By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute

Can you believe this?: In fifth grade Sunday School I had to learn them all: Genesis...

Exodus…Leviticus…Numbers…Deuteronomy…through those pesky minor prophets, Micah…Nahum…Habakkuk…and on through the New Testament books…all the way to Revelation. Not only did we have to learn the books of the Bible, we were also tested on a list of the kings of Israel and Judah and, of course, the prophets. Our hero at the time was our classmate, Peggy Corneil, who could recite all three lists backwards and forwards. Amazing mind, that Peggy!

By present standards, this kind of curriculum would be considered wholly inadequate. The measuring line by which we measure such things as Sunday School curriculum and small group materials is the degree to which it is considered “practical.” This is the gold standard question: “To what extent is there a life application attached to whatever we teach?”

Pastors and others in ministry know this all too well. The pervasive value behind whatever goes on in the church is its perceived practicality. Every time a sermon is preached, a bible study is taught, or a small group is administered, the pastor stands against the proverbial door and the congregation measures his or her growth against the standards of this one core value.

And, what goes on in seminaries is no exception. The current market, in fact, places traditional theological education up against para-church organizations whose central mission is cultural relevancy and a commitment to practical daily living. A whole cottage industry of manuals and CD/DVDs and three ring notebooks are geared toward ways in which biblical principles are linked to a myriad of life contexts, be it family life, or leadership situations, or relational complexities.

Seminary curriculum is increasingly expected to meet this litmus test of practicality. Did I hear an alum/pastor right a couple of years ago when she stated that her seminary failed her because we did not offer an entire course on developing church capital campaigns? Apparently, she was in the middle of funding a new building, and she felt inadequate with the pressures that were being placed on her by her church. Gordon-Conwell just did not measure up to her expectations.

There is much to be said about relating biblical and theological truths to daily living. A dynamic life of faith is nothing, if not connected to the warp and wolf of our lives. But, perhaps we need to rethink what we mean by “practical.” All of those lists of the books of the Bible, kings, and prophets certainly didn’t connect easily, in my fifth grade mind, to a life being played out at Garfield grade school. At the end of the day, I could not readily make out a life application related to my little world.

Those lists were not practical in that immediate application sort-of-way. But, I have been feasting off of the knowledge of that fifth grade class for over forty-five years, all the way through my seminary education and into ministry in the church and the seminary. To be honest, I am sure I would miss a few of those kings and prophets right now, but the residue of those lists still cling to me. The larger backdrop of my life has been measured unconsciously against my fifth grade education.

And so it is with the seminary education you received at Gordon-Conwell. The seminary is just not going to be able to anticipate every practical ministry contingency you or I confront, including fund raising building strategies. The curriculum just couldn’t hold all of them. But, the aim is to be practical when measured against years, and not necessarily days.

Thinking About Curricular Change: the Categories

By John Jefferson Davis
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics

During the months ahead the faculty will be engaged in discussions of curricular change, both in relation to the process of curriculum review mandated by the trustees, and in relation to the Kern Grant and the development of hybrid and web-based degree programs based at the Charlotte campus. This brief paper examines four basic categories that figure in such discussions, and argues that some philosophical assumptions commonly made about these categories are simplistic, and need to be rethought.

The opinions expressed in this paper are only my own: they do not express the views of the faculty or administration, and are offered only for the purpose of discussion only.

The four categories in question are “diversification”, “division of labor”, “quality”, and “residency”. Some specific proposals and recommendations will be stated for faculty discussion and debate.

1. The first category is that of diversification. Consider analogies from the worlds of ecology, farming, and investment: in agriculture and ecosystems, a “monoculture” or a national economy based on a single crop (e.g., rice or wheat) can be wiped out by the unexpected rapid spread of a disease or infestation; similarly, and ecosystem with less biodiversity is much more vulnerable to sudden environmental changes than an ecosystem with greater diversity. In the world of personal and institutional investing, it is prudent to have a diversified portfolio, given uncertain knowledge of the future and the rapid changes in a technology-driven, globalized economy. The implication that could be drawn here in relation to theological education is that a school with greater diversity of courses, faculty, degree offerings, and delivery systems would be less vulnerable to unexpected economic, demographic, technological, and geopolitical shocks than an institution with less breadth of diversity.

Other factors being equal – and in practice, of course, this may be a complex judgment to make – it would be advantageous for Gordon-Conwell to increase the diversity of its degree programs and delivery systems. This could be related to a principle of “inventory”: other factors being equal, the provider with a broader and richer inventory of its goods and services will be at a competitive advantage relative to a provider with a more limited inventory.

