roundtable sessions.Application MaterialsApplication Contact Information formCover letterAn introductory letter that describes your teaching context and addresses why you want to be part of this collaborative community, including what you hope to get out of it and what you might contribute to it. (Up to 500 words)Brief essayTell us a story about your most memorable teaching and learning moment. This can be written from the perspective of you as a teacher or as a learner. You can choose to tell the story in first person or third person. It can draw from experiences across the full spectrum of your life and from formal or informal educational settings. We welcome your creativity and imagination in how you tell this story. (Up to 500 words)Academic CV (4-page limit)A letter of institutional support for your full participation in this workshop from your Department Chair, Academic Dean, Provost, Vice President, or President. Please have this recommendation uploaded directly to your application according to the online application instructions. HonorariumParticipants will receive an honorarium is $1,500 for full participation in this roundtable.Read More about Payment of ParticipantsImportant InformationForeign National Information FormPolicy on Participation

“What are you working on these days?” the President asked. The setting was a professional meeting. I was on the Board of Directors of my professional society, and I was at my first meeting. I discovered that we begin each meeting with this same question. Everyone went around the room to talk about the book, the essay, the project they were working on. Then, it was my turn. I changed the focus away from my own work to the work I did for our professional society. I was brief, and then the person next to me picked up the question.The others at the table didn’t know me; didn’t know the anxiety I was feeling. Given all the work that these professors had published, many I had read, a few I regarded as superstars, I wondered what I was doing in this room. How did I get on this board in the first place? I had no brilliant book that is a must-read for anyone in the field. I had not garnered a prestigious NEH grant worth thousands to my institution. I was just one of the worker bees – chairing a committee where people often ask, “What is it your committee does?”I am a poor kid from the projects who went to a small, little-known church-related college with an open admissions process, not Harvard (although I did live just up the street – a “townie” I am told, often with an air of condescension). My neighborhood was where the Harvard students would come when they wanted to “give back” to feel good about themselves; noblesse oblige I later learned. I was a charity case; I needed their help to succeed – at least that’s what I was told.Yet there I was, sitting with them steering the future of the academy, or at least our part in it. Who was I to be giving suggestions? What the hell did I know? So, at first, I didn’t say much for fear that I would be found out for the imposter I was.I remember completing coursework in grad school and having an obligatory meeting with my advisor. Apparently, the department had conversations about me and my performance to date. My Ivy-League-bred advisor began the conversation, “In truth, we were not too sure what we would be getting with you given your background. We decided to take a chance, and we have been pleased with your performance.” Did they really think that the preparation I received in my previous schools was that poor? I wondered if he had the same conversation with my peers, all of whom had graduated from prestigious schools, one of whom had already received a Fulbright. I knew I wasn’t as polished as they were. Did they think I even belonged in the program with them? Perhaps not.After I graduated, I was not sure I wanted to go into academia, into a profession where I felt – where I was often made to feel – inferior. I had been working as a community organizer in public housing projects like the one I had grown up in. I felt at home there; I knew their struggles and they appreciated the work I was doing.I taught part-time jobs in prisons and in the historically black colleges in the area. Most of my students came from similar backgrounds to me and I found joy in teaching them, which was the reason I pursued a PhD in the first place.I ultimately decided to go on the academic job market and surprisingly landed a job as a “teacher-scholar” at a small, church-related college, much like the one I had attended. My department welcomed me, offered me help as I started my teaching career. This too felt like home, but I was still nervous. The research and publishing requirements were not overly burdensome, but research and writing were not my passion, at least not in a joyful sense; writing was torture save for those times when I could write on behalf of the poor, the unemployed, or about baseball.I poured myself into teaching. I spent countless hours researching and conversing with colleagues at the college and the academy about pedagogy and the best ways to engage students who were in my classes because they were required. I experimented with and developed some competence in active learning and nontraditional adult learning theories and practices even though I knew it limited time for other research. My students appreciated my efforts, nominating me for a teaching award. Had I “made it”? Did I now belong to the academy? My confidence was bolstered by invitations to write about my classroom experiences, to engage in what became the scholarship of teaching and learning. My peers welcomed my contributions at professional societies’ presentations and eventually through the nascent peer-reviewed publications that were emerging in the field. I added a teaching professorate, staff positions on faculty development programs, and several other teaching awards to my resume, including an academy-wide excellence-in-teaching award.The highest achievements in the profession, however, were still measured by and given to scholarship. I could work for my professional