Joseph45

That's one of the books i recommended to know-it-all. I'm interested in marXian's comments and suggested book, although I doubt I'll have the time to read it anytime soon.

Just saw you voted for yourself there on the reputation points things. Once again, hilarious.

Totally agree. Prestige, for better or worse, actually matters. It's not just about being an arrogant jerk if you're at a top school; that prestige has a real presence is the economy of academia.

One more thing, I think it gets more confusing (at least for me) because we're talking about Duke's NT program, but that's hard to separate entirely from the PhD program in religion as a whole, which is co-sponsored by the Div School and the Department of Religion. So, even if you're Christian and lean conservative (as defined by someone at Princeton let's say) and you see Duke NT as a place that would be good for you because of Hays et al., you still end up probably taking classes from people who are far, far less Christian and conservative than you would at Baylor. For example, I know she's retired now, but Liz Clark was at Duke and a lot of NT students took her classes. I can't see someone like her being at Baylor. Maybe I'm wrong though. I don't know that much about Baylor people.

Alright, fair enough. I guess I think that Duke is fundamentally committed to academic ideals more than it is committed to Christian ideals, even if many of its faculty and students incline to relatively conservative positions (and the PhD is not housed exclusively in the Div School). That's why I'd be willing to put Duke in the top tier category, and not Baylor. It's cheap of me to say that I think of Baylor students as those who didn't get into Duke, I'll admit. Still, however, I doubt many people turn down Duke for Baylor, and Duke's not really looking to hire Baylor grads. Ergo, Baylor's not top tier. You don't think of Baylor as markedly conservative though? Not any more so than Duke? I'd be interested what other people. I could easily be in the minority position. And this is an honest question, would Baylor hire someone who is openly (and unapologetically) gay? Duke certainly would and has. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing this would be much more of a problem at Baylor (and a good reason not to go to Baylor).

If you could spell out to me exactly how I seem to be contradicting myself, I'll try to respond.

speaking of not arguing

So, basically to my point: "To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category." You needed to say I was wrong because "this way of thinking about a concept called "religion" began before it was institutionalized in something called a "religion department." So my statement said that there was no concept "religion" before there was a religion department? And you needed to make sure nobody was mislead by me into thinking that *the* concept religion didn't exist before there were religious studies departments. And you argued this point by stating: "I disagree with your statement, however, to the effect that the problem is caused by religious studies departments. The problem runs much deeper in society at large, and the university merely reflects those divisions. So, I'd reverse the cause and effect." Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

So, when my opening statement is "To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category." You replied: "I disagree with your statement, however, to the effect that the problem is caused by religious studies departments. The problem runs much deeper in society at large, and the university merely reflects those divisions. So, I'd reverse the cause and effect." How do you get your summary of my statement from my actual statement? How could you even imagine this effect could go one way or the other so that the arrow needs to point one way instead of the other way? I clearly even use the word "support" to suggest that the work of creation is not singularly performed by religious studies departments. So now you want to say that when I said ""To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category." I couldn't have possibly been talking about "stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading "the problem"? Because construction and creation are one time events? A cultural category is created once, in one act in the past that isn't continual? That constructing a category necessarily can't involve stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading the category? Are you so unimaginative that you could only think there would be one possible cause for a one time creation of a cultural category? Thence I couldn't think there are multiple causes or that the creation of cultural categories is a one time event?Hilarious. And have you actually done any reading about the history of the study of religion and the institutional structures that surrounded it? It's very simplistic (and wrong) to think that RELS departments just appeared out of nowhere.

I pretty much think of Baylor NT students as people who didn't get into Duke NT.

