Designing School-Based Faculty Development Programs for Academic Faith Integration
In Christian higher education, a well-designed faculty development program that includes academic faith integration (AFI) can have a lasting impact—not only on teaching and scholarship but also on the culture of an entire campus. As someone who served as Executive Director of Faith Integration at a mid-sized Christian university for over a decade, I had the privilege of designing and leading this type of program. This essay distills my experience in hopes of inspiring others to do similar work. My particular concern is for institutions where academic faith integration is seen as essential but not yet consistently understood, systemically installed, or intentionally evaluated. In order to accomplish a comprehensive development strategy, three things are necessary: practical resources, well-chosen equippers, and an approach that is fully integrated throughout the academic program.
Theological Foundations for Faculty Development in Christian Higher Education
The work of faculty development in Christian higher education is not merely a professional responsibility—it is a spiritual vocation guided by early Christian archetypes and biblical themes such as discipleship, growth, grace, and stewardship.
The Apostle Paul offers a multi-layered vision that resonates with this calling. When his words from 2 Timothy 2:2 are adapted to the context of Christian higher education, the message becomes clear: “What you, professor, have heard from me [the faculty developer]—alongside faithful colleagues from across the disciplines—entrust to your students, remembering that God may call them to become the teachers, leaders, and culture-makers of tomorrow.”
This exhortation highlights a generative vision: faculty development is not only the transmission of practical knowledge but also part of a chain of equipping educators to prepare future influencers in every field.[1] Adult education specialists Vella, Berardinelli, and Burrow offer a similar model.[2] It starts with “Learning” which examines the effectiveness of the class’s dissemination of relevant knowledge and skills. Next, these authors speak of “Transfer” which meaures learners’ success in taking what was learned into other contexts. Finally, “Impact” demomstrates how lasting and transformational the “learning” was for the individual and the organization/culture where they sought to apply what they’d learned.
Christian educators are entrusted with more than knowledge delivery; they are called, along with others in the body of Christ, “to equip the saints for works of service” and help students grow into maturity in Christ (Ephesians 4:11–13; cf. Colossians 1:28,29). That maturity includes the ability to understand and engage the world as Jesus would and as the early Christians did.[3] To do this effectively, students need well-constructed scaffolding—and that scaffolding must first be constructed for Christian instructors, themselves.[4] In light of the Great Commission’s call to disciple the nations, therefore, faculty development is not optional or peripheral; it is necessary and strategic.[5]
As James reminds readers, both ancient and modern, teaching is a weighty responsibility (James 3:1). Teaching Christianly with effective integration of faith as well as relevant content and practices from one’s academic discipline requires sober-minded self-awareness guided by increasing spiritual maturity (Romans 12:3; cf. Psalm 139:23,24; Galatians 5:25). It calls for the intentional formation of scholarly saints – not only students but faculty too. Therefore, while sharing tools that will be needed for faith-based teaching excellence, effective faculty development in Christian universities will also blend professional competencies with personal growth. (The writings of Parker Palmer illustrate this principle without explicit Christian overtones.) Hints of this fusion can be seen in Paul’s words to slaves and masters in Colossians 3:22-25. Peter exhorts all believers to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18), but believing educators should also mature in their capacity to recognize the knowledge of Christ within their area of disciplinary stewardship.[6] Such an “ability” depends on the Spirit granting wisdom and enlightenment (Ephesians 1:17,18). Applying Paul’s prayer to those who teach, our hope is that godly academic and pedagogical wisdom will mark every classroom.