society but could never be nominated for its presidency. My contributions to my field of religious ethics have been much less successful. My rejections outnumber my acceptances three to one for both presentations and publications. Was I really a teacher “scholar”? I had earned a place at the teacher table. But I was still a stranger at the table of scholars who gathered at the board meeting. Would this ever change? Does it really matter?After thirty years, definitive answers to these questions elude me. The imposter syndrome still feeds on my soul, periodically eating away my confidence when a student writes he didn’t learn a thing in my class (even though he was only one of thirty-five), or my proposal or paper is rejected. But its meals are less frequent now: in part because I am a tenured full professor; mostly because I have embraced the imposter within. I have learned to use the angst it generates to propel me forward, to become the best teacher-scholar I can be, however limited – just like so many of my imposter colleagues, who I have discovered make up much of the professorate.I still feel uncomfortable at times sitting at the boardroom table, especially with the superstars of my field. But I am no longer quiet. My experiences, my insights into the world in which we work and the struggles most of us endure, are valuable, perhaps even the norm. Imposter or not, I would be irresponsible if I kept quiet. After all, most of the higher education world is filled with “townies” like me.

In one of my teaching documents I claim that good professors motivate, prepare, and support their students to produce good work in their courses. I remain deeply committed to this view. But something has been happening over the past several years that has shaken my faith not only in my ability to teach well but in my perception of reality. I’ve started receiving assignments that feel off. I start reading, ready to comment on student work, and run into words, phrases, and ideas that don’t fit. Sometimes it is a peculiar use of language. Other times a paper references information that was not explored in a course and is not common knowledge.Worse, I’ve received uncannily similar assignments from multiple students. Not only is some of the outside information they use wrong in a similar way, the stock phrasing of basic material is identical. I find myself wondering if it’s more likely that multiple students decided to use a word like “tapestry” in their analysis due to some affinity for the term or if something else is afoot.I have begrudgingly accepted that my students are using artificial intelligence (AI) to write their assignments. A Google search for “what percentage of students are using AI?” suggests that at least half of them use it. It is unlikely that my students are an exception.I’ve had several uncomfortable meetings with students about suspected plagiarism using AI. On occasion they admit their work is AI-generated. Other times they acknowledge outside source usage but deny AI. Often they flatly deny anything, even as they struggle to explain the words they claim to have written.What does a good professor do in this situation? Do they give their students the benefit of the doubt? Do they follow the procedures for suspected plagiarism even as these are based on legal principles which often perpetuate social and racial inequality? Is it their fault they were unable to motivate students to do the work themselves? Was their course poorly planned given that it wasn’t AI-proof?Answering these requires addressing two additional questions: (1) Is plagiarizing using generative AI different from the plagiarism of old, where a student might clandestinely copy from an encyclopedia on a typewriter? and (2) Why is this so bad if AI, as administrators and technocrats often remind us, is here to stay?My class, often the only humanities class a student is taking, nurtures skills of reading, writing, and critical thinking that cannot be duplicated by a computer. One can produce passable work with AI. I’ve accepted that. But one cannot create and recognize good work without developing proper skills.I don’t want the sins of some previous students to dictate the way I treat my current and future students. In fact, I don’t want the ways I’ve been mistreated by friends, family, partners, or anyone else to dictate how I interact with new people. But it would be naïve to assume that others won’t ever act similarly. Still, I don’t want to approach student writing suspiciously because students have used AI in the past. I worry that I over-emphasize that AI is unacceptable. Sadly, this has not prevented me from occasionally experiencing the uncanny feeling that something is off in an assignment.Grading has begun to feel like gaslighting. Kate Abramson in On Gaslighting (Princeton University Press, 2024) characterizes gaslighting as a trusted person aiming to make another incapable of reasoning, perceiving, or reacting in ways that would allow them to form appropriate beliefs, perceptions, and emotions. My experience of grading has fundamentally shaken my confidence in my ability to make good judgments about reality – what my students learned, how they write, and if they would have the audacity to submit work that they didn’t write themselves despite my repeated warnings that it was unacceptable.I’ve gone from hoping that my students put effort into their assignments to merely hoping that they wrote it themselves. I now savor the occasional typo, misspelling, sentence fragment, or odd formatting, things that occur in student writing as they develop their skills.Something can be done. All is not lost. I’ve shifted multiple preplanned assignments from short at-home writing exercises to in-class assignments. For text papers, I require students to submit an annotated primary source reading.We are all teaching in a new reality, one that causes discomfort for many. Good teaching may look different going forward even if it falls short of our ideal. Nonetheless, the principles of good teaching remain the same even as the experience of teaching changes.
