1

“The Race Marked Out For Us”

CURRICULUM

for

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

“Let us throw off everything that hinders

and the sin that so easily entangles
and let us run with perseverance
the race marked out for us.
Let us fix our eyes on
Jesus,
the author and perfecter of our faith.”
Hebrews 12:1-2

Towards a Theology of Training Methods

Material originally prepared for

the Theological Education Forum, January, 1995
by
Faculty Members
of
Gujranwala Theological Seminary
Pakistan

and subsequently developed

Originally compiled & subsequently revised by:

Paul Burgess, M.A. (Cantab)
2003 EDITION
 2

FOREWORD

I feel honoured to write a few words to commend this important contribution to the
discussion of an appropriate curriculum for theological education. I also appreciate the hard
work put into this booklet, which though small, like precious things which are kept in small
packets, contains a great deal of solid and useful information for those involved in theological
education. What is meant by “Curriculum” has been clearly defined and what might be
contained in a theological curriculum has been fully described.

The discussion is divided into three sections. The first is concerned with the situation
in which we find ourselves at present, as reflected by certain educational models. These are
followed by a brief but comprehensive Curriculum of Theological Education expertly
outlined by the compiler. The second section presents an honest and intelligent evaluation of
different models that might be adopted, together with a Biblical perspective of Christian
learning and instruction.* This leads to the third section describing ways to construct a
curriculum using principles reached in the previous sections.

This booklet without doubt gives a sense of direction to our theological training and
should help us to ensure a good balance in our teaching. Indeed I feel proud of the effort of
the compiler and acknowledge his ability and commitment to theological education. With
these comments I commend this booklet to all who are engaged in theological education with
the hope that it may bring about a revolution in our approach to this whole area of training
people for ministry.

Rev. Prof. Arthur James,

Principal,
Gujranwala Theological Seminary

March 1995

* Placed as an Appendix in the Revised Edition of February 1997 and printed separately from 1999 onward.
 3

PREFACE
TO THE THIRD EDITION

Since the publication of the second edition, Gujranwala Theology Seminary has
experienced two significant changes. First its Library has been refurbished to provide a
modern environment for study. More importantly its volumes have been re-organised under
the Progressive Classification system advocated in this manual, thus allowing what is “said”
in the classroom to be easily accessed and “read” in the Library reading room. The shelf
arrangements thus follow the classification of curriculum subjects exemplified in the
following pages.

Secondly the Faculty have worked through a programme of re-appraisal of what is

needed to be taught to those coming in today’s world for theological education and ministerial
training. There has also been an Evaluation conducted by an accredited outside agency
followed by a three day Strategic Planning exercise. These various workshops have resulted
in the authorisation of a new Seminary Curriculum drawn up from the first principles worked
out in this manual. Indeed much of the content of the manual itself is the fruit of Faculty
deliberation, though latterly refined and added to by the present compiler.

Notable additions include an article on Writing a Mission Statement, examples of Seminary

Profiles, and Exercises for an Introductory Workshop. Further Appendices have been created.
These include the current Gujranwala curriculum set out at the stage when individual courses
were being apportioned their relevant “weight” within the total curriculum.(There was
considerable “horse-trading” at this point!) This is followed by a Schedule showing the final
stage in creating a Three Year Syllabus.

Another addition is the concept of a small personal library constituting a “home” Bible
School, the authors being the “faculty”. Thus The Reading List offers a core self-study
programme equivalent to a three year study period at the Seminary. (It does not, of-course,
claim to provide the practical training and communal experience that a residential programme
offers.)

Appendix I shows how a course on a particular subject can be quickly outlined from a
scanning of the Progressive Classification menu. Finally a Check-List is offered for
preliminary self-evaluation of any institution involved in basic Theological Education.

It is hoped that this edition, improved by practical testing in Seminary life and enlarged by
additional material, will prove a help and stimulation to those engaged in the crucial work of
preparing God’s people for ministry in His Church and the world around us.

Paul Burgess

June 2003
 4

PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION

Over the past two years since these papers were first presented, the value of the whole
exercise of re-thinking curriculum from first principles has been recognised. In particular the
Progressive Classification listing has been well received as a helpful reference document
providing a “menu” from which to make selections for working curricula. Indeed, it
developed a life of its own, being continuously revised (with copies distributed to enquirers)
up till the publication of this second edition of “Curriculum for Theological Education”
where it now appears as a separate document in the Appendices.