2. The second category is that of the division of labor. A standard economics textbook illustration of this principle is that of the lawyer and the administrative assistant: even though the lawyer may be a faster typist than the administrative assistant, overall productivity will be greater if the lawyer concentrates on that area where she has the greatest comparative advantage, i.e., doing law, and delegates the word processing to the administrative assistant. In the seminary’s current situation, this suggests a new way of framing the “adjunct” discussion: greater use of properly vetted adjuncts will allow full-time, tenure track faculty to spend more time where they should have a comparative advantage: research and publication. These latter activities help to build and maintain the school’s international reputation and “brand”, while adjuncts contribute to quality classroom teaching and support the school’s economic base. Full-time faculty continue, of course, to contribute by way of excellent classroom teaching. (This scenario suggests that Gordon-Conwell should see itself more like “Harvard” than “Phoenix University” – though it is, of course, different from both in its fundamental mission.)

3. The third category is that of quality in theological education. All faculty are agreed that Gordon-Conwell education should be “excellent” and of high “quality”. A distinction between what philosophers of language call “binary” and “graded” categories should be noted at this point. A category such as “pregnant” is binary in that is “all-or-nothing” in character; a woman is either pregnant or not. A term such as “tall” or the category of “tall persons” is graded, in that there is no one-size-fits-all class of “tall” persons.

Our discussions of “quality” in education commonly fail to make this distinction and treat quality as a binary concept. Consider the following question: “Does the Michelin brand represent an excellent quality of tire?” The answer, most people would say, is “Yes, Michelin does represent excellent quality” – but more precisely, we need to ask, “What grade of quality are you talking about – and what are you willing to pay for it? We have tires that are ‘good’, some that are ‘better’, and some that are the ‘best’. How much do you want to pay?” If (many/most) faculty assume that full-time, residential education is the “best” [an assumption that needs substantiation by empirical research] then let those who can afford it pay for the “best”, while also having in inventory an educational product that is “good” (enough) or “better” for those who seek it at their given price point and personal cost-benefit calculus. The assumption in this latter scenario and Michelin tire analogy would be that theological orthodoxy and competent graduate-level instruction is a “binary” characteristic (the GCTS course either has it, or it is not offered at all), whereas quality – if viewed primarily in terms of residential “face time”, is a graded category.

4. The fourth category is that of residency or (personal) “presence”. The argument here is that “residency”, like that of “quality”, is in fact a graded and not a binary category, under the existing conditions of modern and postmodern digital cultures. “Residency” or “modes of one person being ‘present’ to another” is no longer a binary category – either you are (fully) physically/molecularly present, or you are (fully) “absent”. This simple binary distinction of present/absent has been obsolete at least since the invention of writing: there are many modes of mediated personal presence – writing, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, video and now, in something of a “quantum leap” in technology – the internet: email, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, videoconferencing, and so forth. The point to made here is that mediated presence is a form of “real” presence – real, but different in various ways from immediate physical or molecular presence. Digital realities are a new form of reality, and digitally mediated form of presence have both detriments and advantages compared to physical modes of presence. Virtual presence should be seen as a (graded) form of “real” presence, with the understanding that the category “real” is not exhausted by the “physical”. From the point of a biblical ontology, we can recognize at least three modes of real presence: molecular/physical; virtual; and spiritual (e.g. “I am with you always, to the very end of the age …”). Today’s learners expect to be “present” to one another in both physical and virtual modes, and our challenge as faculty is to settle on an appropriate mix of these modes, not insisting on one to the exclusion of the other.

Implications and Recommendations:

1. All campuses should seek to increase the diversity and “inventory” of delivery

systems, especially online/hybrid models;

2. Make increased use of properly vetted adjuncts to support the full-time, tenure-

track faculty for research and publication (“division of labor” principle);

3. Increase number of allowable Semlink/online courses for all degree programs to

67% [cf. Asbury programs; ATS current standards];

4. To increase scheduling and curricular flexibility, introduce (course) credits of 1, 2

and (4) credit hours in addition to existing 3 credit-hour courses;

5. Consider “Open-Sourcing” the curriculum, i.e., “giving away” online [iTunes Univ.;

YouTube] Semlink and campus-recorded lectures and courses (non-credit) following the MIT, and the “Google strategy” to draw potential students to the seminary’s website; give Semlink course materials online to alumna/ae to build stronger alumna/ea loyalty. (cf. Lk.6:38, “Give and it will be given to you”; Ecc.11:1, “Cast

Your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.”)

A final observation: the changes proposed above would seem to be consistent with the founding visions of A.J. Gordon and Russell Conwell to provide affordable, biblically orthodox theological education to working adults and part-time students who might not otherwise have such access.

January 29, 2010