2025 Blog Writers Gathering The Wabash Center Blog Writers Workshops aim to bring together prominent and aspiring voices to our blog. Participants are chosen by invitation. This workshop is an opportunity for our blog contributors to meet other writers, share approaches and techniques, participate in generative writing exercises, and learn more about blogging as a creative and scholarly genre and practice. Leadership Team Donald Quist, Ph.D.Wabash Center and University of Missouri Nancy Lynne Westfield, Ph.D.Wabash Center Date of Session (via Zoom) Sunday, March 9, 2025 For More Information, Please Contact: Donald Quist, Ph.D. Education Design Manager Wabash Center quistsd@wabash.edu Invited Participants Haruka Umetsu Cho, Santa Clara University Molly Greening, Loyola University Chicago Carol Duncan, Wilfrid Laurier University Laura Carlson Hasler, Indiana University Rebecca Makas, Villanova University Tamisha Tyler, Bethany Theological Seminary Kristina Lizardy-Habji, Iliff School of Theology Jennifer S. Leath, Queen's University Frederick Glennon, Le Moyne College
2024 Blog Writers Gathering #2 The Wabash Center Blog Writers Workshops aim to bring together prominent and aspiring voices to our blog. Participants are chosen by invitation. This workshop is an opportunity for our blog contributors to meet other writers, share approaches and techniques, participate in generative writing exercises, and learn more about blogging as a creative and scholarly genre and practice. Leadership Team Donald Quist, Ph.D.Wabash Center and University of Missouri Date of Session (via Zoom) June 2024 For More Information, Please Contact: Donald Quist, Ph.D. Education Design Manager Wabash Center quistsd@wabash.edu Invited Participants Yau Man Siew, Tyndale University Nicholas Elder, University of Dubuque Oluwatomisin Oredein, Brite Divinity School Richelle White, Kuyper College Marvin Wickware, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago Ahyun Lee, Garrett-Evangelical Theological School Emily Kahm, College of St. Mary

About a year ago I was teaching a Greek class where we were translating Paul’s short letter to Philemon. I mentioned the idea that States could use the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 in order to curtail the rights of women to travel across state lines to secure an abortion. In case you are not aware, friends, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 criminalized any provision of aid or sanctuary to escaped enslaved individuals. And I was not just making it up. There are articles both in newspapers and legal journals to document my reference.[i]Unbeknownst to me, a student took issue with my statement and decided to correct me. However, they did not correct me during the class period and they did not correct me by scheduling a time to meet with me. Neither did the student decide to send me an e-mail. The student decided to send an e-mail to all of the White students in the classroom. The student did not send the e-mail to any of the Black students in the classroom. As you can probably discern from the title of this blog, the e-mail began with “I love Dr. Parker but. . . .” Of course, one of my students sent the e-mail to me and we had to process it during the next class period which, of course, was not part of my lesson plan nor a part of my syllabus.In the e-mail, the student indicated that it is ridiculous to imagine that states’ rights could supersede the rights of unrestricted travel for US citizens, regardless of whether one leaves the state for an abortion or vacation. The e-mail then went on to state that “Statistics show that for every one white abortion there are five to six black abortions. Black persons should view abortion as a white man’s way of trying to limit the population of blacks in the United States.” The tone was almost as if Black people should be grateful that White Republicans (this person identified as Republican in the e-mail) loved them so much that they were trying to stop abortions.There are two predominant ways to think about love paternalism and both come through Pauline literature. The first is the idea of a love that gives up rights. This stems from Paul’s use of the terms the weak and the strong. The idea is that the strong give up their right to do something if that thing, in fact, causes the weak to stumble. The classic example is in the case of meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8-10. A contemporary example can be found in the idea of men telling woman to cover up themselves in case they arouse a man’s sexual interest and suffer a rape. This is an instance of victim-blaming and leaves the onus on a woman instead of arguing that a man should actually have self-control.