Professional growth requires humility (1 Corinthians 8:1; James 4:10). Faculty development is an invitation to adopt a posture of openness to transformation. Furthermore, those who lead faculty development must themselves be marked by the fruit of the Spirit. Paul exhorts Timothy: “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful…” (2 Timothy 2:24–26). He goes on to exhort Timothy to offer instruction “gently,” resisting the impulse to be self-serving and coercive. As faculty development specialist Todd D. Zakrajsek explains, “influence only comes with respect from the individuals with whom one works.” The faculty member seeking assistance “is expecting support and guidance, but in a way that respects the person making request.”[7]
Finally, a line must be drawn from faculty development to faculty evaluation. While institutional evaluation can feel bureaucratic (and interpreted by some Christians as legalistic), important biblical themes affirm the need for accountability that includes evidence of applicable expectations. Jesus warned his followers to both examine themselves and to discern the fruit of others (Matthew 7:1–5, 15-17). Paul told the Corinthians “test yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). Similarly, Christian universities must discern whether their faculty are growing, bearing fruit, and making reasonable advances in their vocation. Evaluations—whether for promotion, tenure, or awards—should not be feared but embraced as moments of reflection and, when justified, lead to recognition and celebration.
Indeed, Christian institutions need a truth-based measure, or rubric, that offers a working understanding of what constitutes excellent faithful teaching. It is important that what precedes reasonable evaluation, then, is grace wrapped in the mantle of faculty development. Faculty development should be experienced as a gift by which faculty are prepared to grow (professionally and personally) into the rubric and to increasingly embody it, contributing to the flourishing of their students, their disciplinary guilds, and the institution itself. John writes that Jesus came “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). In the same spirit, faculty development should not be framed as a burden but as a blessing—an institutional stewardship that prepares educators to bear good fruit. When faculty accountability has a clear line from intentional preparation to professional acknowledgment, the community is able to recognize those the Spirit is continuing to set apart for the important work of Christian education (see Acts 6:1-7; Acts 13:1-3).
Designing an Academic Faith Integration Faculty Development Program
One of the foundational questions to address concerning new faculty is: What do we require—or not require—of whom and when? For example, at the university where I served, we required all first-year faculty to participate in a semester-long course surveying the foundations of academic faith integration. This requirement was written into their initial contract, and department chairs were asked not to assign them courses on Tuesdays from 2:30–4:00 p.m.
Requiring attendance signaled that faith integration was a priority and ensured that new faculty engaged in it from their earliest days. Though her concern is not with AFI, faculty development authority Ann Austin notes “while the set of knowledge and skills that new faculty are expected to bring to their positions is extensive, research indicates that the graduate experience usually has not prepared them in a systematic way for their new faculty roles.”[8] That may be doubly true for many new faculty being prepared to offer faith-integrated learning.
Furthermore, we wanted new faculty to understand that even if they came from other faith-based schools, our institution had a unique understanding of integration that we expected of everyone across all departments. We were clear about what it was and what it wasn’t while also expecting it be expressed distinctly in the various disciplines and professional programs. We also communicated that, in a few years, our new faculty would be expected to provide evidence of how they had applied our standards in their teaching.
In my current consulting work, I've encountered a range of approaches to recently hired faculty. Some universities recognize that the first year can be overwhelming so they delay AFI training until the second year. Others avoid mandatory participation altogether, instead labeling it “optional” or “highly encouraged.” Some schools require new faculty to be paired with a faith integration mentor during their first year. I have noticed that if mentoring is not structured, the outcomes can be inconsistent, with some mentors providing meaningful guidance, while others engage in casual conversation rather than substantive development. Related questions that must be considered: do we provide a course release for this? Pay a stipend? Or simply say, ‘This is part of what everyone does in their first [or second] year?’”
Stages of Development
Early in my tenure, our nursing faculty introduced me to the work of Patricia Benner, a nurse educator and scholar.[9] Building on the Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition, Benner described professional growth as progressing through five stages: Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient, and Expert. We adapted Benner’s framework for faith integration, using the following stages: Novice, Developing, Proficient, Advanced, and Expert. This model became a central tool in designing our faculty development program and linking it to faculty evaluation.
