1. The making of TLS

2. Timeline May 1986Pilot group meets September 1986TLS launched at St Colm’s, Edinburgh September 1987Regionalised foundation course centres (eventually 5) September 1988First “follow-on” course (eventually 7) September 1990Under ecumenical banner – SAACE then SCOC Approved for Reader training Two Piskie dioceses adopt for NSMs May 1992TLS only route for Reader training September 1992Prison groups begin September 1995Adopted by URC and established in England September 199610-years anniversary at Greyfriars Kirk March 1997Associate College of Napier University Summer 1998First experiments with computer-assisted learning March 1999New head of SCOC June 2001TLS ends in Scotland - copyright sold by SCOC to URC September 2001TLS continues as a URC programme [June 2004SCOC closes]

3. “In the minds of those of us launching the course.....TLS was about the future of the Church. We believed that tomorrow’s church would be far more a lay church, breaking away from its over-dependence on the ordained ministry. It would be a church which couldn’t afford to waste the gifts of its members, but had to develop them for ministry amongst Christians and within the world. It would be a church where theology had to be set free from the specialists to become the work of the people.” From address to 10 th anniversary service

4. Three things that shaped the design of TLS Theological Education by Extension An idea brought by the General Secretary of the CofS Board of Education Context-based Education An approach promoted by WCC and developed by the Baptist theological college in Manchester Research into Adult Learning Needs Nine months of research by CofS Research Officer

5. Theological Education by Extension Key influence: Ross Kinsler The educational resource goes to the people, not the people to the educational resource Designed to be flexible – home study, negotiated timetable, options for attendance Uses stepped approach – basic materials designed to be simple, but capable of enrichment

6. Context-based education Key influence: Tamil Nadu/WCC PTE Everyone has an “agreed area of service” to which the course relates Not applied theology but dialogical theology – context and tradition in conversation Thematic, not discipline-based (though the Bible given special place) Learning by doing

7. Research into adult learning needs Focus groups (about 20 strong) in forty parishes of six main types Key question – what have you found it difficult to cope with as a Christian? Key findings: – Personal and relational issues came out top (death, dying and bereavement; parenting; marriage and divorce) – The biggest faith issue was the problem of suffering and God’s failure to prevent disaster – “Doctrine” was seen as irrelevant – people wanted everyday issues explored – The Bible was hugely respected but seldom read – Evangelism and education were regarded as very important but no one was keen to do them themselves – Group activity only broadly welcome when it had a task to fulfil

8. How given expression in TLS Not a scaled down ministry course, but one focused on lay concerns. Not a set of answers but a range of options. Support groups created parallel learning in a task- centred way, so extended TLS into the local congregation. District group time designed to give one third of the 2.5 hours to issues from people’s local contexts. Bible explored in its own right but related to the broad theme (e.g Job with module on suffering).

9. What was I most proud of? Students from the housing schemes Empowering of women Engagement with prisons Work with local support groups (which became the main recruiting ground!) Bursting out from Scotland – first Dublin, then Geneva, then England The excitement of tutors

10. What worried me most? The impact of University validation – on curriculum, reputation and the norm The impact of becoming the only route for Reader training [though note that these two changes evened the gender balance] Sustainability – in 1986 we had 31 students, in 1996 there were 308, in 1986 we organised 4 residential weekends a year, in 1996 it was 44

11. How would I envy you? Educational technology offers you facilities we didn’t have: – The use of a VLA for delivering materials and creating forums – The use of on-line journals and libraries for those who want to go further – Skype as a tutorial medium for isolated students You have the potential for integration with the resource centres for learning