The original material of the total workshop, by the nature of the conference at which it
was first presented, was somewhat of a rag-bag of ideas and charts. It has now all be carefully
sifted and re-organised, much of the material being re-located as appendices to give the core
material a clearer sense of direction.

Many theological institutes are engaged in, or seriously considering, the task of
integrating their fields of study to ensure a more holistic approach to theological learning. The
exercise encouraged in the pages of this booklet pre-supposes this intention, but represents
only the preparatory steps necessary before full integration can be attempted. For the whole
must be surveyed before any attempts at integrating our students’ learning can be truly
holistic. It is important to clarify goals and priorities before weaving a complex texture of
learning materials taken from different departments and disciplines.

Publication of this second edition happily coincides with the Silver Jubilee
celebrations of the Open Theological Seminary (formerly the Pakistan Committee for
Theological Education by Extension, an organisation born at this Seminary). Theological
training has developed in many ways in recent years in this country, not least in the
recognition given to the role of laity in the ministry of the church and the acceptance of
women students to study theology alongside men training for the ministry.

We live in a technically stimulating age, as evidenced by the fact that this booklet was
prepared and made ready for reproduction on two small machines together smaller than a
single Library reference book! The entire contents of the Seminary Library (approaching
20,000 volumes) could today, in theory, be recorded on a few discs and carried in the pocket.
Such is the pace of advance. We do well to come to terms with it and plan for the future if we
are to be good stewards of the heritage God has entrusted to us, alert to the Spirit moving in
Christ’s church and keen to spread the news of Christ’s kingdom in our land. It is hoped this
booklet will, under God, forward that process.

Paul Burgess

February 1997
 5

PREFACE

The Theological Education Forum is an informal gathering of those engaged in some

form of Theological Education in Pakistan. Initiated jointly by Mr Mike Raiter of the
Zarephath Bible Institute, Attock (Pakistan’s newest Bible training institute) and Professor
Aslam Ziai, Vice-Principal of Gujranwala Theological Seminary (Pakistan’s oldest
Theological institute), its first meeting in January 1994 was an initial attempt at sharing
mutual concerns and experiences. It was particularly felt that resources should not be
duplicated where a little sharing of information could eliminate the re-invention of various
“wheels”.

The forum’s first birthday gathering was, as with the original meeting, hosted by the
United Bible Training Centre. Gujranwala Theological Seminary, whose students’ wives are
regularly taught by the staff of U.B.T.C., had the privilege of presenting three Seminars on
Curriculum for Theological Education. The material following presents the revised version of
the papers given and ideas arising from the ensuing discussion.

Because of the discursive nature of the gathering the presentation was largely inter-
active. This format has been preserved in the hope that some other institutions may find it
helpful not only to read the papers but also to carry out some of the exercises contained the
text.
In particular we commend for reflection the Classification list in the Appendix
together with the discussion of the four Learning Domains presented in Part 2. (The diagram
for the latter “came” to the compiler of this document overnight between sessions and
stimulated much discussion. The list, on the other hand, was the product of much research and
refinement arising out of initial class discussion with students.)

Thanks are due to those who have read these papers and offered suggestions for
improvement. In particular Professor Neil Foster offered a searching critique and his helpful
insights on modelling appear as an Appendix. To my son, Graham Burgess, is also due thanks
for the many hours of his school holidays spent computerising the material and patiently
entering in many revisions. Mr Marcus Fauchiger, Mrs Sally Davis and Mr Tom McCulloch
all contributed printing facilities at critical moments in the production. The compiler,
however, must take responsibility for any errors, or obscurities, as well as for the general
content of these papers.

Paul Burgess,

February 1995
 6

CONTENTS
PART 1. UNPACKING OUR LUGGAGE

Present Concerns . . . . . . . . 9
A Curriculum Check-List . . . . . . . 10
Western Influences on Curriculum . . . . . . 11

PART 2. WEIGHING OUR LUGGAGE

Contrasting Curriculum Models . . . . . . 13
RELEVANCE – 5 dimensions: . . . . . . 15
Theological – Spiritual – Practical – Evangelistic – Educational . 15
COURSE BENEFITS for the STUDENT - Why Study this course?. . 16

Defining “Curriculum” . . . . . . . 18
TYPES of LEARNING – Learning About Learning Domains: . . 19
Knowing and Doing . . . . . . 19
Ministerial Formation: Being . 20
Apollos: the Need for Understanding.. . . . . 21
Combining all 4 Domains: The Pyramid Model of Learning . . 22
Clarifying our Educational Objectives. . . . . 22
What are our GOALS? What are we trying to achieve? . . 23
MODES of LEARNING: Formal, non-formal, informal . . . 24
LEVELS of LEARNING – Spiral Learning . . . . . 25
COMPETENCIES PROFILE – What end results do we hope for?. . 26
CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . 27

