Abstract
In view of the declining fortunes of American theological education and its seminaries, the call for seminary curricular reform is widespread. The article offers a contribution to this discussion, first by clarifying what is old and what is new, so that all sides can truly get in conversation. It is shown that some of what critics of present curricular arrangements and pedagogy claim to be “old” is really modern, even new. And that some of the exciting new ideas of the critics are actually old, have precedents in pre-19th century curricular arrangements. Reform may best be facilitated by returning to what was – a Sankofa moment of returning to fetch what was. A sense of history, then, can contribute to our reform agenda. But we also need to combine that with attention to recent research in the field of Neurobiology, to review educational data in that light. When we do that and approach the “new” ideas of some of the curricular reformers (like Student-Centered, Contextual Learning and Design Thinking) we see that these models have largely “become the educational establishment,” are not really new, and may have difficulties accounting for the new data which seem to challenge their efficiency to facilitate long-term learning. The benefits and liabilities of online learning are also assessed in this light, and data which might support the value of older models of theological education for facilitating long-term memory are also considered in closing.