[ii]Another aspect of love paternalism involves limiting someone’s autonomy and freedom for their own good. I see this idea particularly in the student’s statement that Black persons should view abortion as a white man’s way of trying to limit the population of blacks in the United States. Throughout history White people do whatever they can to justify their understanding of why they mistreat Black people. For example, during the transatlantic slave trade, slaveowners and traders justified trafficking enslaved persons by saying that they were introducing them to the gospel.What should the African American female professor’s response be when love paternalism smacks her in the face in the midst of a semester when she is teaching Greek? Of course, she must confront it head-on and be able to maneuver and be nimble right in the middle of the semester. Pedagogically, I table any theological discussion during Greek translation because the focus during that particular time is on morphology and syntax within the text. However, in this instance I did allow a moment to discuss the e-mail and then connect it to the manipulative ways in which Paul’s rhetoric shows up in the letter to Philemon. We tackled the e-mail through power dynamics. We also had to have a frank discussion on why the student only sent the e-mail to White students.Bottom line: Openness, frank discussions, and nimbleness are required when love paternalism unexpectedly affronts a professor. I do not know if my White colleagues experience such moments in the classroom. However, you never know what your minoritized colleagues are going through when we are teaching our classes, so please be kind. Notes & Bibliography[i] See Angela N. Parker. “You Can’t Pay Back What You Never Owned: A Conversation on Reparations and Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” in Reparations and the Theological Disciplines: Prophetic Voices for Remembrance, Reckoning, and Repair, ed. M. Barram, D.G.I. Hart, G. Kettering, and M.J. Rhodes, (Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2023), 91-104. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-missouri/; https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/online/volume-xxiii-online/legal-vigilantism-a-discussion-of-the-new-wave-of-abortion-restrictions-and-the-fugitive-slave-acts/.[ii] See Roger E. Olson, Whatever Happened to the Christian Principle of “Love Paternalism?” (Newstex, 2019).

Below is the jargon which has pervaded our conversation. I call this the “re-” lexicon:re-designre-inventre-arrangere-imaginere-createre-thinkre-conceivere-examinere-visionre-considerre-workre-coverThe call to “re-” the system of education has been in response to shrinking student pools, dwindling tenure-track positions, collapsing denominational structures, tightening budgets, rising awareness of student debt, curriculum misalignment, and the mounting backlog of deferred maintenance on aging buildings. Even before the shift in the federal government’s relationship to education, theological education needed an overhaul. The list of words entered our discussion but their potential nor their aspiration has not been fully realized.Many schools have taken on the task of rethinking their institutions – most in reaction to crisis. Many of the “re” processes assumed that what has served well should be mended, fixed and pressed back into service. Administrators, in planning institutional changes, started with strategies to restore what had served admirably in the past. Many schools rethought their curriculum for existing degree programs, added certificated programs, replaced tenured faculty positions with the hire of contingency faculty, sold land, increased their endowment draw down, and hoped for increased student enrollment. These strategies, depending upon the context, have had a modicum of success. Indeed, some vulnerable schools have prolonged their demise. Other schools are announcing downsizing and closings. Our attempt at “re” is faltering.Not only have leaders failed to figure out a way to revitalize theological education as an enterprise, the patched-together strategies are likely not to be sustainable 5, 10, 20 years into the future. There is palpable fear that given the new realities of the digital age’s influence on teaching, exacerbated by the lack of crisis management skills of deans and presidents, schools will not accomplish the hoped for “reset” in theological education.We are confounded. Yet, we are persuaded.Theological leaders are convinced that our society—now and into the future—is better with a vibrant and thriving theological education enterprise. Leaders believe that the societal need for educated faith leaders—clergy and laity—has increased and will continue to grow. We believe theology and religion will prove more, not less, relevant in the digital age. We know that the church as well as all forms of organized religion are the major stakeholders in theological education. Our work is paramount—if only we can figure out how to craft new, accessible systems.Given the severity of the situation, what if it is ultimately detrimental to repair or restore our current paradigms of education? What if fixing the current system is tantamount to patching bicycle tires only to return to riding on nail-riddled roads? From my vantage point, our challenge, rather than repairing the current, is to let go of the past. We must freshly build, compose, make, and design news systems of theological education based upon a future we do not know but that is coming quickly.What if the solutions lie in building new systems from scratch? What would it mean to compose brand new approaches to educational needs? How can we fashion new pedagogical apparatuses? What would it take to manufacture the new and the needed educational models?Leaders have, in the past, relied on institutional traditions and strategic planning. Those tools were helpful, but no longer sufficient. Now is the time for a creative process. We must ask ourselves not about repair and retrench, but about the new. What new - that is yet to be realized -will be the very thing to produce the next educational system?This is not a call to be creative as much as it is a call to create.