Because academic faith integration was part of our institutional identity, we set clear expectations: faculty were expected to reach at least the "Developing" stage by the end of their third year and "Proficient" by the end of year six. Of course, your institution’s review cycles may differ. In my experience, however, most faculty, regardless of prior faith background, typically need at least three years of sustained learning, practice, and reflection to reach proficiency.
While "Proficient" served as our baseline expectation for everyone, we celebrated those who advanced further. Faculty who reached the "Advanced" or "Expert" stages were invited to lead workshops, mentor colleagues, and share examples of integration from their teaching and scholarship at faculty luncheons.
This developmental model also guided the design of our resources and programs. Here are some examples:
Our Foundations course targeted those at the Novice or Developing stages, moving them conceptually toward Proficiency.
Workshops such as Experiential Learning and Academic Faith Integration or Christian Virtue in Professional Programs assumed foundational knowledge and targeted those in the Developing-to-Proficient range.
For faculty at the Advanced and Expert levels, book studies were most effective. We read texts such as How [Not] to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor by James K.A. Smith (in lieu of Taylor’s daunting original), Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept by James Sire, and selected chapters from The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics.[10]
Explore lists of other faculty development programs and activities that can be utilized and adapted for AFI.[11]
One lesson we learned: book groups need a facilitator who consistently connects the reading to the actual work of integration. Without such guidance, the group might enjoy rich conversation—but its development value is often diminished.
Another successful offering was our Summer Seminar series. Each summer, we selected a doctrinal theme and explored it in-depth over a week of morning sessions. While some schools bring in well-known scholars to lead such events, we took a different approach due to budget constraints. 10 faculty members were chosen through an application process. We provided them with a curated set of 3-5 books to add to their personal libraries. When applying for the seminar, they knew they’d be required to produce a related product such as a narrated lesson plan or PowerPoint lecture notes. Each seminar was co-facilitated by a faith integration “anchor-person” and a subject-matter expert. For example:
A theology professor co-led our seminar on the Christian tradition(s).
An art professor helped facilitate the seminar on “God the Creator and Creativity.”
For our “Faith Integration and Ethics” seminar, I co-led the event with a philosophy professor who had expertise in that area.
These seminars were especially attractive to faculty at the Advanced and Expert stages. Others were welcome, of course—but those most invested and most enriched were typically those who’d already passed through the “Proficient” stage and had become accustomed to reading theologically rich materials.
Categories for Comprehensive Offerings
To provide a well-rounded faculty development program, we found it helpful—especially at the end of each academic year and preparing for the year to come—to review our offerings and reflect on how well we were meeting faculty needs. Over time, we identified several categories that resourced faculty in different ways:
AFI Beginnings: This is where our AFI Foundations course fit.
Using Faith-Based Resources: Workshop examples included:
Using the Bible in AFI: Basics and Missteps
Insights from Christianity’s Great Tradition
Christian Traditions and Denominational Streams
The Life and Teachings of Jesus in AFI [the Gospels]
Making [good] Use of Old Testament Wisdom
Pedagogical Strategies: Sessions included:
Experiential Learning and AFI
Applying Adult Learning Principles to AFI
Designing and Grading Meaningful AFI Assignments
Socratic Discussions in AFI
Well-Timed Use of Spiritual Practices in the Curriculum
Important and Useful Concepts and Frameworks: Topics like:
Worldview
Work and Vocation
Justice and Shalom
Virtue
The Great Commission
Departmental/Disciplinary Applications: Such as:
Uses of Theology for History
Uses of Theology for Literature
Uses of Theology for Business
Uses of Theology and Science
One year, our programming leaned heavily toward the “Important Concepts” category. By year’s end, several faculty asked, “When will you offer the experiential learning workshop again?” We took that feedback seriously and, going forward, worked toward more intentional balance across categories.
A surprising “favorite” among our workshops was one that was designed for those who were due to write a Faith Integration Response Paper. Each year we offered multiple 1-hour “How to Write a FIRP” sessions (depending on how many people were in the annual cycle), and it significantly lowered faculty anxiety regarding expectations. We made clear what the Faculty Handbook was asking for, gave a myriad of cross-disciplinary examples, and offered “best [and worst] practices” for a successful product. More faculty said “Thank You” for this workshop than any other!
