My proposal for Sustaining and Expanding the Tyndale Fellowship and Its Conference

In a previous post I mentioned the desire of the Tyndale Fellowship (UK) to re-define itself (or clarify its identity) and sharpen its yearly study groups and triennial conference.  How can this fellowship be of use to evangelical scholars in a way that cannot compare with other scholarly societies and conferences?

I offered some suggestions to the chair of the NT group, David Wenham, but I will ‘air’ them here as well.

I proposed that, since the future of the TF is students, that the TF does more for students – especially at the yearly study group.  This could involve a special time where phd students can meet each other (perhaps at a special meal-time).  Also, I think having student ‘workshops’ would be good – like workshops on thesis methodology, choosing a citation style, writing abstracts and proposals for conference papers, writing article, giving presentations, interviewing, etc… The market is huge and having these kinds of things would draw in more students.  Finally, I suggest that when students give papers in the NT group, there should be a form that each audience member/participant fills out split into four major questions: (1) Was the argument persuasive?; (2) Was the presentation audible, clear, and well-delivered?; (3) What questions would you ask the presenter?; (4) Are there bibliographic notes or resources that you would like to draw the presenter’s attention to?.  Of course a shy student presenter could opt out of this exercise, but having this option would revolutionize training for students.  Imagine a student going home with 40 of these forms.  There is bound to be some good encouragement (especially from the chair and others who are sympathetic), but there may be some very helpful notes in general.

Meals seem to be an untapped resource.  We all sit and eat – people don’t know who to sit with (especially newbies).  Some just eat alone (within a group of people, but with no one to talk to).  Others sit with the one person they know every time.  The assumption is that students will suck it up and meet others.  This does happen. But, perhaps there could be more planned ‘tables’ where certain discussions will take place.  Just a thought.

As for the papers in and of themselves, I think there needs to be more careful selection and sometimes commissioning of papers in order to balance the topics.  This year was ‘NT ethics’ and it was very Paul-heavy.  Also, I tried to give more theoretical discussion, but there was little concern that certain ‘big issues’ were discussed (except in the Richard Burridge session, which was really excellent!).  If the TF wants to publish the papers as a book in the future (as they do on occasion), there needs to be a more conscious approach to paper selection.  Also, some mentioned the desire for planned responses – yes!  I think that is a good idea.  It is much more intimidating, though for students to present when there is a planned response. This happened to me at SBL and it was rough!

OK – those are my thoughts.