Emmanuel College — University of Toronto : 2007 Seminar
Narrative
CURRICULUM REVISION
DEATH OR RESURRECTION?
EMMANUEL COLLEGE—UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
The setting is Emmanuel College, one of the federated theological schools within the University of Toronto. At a recent faculty meeting, the Task Group on CurriculumReview presented its final report and recommendations. The following is an email exchange between two members of faculty, Mary and Martha.
From: mary@utoronto.ca
To: martha@utoronto.ca
Subject: Curriculum Review
I’m taking you up on your invitation for feedback following your presentation of the Task Group’s report. I appreciate all the work you and your committee have committed to this curriculum review. The document represents a substantial amount of work and everyone at Emmanuel appreciates that fact. Our theological school would not be able to function without the kind of service and administrative work that you have given us.
However, the penny dropped for me as I experienced your enthusiastic and passionate presentation of all the challenges we face. Could it be that you are making the College in your own image? I fear that we are going to be run ragged, trying to serve a dozen masters. You are proposing that we have to do it all—please the academy and the Church, form critical minds and teach practical skills, publish and “parish.” I am concerned that we will finally close the door on any hope of being an intellectual community of scholars and be reduced to a kind of continuing education centre for clergy. I fail to see how any “skill” for ministry will be helpful in the absence of the kind of critical hermeneutics that a rigorous academic approach can give. Moreover, I would argue that our students are coming to us out of a hunger for precisely the kind of theological substance that we have traditionally offered, not mere “ministry outcomes.” They are being pulled in several directions—family pressures, congregational demands, commuter schedules, cultural chaos. They are looking to us for the critical means by which to make sense of the fragmentation in which they live. They will not be helped by a curriculum based on a consumer survey of an insatiable ecclesiastical marketplace.
I’m having real trouble seeing the ultimate value of this proposal. More personally, I can’t find my own place in it all. This is moving us in a whole new direction—one for which I was neither trained nor hired. Should I be packing my bags?
Your pensive colleague,
Mary.
From: martha@utoronto.ca
To: mary@utoronto.ca
Subject: RE: Curriculum Review
Thank you for your feedback. I do admire your capacity for careful scrutiny and rigorous analysis. Indeed, that is precisely what is needed in any contemporary and contextual theological curriculum. Surely you must know that your gifts and skills are valued and needed in the College and its future!
You must also realize that our context and circumstances have changed dramatically since the last significant curriculum revision more than 20 years ago. The demands now are infinitely more complex. The earth is groaning in travail, the Church is dying, congregations are in conflict, clergy are burning out. We have to address those realities or there will be no need for a College at all. Students have a range of options available to them for theological education now—from field-based programmes and intensive study modules to on-line courses. The diversity of ministries and ministry settings reflects a radically changed landscape, one which requires a transformed means of preparation for the journey. We both know that the days of a homogenous residential community are long gone. We can no longer afford the luxury of a model built on a romantic notion of sitting at a teacher’s feet. Technological advances alone now demand that we become more of a dynamic network than a static institution, a hub of interactivity at the crossroads of many cultures, a network of learners for a people on the way—a movement! After all, remember how this all began? I would argue that this is not about being reduced to skills; it’s about a greater integration of theory and practice, a more rigorous engagement with the Church’s practices in the contemporary context—in short, greater faithfulness. In this sense, “outcomes” are aimed at precisely the kind of substantial grounding of skills to which you would have us attend.
We need you—especially you—to join the work of bringing College and congregation closer together, to re-frame our scholarship and teaching to address the relevant needs of our students and the diverse contexts they serve. If we cannot do this together, we’ll all be packing our bags.
Your partner in the work,
Martha.
From: “The Office of the President” president@utoronto.ca
To: “Faculty” unlisted recipients
Subject: Review of Academic Programmes
Memo to: Emmanuel College in the University of Toronto
From: The President of the University
Re: Review of Programmes in all Federated Colleges of the University of Toronto
I hope this finds all of you challenged and rewarded in the work of our university. The Board has requested that we undertake a review of the academic programmes in our federated colleges. Our recently completed self-study highlighted several concerns, among them:
• enrolment at Emmanuel College has been in steady decline for about two decades
• recent changes in both government and ecclesiastical funding formulae have resulted in the drastic reduction of much-needed subsidies
• the erosion of the very market on which theological colleges depend – the Church
These factors suggest that we need to explore ways to integrate your institution’s resources into our larger university. I will be in touch with you in the near future to outline a process of consultation to this end.
In the meantime, I want to reassure you that the proposals being considered will not mean the loss of any jobs on the part of tenured faculty. With some adjustment to job descriptions, all will be assured of a place in the university. Indeed, I view this as an opportunity for theology to have a stronger voice in a more secular context. I hope you will be up for the challenge. Some may call it “downsizing” or “rationalizing.” But have faith, colleagues, and think of it as a resurrection.
From: martha@utoronto.ca
To: mary@utoronto.ca
Subject: memo from the President
Did you get the President’s memo? Did he actually say “a resurrection?”
We need to talk. Lunch today? I’ll bring the food.