AFI Faculty Development Specialists
A Note on Workshops
As Executive Director, I personally led and created a lot of workshops, and I learned quite a bit—both from my own work with faculty and from my partnerships with others who helped to resource our colleagues. Here are some key takeaways from those experiences:
Where I worked, every workshop or resource we offered built upon the conceptual framework introduced in our AFI Foundations course. When recruiting people to lead workshops, I needed to know that they had taken that course (we also offered a half-day “Refresher” for those who had been at the institution longer than the course had existed). If this hadn’t happened, I engaged in frank interviews to ensure they understood and supported the core ideas presented in that foundational experience
Can I be honest? It caused real trouble when I compromised on this. Faculty would say things like: “Hey, I went to the workshop on ‘Faith Integration: Inspiring Classroom Ideas,’ and that person’s view of integration sounded like what I thought it was before I took the Foundations class.” I could say a lot more on this point, but for now, here’s the takeaway: Be discerning about who you choose as workshop presenters.
Now I'm going to step onto some thin ice on a second point which has to do with the use of Bible/Theology faculty. Ironically, Bible/Theology faculty may not always be the best candidates for leading faith integration workshops. While their presentations are frequently interesting and they clearly demonstrate deep biblical knowledge, two common problems can arise.
They often fail to show how their biblical or theological insights connect meaningfully with other academic disciplines. As a result, attendees may attempt to insert a theological point they heard into a lesson without linking it to what their course is actually about.
Their expertise (and perceived spiritual authority) can inadvertently intimidate others faculty members. “Wow. She knows so much about the Bible. I could never do that in my class!” And they shouldn’t do “that” in their classes since they are not Bible professors. Of course, it doesn’t have to be this way. We need Bible/Theology faculty to be involved in AFI faculty development. But they may need gentle reminders about how to support integration in ways that empower—not overshadow—colleagues in other disciplines.
A Note on Coaching
Over the years, our Faith Integration Council and I learned some “best practices” for coaching faculty one-on-one. It’s crucial that coaches (and workshop presenters, too) don’t pretend to know more than they do about others’ disciplinary fields but still come prepared to engage meaningfully with their colleagues. I’m not a social worker, scientist, statistician, or British literature scholar, for example, but when I saw who scheduled a coaching appointment (or signed up for a workshop), I’d do a little prep. I might skim a Wikipedia page or (more recently) ask ChatGPT: “Give me—a novice in the field of business finance—a one-page overview of what experts in that field must know and teach others. Name leading scholars in this field and 2-3 theoretical frameworks.” I always told participants I had done this. Acknowledging that beyond my limited experience and brief study, I was mostly ignorant of their area of expertise, usually broke the ice and opened the door to mutual learning.
Another important lesson: Sometimes, a faculty member would share something they were doing for “academic faith integration” that, well…wasn’t. Early on, I learned I needed to go beyond kindness (“Hey, that’s great! Keep up the good work!”) and offer actual guidance. But no one—especially highly educated adults—likes to be told, “That’s not it.” So, I developed some coaching strategies, starting with questions like:
“How did that lecture [assignment, group activity, reading and discussion, etc.] help your students make a connection between the Christian faith and your course content?”
“What Christian scholars from your field did you consult in shaping what you just described?”
When responses were limited (which was often the case when the integration was weak), I’d follow up with:
“Can I suggest a few things that might strengthen what you’ve started?”
“Would you be willing to read an article to expand your thinking? I have one in mind that I can send you later today.”
“Do you remember when the AFI Foundations course addressed the discipline of ‘practical theology’? Can I show you something in those materials (which I see there on your shelf) that you could implement next time you ask students to apply what they’ve learned?”