You're right, ridicule isn't an argument. I don't expect you to be persuaded by it. (I do expect others to see it though). However, you did severely misread my initial statement. It never suggested there is some sort of singular problem "the problem" and especially that "the cause" of "the problem" is religious studies departments. Perhaps that misreading is my fault as the author, but I take it as prima facie ridiculous to think that there is some sort of singlular cause and effect issue here. And if you think religious studies departments suddenly appeared, and their appearance occured after "the problem" had come into existence, and therefore cannot participate in stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading "the problem," you're so deeply misguided that I don't have the time to mount an argument. I will, however, refer you to McCutcheon's work, particularly Manufacturing Religion, as well as Masuzawa's The Invention of World Religions--maybe even Liz Clark's Founding the Fathers. There's arguments in those books if you want an argument. At the end of the day though, if you want to think that religious studies departments can only either be the cause or the effect of the problem, I can't stop you.

I'm biased as much as the next person, but Baylor is enough of a Christian/Baptist school that I couldn't consider it belonging to the category of "first-tier." Maybe I'm confused, but I think that a lot of people at what I would consider top tier places (e.g., Chicago, Yale, Princeton) would not consider someone from Baylor to be their peer. It's not so much that they'd think of the Baylor student as second-tier as much as they would think of that person as probably theologically oriented and somewhat conservative (compared to them). That's why it seems weird to me to consider it "first tier." Again, if you want that type of training, that's great. But it seems something else to me than top tier.

"I disagree with your statement, however, to the effect that the problem is caused by religious studies departments. The problem runs much deeper in society at large, and the university merely reflects those divisions. So, I'd reverse the cause and effect." I think it's ridiculous to think religious studies departments are either the cause or the effect. They're both. Marxian, not that I want a long answer, but I'm curious to learn more about your project. I don't know what you mean by "My work is focused on the emergence of the non-reductive version of this view of religion (and theology) in the early 20th century (particularly in Troeltsch's work.)" Could you explain this in three sentences or less?

For some people Baylor is a perfect fit, but the thought would never enter my mind to describe it as "First-Tier." Go there becaue it's right for you, but not under the premise that it's "first-tier"

To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category.

My two cents: It's not categorically true that it's impossible to get a tenure track job without coming from a top tier institution, especially for those looking for jobs in specific theological niches. Nevertheless, a job is no guranteed thing even for candidates from a "top tier" schools, which makes it exceedingly difficult to get a job coming out of a non-top program. Nothing can be stated absolutely of course, but even that small school that doesn't really need facutly from Yale, etc., knows their students (and the parents of their students) will be impressed with faculty coming from prestige schools. They build prestige for themselves that way. Imagine your application in there with 10+ applications from people coming from top programs. It'll get thrown out quickly, unless you have some sort of inside connection. Secondly, working harder to counteract the low prestige of your school isn't really an effective solution. The top tier programs just have so much more support, networks, funding, etc. that make work easier, quicker, and more (metaphorically) profitable. Conference papers are much easier to get accepted (the conference or panel wants your prestige and/or is friends with your advisor); that article you want to submit will be vetted first by the right people (your advisors' friends who are the experts on that topic), you'll have the financial resources to focus on your academic work, you'll organize conferences, and meet anybody you want to meet, etc. Your committee will look like an all-star cast, with the exact experts you need for it. In short, it's either an upward spiral for those (who do well) in the top programs, or a downward spiral for those not in top programs. Finally, I do think it is really good advice to look around at the types of jobs you want (or even jobs that are worse than the ones you want) and look at where those people went (pay more attention to where assistant professors went; the job market is different now than it was for the senior professors out there). I'll add one caveat though. Of course, just because professor Y went to school Z, it doesn't mean that everyone coming out of school Z could have gotten that job. I would strongly recommend against applying to non-top-tier programs. It's just not worth it. Being a PhD student is generally a very difficult, stressful life (despite how rosy it appears while applying). It's even more miserable if you labor for years second guessing whether you'll even be able to get a job (and then don't). If you do apply to other programs, please, please, please, ask about their placement rates before accepting any offers. I know it's harsh, and it's killing the dream seemingly prematurely (if you don't get in to a top program), but it's better now than 5-8 miserable years from now, with another 3-4 miserable years on a failing search for a job.