Martha.
CURRICULUM REVISION
DEATH OR RESURRECTION?
EMMANUEL COLLEGE—UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
The setting is Emmanuel College, one of the federated theological schools within the University of Toronto. At a recent faculty meeting, the Task Group on CurriculumReview presented its final report and recommendations. The following is an email exchange between two members of faculty, Mary and Martha.
From: mary@utoronto.ca
To: martha@utoronto.ca
Subject: Curriculum Review
I’m taking you up on your invitation for feedback following your presentation of the Task Group’s report. I appreciate all the work you and your committee have committed to this curriculum review. The document represents a substantial amount of work and everyone at Emmanuel appreciates that fact. Our theological school would not be able to function without the kind of service and administrative work that you have given us.
However, the penny dropped for me as I experienced your enthusiastic and passionate presentation of all the challenges we face. Could it be that you are making the College in your own image? I fear that we are going to be run ragged, trying to serve a dozen masters. You are proposing that we have to do it all—please the academy and the Church, form critical minds and teach practical skills, publish and “parish.” I am concerned that we will finally close the door on any hope of being an intellectual community of scholars and be reduced to a kind of continuing education centre for clergy. I fail to see how any “skill” for ministry will be helpful in the absence of the kind of critical hermeneutics that a rigorous academic approach can give. Moreover, I would argue that our students are coming to us out of a hunger for precisely the kind of theological substance that we have traditionally offered, not mere “ministry outcomes.” They are being pulled in several directions—family pressures, congregational demands, commuter schedules, cultural chaos. They are looking to us for the critical means by which to make sense of the fragmentation in which they live. They will not be helped by a curriculum based on a consumer survey of an insatiable ecclesiastical marketplace.
I’m having real trouble seeing the ultimate value of this proposal. More personally, I can’t find my own place in it all. This is moving us in a whole new direction—one for which I was neither trained nor hired. Should I be packing my bags?
Your pensive colleague,
Mary.
From: martha@utoronto.ca
To: mary@utoronto.ca
Subject: RE: Curriculum Review
Thank you for your feedback. I do admire your capacity for careful scrutiny and rigorous analysis. Indeed, that is precisely what is needed in any contemporary and contextual theological curriculum. Surely you must know that your gifts and skills are valued and needed in the College and its future!
You must also realize that our context and circumstances have changed dramatically since the last significant curriculum revision more than 20 years ago. The demands now are infinitely more complex. The earth is groaning in travail, the Church is dying, congregations are in conflict, clergy are burning out. We have to address those realities or there will be no need for a College at all. Students have a range of options available to them for theological education now—from field-based programmes and intensive study modules to on-line courses. The diversity of ministries and ministry settings reflects a radically changed landscape, one which requires a transformed means of preparation for the journey. We both know that the days of a homogenous residential community are long gone. We can no longer afford the luxury of a model built on a romantic notion of sitting at a teacher’s feet. Technological advances alone now demand that we become more of a dynamic network than a static institution, a hub of interactivity at the crossroads of many cultures, a network of learners for a people on the way—a movement! After all, remember how this all began? I would argue that this is not about being reduced to skills; it’s about a greater integration of theory and practice, a more rigorous engagement with the Church’s practices in the contemporary context—in short, greater faithfulness. In this sense, “outcomes” are aimed at precisely the kind of substantial grounding of skills to which you would have us attend.
We need you—especially you—to join the work of bringing College and congregation closer together, to re-frame our scholarship and teaching to address the relevant needs of our students and the diverse contexts they serve. If we cannot do this together, we’ll all be packing our bags.
Your partner in the work,
Martha.
From: “The Office of the President” president@utoronto.ca
To: “Faculty” unlisted recipients
Subject: Review of Academic Programmes
Memo to: Emmanuel College in the University of Toronto
From: The President of the University
Re: Review of Programmes in all Federated Colleges of the University of Toronto
I hope this finds all of you challenged and rewarded in the work of our university. The Board has requested that we undertake a review of the academic programmes in our federated colleges. Our recently completed self-study highlighted several concerns, among them:
• enrolment at Emmanuel College has been in steady decline for about two decades
• recent changes in both government and ecclesiastical funding formulae have resulted in the drastic reduction of much-needed subsidies
• the erosion of the very market on which theological colleges depend – the Church
These factors suggest that we need to explore ways to integrate your institution’s resources into our larger university. I will be in touch with you in the near future to outline a process of consultation to this end.
In the meantime, I want to reassure you that the proposals being considered will not mean the loss of any jobs on the part of tenured faculty. With some adjustment to job descriptions, all will be assured of a place in the university. Indeed, I view this as an opportunity for theology to have a stronger voice in a more secular context. I hope you will be up for the challenge. Some may call it “downsizing” or “rationalizing.” But have faith, colleagues, and think of it as a resurrection.
From: martha@utoronto.ca
To: mary@utoronto.ca
Subject: memo from the President
Did you get the President’s memo? Did he actually say “a resurrection?”
We need to talk. Lunch today? I’ll bring the food.
Martha.