My intention was always to be “pastoral” in how I worked with faculty. Michael Reder aptly defines my experience, noting “at a small college it is common for the person responsible for faculty development programming to know every faculty member by name and even to have an ongoing professional relationship with each of them…”[12] By building relationships of trust and getting to know their passion areas, I became a trusted guide for many over the years. Eventually, that trust allowed me to be more direct: “OK, Dan. We’re friends, right? You trust me? I don’t think you’ve hit pay dirt on this yet. You’ve got a ways to go. Can we work on it together, right now? Then you can refine it and we’ll meet again. In fact, could I come to your class when you try it out so we can debrief afterward?”
It was apparent that Christian faculty who do faith integration are bringing something deeply personal into their teaching. “Faith,” in this context, is about more than just their walk with Jesus—but when someone steps in to evaluate their work or offer coaching, it still touches a personal and vulnerable place.
That said, we’re not working with children. We shouldn’t treat them with kid gloves. Those who coach and train faculty must be humble, honest about their own missteps, and eager to learn from others. They also must be competent to offer constructive input and valuable resources. It takes confidence with openness. AFI specialists should be well-prepared, while also being sensitive to how the Spirit is already at work in the lives of those God has entrusted to them.
Decentralized Faculty Development in Academic Departments
It was personally heartbreaking to realize that, as helpful as the many workshops I offered or sponsored were, there were two other realities:
Some faculty were never going to attend a workshop beyond the required AFI Foundations course—whether due to their schedule or their attitude.
Those same people were embedded in departments with academic deans and department chairs who played critical roles in directing their colleagues’ professional development.
In time, I discovered three places where I—or a designated faith integration catalyst—could insert ourselves in decentralized ways, beyond simply inviting faculty to attend our latest workshop.
Department-Specific Peer Equipping
Whenever I learned that a department chair had decided (on their own or at the request of their dean) to incorporate faith integration into monthly department meetings, I’d reach out to help. It wasn’t my job to impose a plan. But I found that when I entered those spaces as a learner, I was often able to offer strategic input.
One of my favorite examples was when the Chair of Modern Languages wanted to devote the fall semester’s faculty meetings to peer learning in AFI. Before meeting with him, I stopped by the library and gathered a half-dozen books I thought might be useful. He was blown away—he hadn’t heard of any of them.
We looked at the titles and tables of contents together, and ideas came flooding in. He thought through which books best matched the teaching assignments of his faculty and bought the appropriate book for each person. In preparation for each of the three meetings, faculty read one-third of their book and came ready to share AFI-related insights with their colleagues.
He also invited me to attend their gatherings, and I came well-prepared. But three meetings later, I had said very little (aside from helping them stay anchored in our shared understanding of AFI). Rather, as a group they had produced additional readings recommendations, collaborated on innovative assignment ideas, and given each other input for framing AFI lectures. One idea that emerged was a semester-long faith-integrated service-learning project into which the professor and I worked together in partnership with the Center for Service Learning.[13]
Creating Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
For accreditation purposes, most schools require departments to identify 5–7 Program Learning Outcomes to measure their programs’ effectiveness with students. In my work with Christian institutions, I’ve noticed that these learning outcomes often read something like: “Our students will demonstrate how what they’ve learned about [marketing] relates to a Christian worldview.” That’s not a terrible outcome, but it’s quite broad—and hard to assess meaningfully. From a faith integration perspective, I helped faculty groups to develop a handful of sub-outcomes in support of their overarching goal. Their broader faith-related PLO may remain in place for assessment purposes, but these sub-outcomes give departments a framework to analyze their curriculum more closely related to the discipline-relevant wisdom of the Christian worldview. The sub-outcomes are used as markers to ensure that developmentally situated content is positioned meaningfully across the curriculum.
This process is itself good faculty development for the full-time crew. But it can also provide structures for orienting adjunct instructors, giving them clarity on the what, why, and where (and suggestions for how) of including faith-related components in their courses. Of course, equipping adjuncts is itself an important challenge in faith integration faculty development.