PART 3. RE-PACKING OUR LUGGAGE

COMMON PRACTICES in CURRICULUM PLANNING (Short Term) . 29
CONSTRUCTING CURRICULUM – Western Models in Vogue. . . 31
Oxbridge . . . . . . . . 31
Contemporary British . . . . . . . 32
North American . . . . . . . 33
WRITING A MISSION STATEMENT – What is our Purpose? . . 35
SEMINARY PROFILES – What is the Ethos? . . . . 37
CONSTRUCTING LEARNING OBJECTIVES – Balancing the Range . 39
CONSOLIDATION – Exercises for a WORKSHOP. . . . 40
THE PROCESS of CURRICULUM CONSTRUCTION . . . 41
Stage 1: Needs, Requirements & Constraints . . . 41
Stage 2: Subjects (relevant to Needs) . . . . . 42
Stage 3: Credit Hours (Weighting) and Timetable. . . . 43
REFORM, not REVOLUTION. . . . . . . 44
 7

APPENDICES
Construction Tools
A. THE TASK of CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Chart of the OVERALL PICTURE 47
B. SUMMARY of SUBJECTS: PRIORITIES CHECK-LIST . . . 48
C. APPORTIONING RELATIVE “WEIGHT” to each COURSE. . . . 50

Examples
D. A SEMINARY CURRICULUM: RELATIVE WEIGHTING of COURSES. . 52
E. A CURRICULUM SCHEDULE: . . . . . . 54
F. 3 YEAR TRAINING PLAN ( Indian example) . . . . . 55
G. A BEGINNER’S SCHOOL (Starting from Core TEXT BOOKS) . . 56
The “PROGRAMME” . . . . . . . 57
H. THE READING LIST: A Core Self-Study Programme . . . 58

Constructing a Course (Examples)

I. USING THE MENU FRAMEWORK for INTEGRATIVE COURSE Worship example 61

J. CONSTRUCTING A COURSE from the MENU: Discipleship example . 62

More on Learning Domains

K. RANGES OF LEARNING outlined (4 Domains) . . . . 65
Categories of DOINGs, KNOWINGs & UNDERSTANDINGs. . . 66
LEARNING DOMAINS Summary Chart of Theory and Practice .. . 69
L. LEARNING DOMAINS: As Personal Growth. . . . . . 70
In Proverbs . . . . . 71

Reflections
M. PASTORAL OBJECTIVES Bible Study . . . . . 72
N. WESTERN MODELS Critique . . . . . . . 73
O. Essay on MODELLING – Neil Foster . . . . . . 74
P. TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF TRAINING METHODS – Robert Ferris. . 78
Q. TAIL- PIECE - A Fable . . . . . . . . 79

Survey
R. EVALUATION CHECK-LIST of AN INSTITUTION . . .80
 8

Part 1: “UNPACKING OUR LUGGAGE” - our current concerns.

What is in our curriculum at this present moment and why?
PRESENT CONCERNS
At the Gujranwala conference of theological educators, where this paper had its origins, we
took the idea of unpacking, weighing and re-packing luggage as a picture to present what we need to
do when developing curriculum for any kind of theological education, including a long-term
programme of adult Christian education.
We noted first that the heavy luggage we carry with us on a long journey reflects our
priorities: a lap-top computer for a businessman; a cookery book for his wife; theological books for a
Seminary professor. But when we open our baggage in front of the suspicious customs official, we
may well be asked: “Why are you carrying this and that article into this country?” That is a good
question to keep in mind as we consider what is already packed in our curriculum “baggage”.
Part 1, then, is about our present concerns as reflected in our teaching schedules. Our focus is
on where we sense we are now, rather than where we might like to be tomorrow! If we are to be honest
with ourselves about this, we need to recognise three things:
• the nature of the content of what we have been teaching our students over the past three, or
whatever, years (i.e. the kind of learning we have been providing);
• the emphasis of our training (i.e. where the focus has been);
• the perimeters of our vision (i.e. where our thinking tends to stop).