[caption id="attachment_253985" align="alignleft" width="300"] Najee Dorsey (BAIA) Nancy Lynne Westfield and Rachel Mills (Wabash Center)[/caption]The Wabash Center has partnered with Najee Dorsey. An exquisite artist in his own right, Najee is the founder of Black Art in America (BAIA). Under Najee’s leadership, BAIA is a community art gallery and garden dedicated to teaching art, creativity, and artist advocacy. BAIA hosts our cohort groups as part of an effort to expose our faculty to artists, the creative process, and imagination. Najee and the artist colleagues guide scholars in future-building ways of thinking. Participants engage directly with artists about their work and lives—as creators, producers, and visionaries. At BAIA, scholars encounter colleagues whose careers are devoted to building and making. The shift from being creative to becoming a creator requires tactile, embodied learning. Najee knows this terrain.In the conversations between the BAIA artists and our participants, I have noticed consistent themes in the conversations. Artists wake up each day with the question of What am I going to create? in the forefront of their minds, then align their schedule to accommodate time for creating. Creatives are not afraid to be wrong or make mistakes. We must consider that unless educational systems celebrate rather than stigmatize risk-taking, failure, and experimentation, no new systems will emerge. A creative process causes you to change what you can see and challenge what you have previously seen. Creatives do not believe dreams are ancillary to the process. They embrace visions, daydreams, visitations, nightmares, wishes and messages from earth, wind, fire and water. They inhabit many worlds. What would it take for us to, collectively, think in these modes and frames?Exposing theology and religion colleagues to the profound understandings of artists, artists’ lifestyles, as well as providing colleagues with a glimpse of the creative process is a way that the Wabash Center is championing the need for leaders in education to build, craft, make a new paradigm of theological education that is original and sustainable.I do not believe the future of theological education to be condemned nor foreclosed. Our future is, however, dependent upon our willingness and understanding that the new is needed and that we must, together, create the new if it is to exist. Who among us has the guts to proceed?ReflectionWhat would it mean to use the creative process to design and build new educational structures?What would it take to collaborate with artists in developing new educational structures?In your context, who are the conversation partners for the shift in mindset to a lifestyle and daily practice of building, composing, and making?

Welcome to the Common Questions, an exciting initiative brought to you by the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion. In this series, we bring together some of the most esteemed scholars and educators in the field to engage with a central, thought-provoking question. The goal is to challenge and inspire. By exploring these questions, we hope to create a dynamic platform for scholarly dialogue, illuminate complexities in education, and enhance our understanding of the transformative power of teaching and learning in these vital disciplines. Featuring a diverse range of perspectives, this effort is a means of expanding the borders of academic rigor with profound spiritual and philosophical inquiry.This time, we asked…“We are all born with medicine inside of us: unique traits and attributes that contribute to healing humanity on this planet. How is your medicine utilized in your teaching?”Gathered here are responses from:Kristina Lizardy-Hajbi, Iliff School of TheologyRebecca Makas, Villanova UniversityCarol B. Duncan, Wilfrid Laurier UniversityHaruka Umetsu Cho, Santa Clara UniversityMolly Greening, Loyola University ChicagoLaura Carlson Hasler, Indiana UniversityFred Glennon, Le Moyne CollegeIf you are interested in sharing you response to this prompt or future Common Questions, please reach out to our blogs editor, Donald E. Quist at quistd@wabash.edu.
Joseph Tucker Edmonds, PhD is Assistant Professor of Africana Studies and Religious Studies at Indiana University Indianapolis.
Wabash Center Staff Contact
Sarah Farmer, Ph.D
Associate Director
Wabash Center
farmers@wabash.edu