Annual Faculty Review Conversations and Goal Setting
As with any area of professional development, it’s wise (and in some institutions, required) for faculty to set annual goals. Along with the triad of teaching, research, and service, faith integration is a worthy arena for such goals.
At our institution, faculty met each spring with their department chair to review the previous year’s goals and set goals for the coming year. While the approach I’m about to share was never fully institutionalized, some department chairs adopted it as a pattern. And faculty development personnel can help - not in policing goal statements - but in equipping chairs to discuss them with their faculty and to evaluate their progress at year’s end. I, along with others involved in faith integration leadership, developed materials to guide faculty goal setting and chair-led conversations. Our encouragement was that faculty identify two different kinds of AFI goals each year:
An AFI OUTPUT Goal: Something they would create, implement, or revise.
An AFI INPUT Goal: Something they would study, attend, or engage with to deepen their understanding.
The two often went hand-in-hand, though not always. Here are two examples:
Example 1
AFI OUTPUT Goal: In the coming school year, I will create a new AFI assignment for LDR 301, in which students explore the relationship between Jesus’ “woes” to the Pharisees (Matthew 23) and Robert Greenleaf’s theory of Servant Leadership.
AFI INPUT Goal: To support this, I will read entries from 10 commentaries on Matthew 23 and locate and read three additional scholarly articles exploring Jesus, the Pharisees, and/or faith-based perspectives on the theory of Servant Leadership.
Example 2
AFI OUTPUT Goal: I will revise how I teach the concept of “worldview” in my freshman biology class. I’m currently dissatisfied with the way it’s framed.
AFI INPUT Goal: I will read Worldview: History of a Concept by David K. Naugle[14] and attend the workshop, “Uses and Abuses of Worldview in Christian University Classrooms.” [These goals are off to a good start but could be more S.M.A.R.T., something the chair could help with.]
One year, the Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences invited me to join 11 department chairs for at least one of their spring review meetings with their faculty. With agreement from most of those chairs, I modeled how to lead constructive, respectful, and honest conversations about academic faith integration. Eagerly, we looked back at their goals from the previous year and discussed their goals looking to the year ahead. The gratitude from both chairs and faculty was immense. More importantly, it marked a turning point: department chairs began to see themselves as active contributors to their faculty’s development in this area, not just passive box-checkers.
Scalable Approaches for Small Institutions
Most of what has been shared up to this point can be reasonably applied to smaller schools. Here are some practical suggestions stated more directly.
1. Designate a Faculty Champion for AFI Development.
Assign a small portion of an “advanced” or “expert” faculty member’s teaching load (e.g., one course per semester) to lead AFI faculty development. This faculty champion could facilitate new faculty onboarding related to faith integration, organize one or two workshops per year, and coach a small number of interested faculty. This approach signals institutional commitment, builds internal capacity, and sets in place consistent leadership without requiring new administrative hires.
2. Start with Your New Faculty.
Equip your AFI faculty lead to deliver a focused introduction to academic faith integration for new hires—perhaps as a short session during orientation and a follow-up workshop or cohort-based discussion early in the first semester. For example, TheoMetrics’ 9 Foundations modules (www.theometrics.org) could be assigned asynchronously, followed by an ”in-person” discussion group, brown-bag lunch, and/or assignment that becomes part of the faculty portfolio. Early exposure normalizes AFI as part of faculty culture and expectations, while also supporting new faculty before misguided patterns are deeply set.
3. Create a Light-Touch Annual Cycle.
With the assigned lead’s support, establish a sustainable rhythm: one workshop each semester open to all faculty, focused on topics such as well-crafted AFI lectures or faith-based experiential learning. These low-barrier events can seed ideas, utilize examples from peer, and spark interest in going deeper.
4. Offer a Voluntary Faculty Learning Community (FLC).
Invite a small group of faculty each year to join a cohort that meets monthly. Provide them with topic-relevant readings, time for discussion, space to explore questions and concerns, and optional coaching to apply what they’re learning. This targeted model introduces people to excellent resources and models what it looks like to make AFI “part of the conversation” among faculty.