The “journey” analogy suggests also that, before we start on our way, we should first check
our “destination”, the dictionary definition of which is: “the pre-determined end of a journey; the end
or purpose for which something is created.” What is the ultimate purpose of Theological Education?
To what pre-determined end do we plan our curricula?
Note: You might find it helpful to write short notes answering the questions in the discussion boxes
that occur throughout the manual. These reflections could then be shared with a colleague for
discussion.

DISCUSSION
What do you consider is the ultimate purpose of Theological Education?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Note on the derivation of the word “Curriculum”:

“Curriculum” literally means “a racecourse”, - from the Latin word currere (to run).
 9

A CURRICULUM CHECK-LIST
It is not easy to get a balanced view of what is being taught in a particular programme of
education unless some thought is also given to what is not being taught. This can be quite illuminating
as we all tend to assume the sufficiency of our own efforts. A comprehensive list of topics is needed
against which we can measure the range of our own educational work.
The “PROGRESSIVE CLASSIFICATION”, printed separately, provides an extensive list
of possible topics for inclusion in a total curriculum. This can be used in two ways:
• As a check-list to identify what is currently already covered by the curriculum of your
particular institution or programme;
• As a resource for providing ideas for additional subjects that might be considered for
future inclusion in your curriculum.
Note: This classification, which is not exhaustive, is not meant to represent the actual curriculum of any institution, least
of all to provide a blue-print for some imaginary ideal syllabus. Rather it offers the opportunity to select from a
classified “menu” of subjects. Thus a new course or programme can be constructed or a current curriculum
revised. It thus represents not the course itself, but suggested ingredients for a course.

If you are involved in an established institute of theological education or organisation

providing adult Christian education, you may wish to check your current curriculum against the
“Progressive Classification” now (before you go on to discuss the questions in the next Discussion
Box). If you are doing this with colleagues, you will probably find it best to allocate different sections
of the list to different people according to where particular responsibilities or interests lie. Make sure,
though, that every section gets covered!

DISCUSSION (after checking against the “Progressive Classification” menu)

What positive discoveries have you made through doing this check?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What significant areas, in your view, have been shown up as being covered
inadequately?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there any particular fields that could be dropped altogether? Which? Why?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How balanced do you consider your present curriculum to be for your purposes?
 Very  Quite  Not very  Not at all
 10

WESTERN INFLUENCES on CURRICULUM

Western ways of doing things has greatly influenced Theological Education as it is

experienced in many parts of the world where such training is relatively new. Generally speaking such
education has been developed with a view to training church leaders rather than for the purpose of
pursuing theological study for its own sake.
Since Church leaders come in different “sizes”, each kind of leader requires a different kind of
training. However the influence of the Western emphasis on academic attainment is easily seen in
every training pattern adopted. These patterns might be diagrammed as follows:

Type / Level Leader of Leader of Leader of Theologians

of Church a small a large a Church and
Leader: Worker Congregation Congregation Denomination Scholars*
--------------------- | -------------- | ------------------- | ------------------- | ---------------------- | -------
Status: Voluntary Voluntary Paid Paid Paid
--------------------- | -------------- | ------------------- | ------------------- | ---------------------- | -------
Christian Education | | | |
Means of by local | Bible School |
Training: Church | or |
or | Residential Seminary |
Theological Education or |
by Extension T r a i n i n g O v e r s e a s

* “A visit to seminary libraries in many two-thirds world countries reveals a sad lack in this category.”
(- Dr Lois McKinney, TEE Workshop, Gujranwala, Pakistan)

We see here two trends:

• (locally) a dependency upon residential forms of training for full-time church leaders;
• (for senior positions of influence in the Churches) a preference for training abroad.

When we look more closely at many local residential institutions of theological education, we soon
notice also:
• a Western style in the academic structure of these training programmes.

This style includes such distinctive ingredients as:

• content-orientated curriculum,
• a hierarchy of awards (certificates, diplomas and degrees),
• the requirement of academic (rather than educational) qualifications for theological
teachers,
• and the whole gamut of institutional accreditation.

(For a fuller critique of the Western educational model see Appendix K.)

This leads us into Part 2 where we evaluate different ways of constructing a curriculum for theological
education.

But before we do that, let us reflect on how much this relates to our own situation. (See the
next Discussion box on the page following.)
 11

Discuss the following with your colleagues (or simply note down your own reactions to these
questions):

DISCUSSION
What are the three most crucial training problems met in your own institution?

i) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do they relate to any of the problems outlined above? Or do they arise from more local
difficulties (culture, attitudes, structures, etc)?

i) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12

Continued on separate file….

Part 2
of
a Four Part Document

------------------------------
Weighing Our Luggage