I’ve already observed that there’s some significant vagueness around aspects of what Selden College will offer students. What we do know is that it is seeking to offer a Liberal Arts course. Liberal Arts courses are offered by a few UK Universities and also by a number of US institutions. The liberal arts tended historically to refer to subjects outside of the sciences and vocations and a liberal arts programme tends to be one that draws from a range of disciplines to encourage breadth of knowledge and develop skills like critical thinking. There are potential strengths to this and in some education, systems students are encouraged to keep their learning broad for as long as possible before specialising. However, there are potential weaknesses from pursuing breadth at the expense of depth, particularly in a smaller institution where there isn’t the same access to expert faculties as in a major University. Some of those weaknesses begin to show up in the detail of what Selden College are saying.
A smaller institution is significantly shaped by the particular interests and abilities of its faculty. The risk is that certain subjects take on greater priority and also the specific focus of the curriculum can be shaped by specific faculty’s idiosyncrasies because they are not part of a larger discipline focused faculty. Think of it this way, at Sheffield University’s Law school, whilst each professor had his particular area of interest, they had all studied the specific sub disciplines but also there would be multiple lecturers and tutors covering subjects so that you might have a different person leading your tutorial group to the person giving the lectures. Even at theological college there were two or three lecturers covering each sub-discipline whether Old or New Testament Studies, Doctrine or Church History. A further concern at Selden College is that there isn’t external validation in place.
Looking through the curriculum, the college state that each student will study a classical language. However, novelly those classical languages are not limited to Latin and Greek but include Hebrew which isn’t usually considered such but I guess is relevant to the Biblical Studies aspect of the course. Even less tenable is the inclusion of Old/Middle English and Norse, presumably reflecting a tutor’s interests.
Students are to be taught theology but that in fact amounts to Biblical Theology and study of historical texts. That lacks two crucial binding ingredients that are critical to the discipline Biblical studies and Systematic Theology. I am particularly concerned here that Federal Vision proponents have also tended towards a “see how it goes” kind of hermeneutic where you look for potential links and themes at the detailed level and if it seems to fit then that is proof. This can deliver some fascinating insights but there are no real controls on the hermeneutical process leaving it open to flights of fancy.
Given my own academic background I was intrigued by this statement:
“Constitution and Common Law – Students will take a class on the idea of the constitution in British political thought and the nature and role of common law in the history of the British isles. “
I’m not sure whether “class” here refers to a single lecture or a whole module programme. Once again, we meet woolly wording. Here I think is one of the key risks with such an approach. Discussion about the role of our constitution and even whether or not it is appropriate to talk about a constitution is complex and contested. Similarly, once we begin to discuss the common law we enter into complex and controversial areas. Yet, it looks as though these things are going to be taught unanchored from an actual grounding in English law and English legal history. The risk here is that students are taught ideas and opinions without the depth of discipline knowledge to be able to properly challenge and evaluate.
Now, it is worth observing too that this kind of phrasing and concern about constitution and common law doesn’t come without its political baggage but rather is associated with the Libertarian right. Now, this doesn’t mean that concerns here are wrong but there needs to be transparency when particular political ideologies are being presented just as when there are specific, especially controversial theological positions being presented.
It’s little nuggets like this slipping out that leave me asking questions about what else will be dropped in to unsuspecting minds.
As I mentioned previously there’s a lot of uncertainty and vagueness. Some things are dependent on having faculty in place and then there will be the additional lectures and discussions on subjects the College deems important.
Again, there are too many questions left unanswered and this is before we’ve even begun to talk about our particular concerns with the underpinning theology.
Faithroots 