5. Respond to Department Initiative
Build a communication pipeline to chairs so that when they need support in the area of faith integration, the catalyst is ready to step in. That may include help with faculty goal setting, developing a strategy for peer learning, or guiding a process for developing faith-integration PLOs.
Conclusion
While developing a shared understanding across the institution is a highly recommended undertaking, it is still true that academic faith integration is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor—it is a developmental journey that requires clarity, creativity, consistency, and care. Even before new faculties’ first day on the job, institutions send a message—implicitly or explicitly—about how seriously they take this work. By setting clear expectations, providing structured support, and investing in thoughtful programming, we can move beyond aspirational language and toward real, embodied integration in the classroom.
The staged development model described here ascribes support to faculty at every level. By naming stages, designing offerings around them, and connecting them to institutional review cycles, faculty are given a roadmap—not a rigid set of rules, but a vision for growth. And that vision gets reinforced in every layer of the program—from a structured “Foundations” course, to the variety of categories that could be employed for creating annual offerings, to the careful selection of facilitators and mentors.
Champions within departments can help AFI faculty developers stay attuned to the faculty. Whether through workshops, book groups, coaching, or collaborative seminars, the goal must remain the same: to empower faculty in all disciplines to engage Christian faith with depth and confidence, in ways that make sense for their students and their scholarship.
Doing faculty development well requires more than a handful of trainings or a checklist of best practices. It requires wise leadership, patient guidance, and the humility to keep learning alongside our colleagues. But when done well, it not only enriches the classroom—it strengthens and renews the shared life of the institution. And markedly, it aids in the practical fulfilment of both Paul’s final words to Timothy and Jesus’ commission to his disciples.
[1] Andy Crouch, Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling – Expanded Edition (Downers Grove, IL: IVP), 2023; Amy Sherman, Agents of Flourishing: Pursuing Shalom in Every Corner of Society (Downers Grove, IL: IVP), 2022.
[2] Jane Vella, Paula Berardinelli, and Jim Burrow, How Do They Know They Know: Evaluating Adult Learning (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997).
[3] Larry Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017); Kavin Rowe, Christianity’s Surprise: A Sure and Certain Hope (Nashville: Abingdon, 2020).
[4] L.S. Vgotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1978).
[5] Andrew F. Walls, Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996).
[6] Paul Kaak, “Sharing the Gospel with [non-Christian] Students and the Task of Academic Faith Integration,” Christian Higher Education 23:1-2 (2024): 1-19.
[7] Todd D. Zakrajsek, “Important Skills and Knowledge,” in A Guide to Faculty Development, 2nd ed., eds. Kay J. Gillespie & Douglas L. Robertson (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010), 90.
[8] Ann E. Austin, “Supporting Faculty Members Across Their Careers,” in A Guide to Faculty Development, 366.
[9] Patricia E. Benner, From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1984).
[10] James Sire, Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014); James K.A. Smith, How to [Not] Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014); Gilbert Meilaender and William Werpehowski, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press 2007).
[11] Andrew Beach, Mary Deane Sorcinelli, Ann E. Austin, and Jaclyn K. Rivard, Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence: Current Practices, Future Imperatives (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2016); Donna E. Ellis and Leslie Ortquist-Aherns. “Practical Suggestions for Programs and Activities,” in A Guide to Faculty Development.
[12] Michael Reder, “Effective Practices in the Context of Small Colleges,” in A Guide to Faculty Development, 295.
[13] Paul Kaak and Michelle LaPorte, “A Faith-informed Model for Experiential Learning Applied to
Faith-integrated Service-learning,” Christian Higher Education 21:1-2 (2022): 11-30.
[14] David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
PAUL KAAK
Senior Consultant & Lead Trainer | TheoMetrics (www.theometrics.org)