I'll admit, I'm trying get people angry. At the same time, he didn't just say that Fuller and/or Wheaton weren't conservative anymore; he made specific charges against Fuller that other people flatly rejected. More importantly, it wasn't just any charge. While I do think he's being sincere, he accused the professors at Fuller of worshipping another God than the God of the Bible. It's a very serious charge (at least for "conservatives) and one that, again, in its specifics, was flatly refuted. The reason I reacted so harshly is that I believe such types of inaccurate, malicious, and slanderous charges are actually quite characteristic of the types of narrow conservative circles that the poster apparently is coming from. Note that I don't say extremely conservative because this isn't a spectrum issue; there are a bunch of different conservative groups (certain brands of Pentacostals, Presbyterians, Church of Christ (non-instrumental), baptists, etc.) who think they are the only ones who are right. Maybe they are, but, my point is, if they have to rely on false and malicious depictions of those they oppose, I for one am suspicious of them. So, while I agree that the terms liberal and conservative are vague, non-technical, and generally unuseful, I disagree that my response to the poster is the result of this confusion. For me, while the opinions have varied greatly on this forum--some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with--the poster is the first to stake out a position through a false depiction of a school. And I think that's telling. It's not because he's hyper-conservative. It's because he's a part of group so narrow that it can only defend itself by misrepresenting the positions of others. I don't think that's a good school to go to.

shavedice; If you want to get an MA that's fine (I'll let others on here make the argument for the MDiv), but I would recommend that you make sure to know the difference in scholarship money/stipends offered to MDiv students versus MA students at whatever schools you decide would be best for you. Sometimes the MA students get next to nother, while MDiv students are given lots of money.

And, let's be honest, if people have to use obviously false and malicious accusations to speak against a school, it doesn't boad well for them or the schools they insist are the real conservatives (excuse me, I meant adhere to the "conservative views of the Bible.") I would think twice about trusting the advice of people who, however sincere they may be in their accusations, forward less than honest information.

I think phdapp's comments here are very helpful for clarifying some of the consequences that follow selecting a school. If you go to some schools (probably the ones phdapp recommends), there's a good chance you'll emerge from them thinking thinking places like Fuller and Wheaton are beyond the pale, that you and an extremely small, homogeneous set of people are the only true/real Christians. You might think you are continuing a historical tradition, but you'll only be able to maintain this illusion if you don't read much of the writings of earlier "Chrisitans." This is what some people want. Or, you can decide you don't already have all of the answers before you've started thinking about them, and go somewhere else, and perhaps end up believing that the people at Wheaton haven't strayed from "the conservative views of the Bible"(!!!!). My advice, if you have confidence in the strength of the conservative side in theology, understanding of the Bible and church history, you'll be fine choosing from a lot of places. (I think the recommendation to look at Gordon-Conwell is a great suggestion, for example. It's a conservative school, but you're in collegeville and you could take some classes from other places). If you're scared though of ending up a bit different at the end of your education than how you began it (and from the positions of other people who never studied these topics), there's nothing the rest of us can do to stop you, but that's the reason why the rest of us don't take those places seriously.

Oh yeah, one more thought (gosh, arguing and offering advice is much easier than writing a dissertation). If you, shavedice, do want to do college ministry, Duke, PTS, and perhaps Candler (which I know less about), might be great places insofar as you're in the middle of collegeville. A lot of Duke MDiv students even serve as RAs in the Duke dorms. Sorry if I was harsh Tollelege (but the internet is sooooo much fun to argue through). I see your point. I think I was mad because I was trying to distinguish the conservative-friendly big-name schools from the not so conservative-friendly schools (which, it seemed to me, you lumped together; ND being a separate case, of course). From a conservative perspective, there is a huge difference between Duke and HDS. Also, I think you're right that, in certain ways, conservative churches are going to be suspicious of someone from Duke. But, if he keeps his conservative bona fides (e.g., is involved in a conservative church in the area) (and trust me, even some of their PhDs get hired at extremely conservative places), I think many (certainly not all) conservative churches would love somebody who (they think) beat the liberals (i.e., the people at Duke) at their own game, especially for a college pastor. I grew up in a very evangelical non-demoninational church, and people thought this guy who went to PTS was the smartest guy ever, and entirely irreproachable from any outside critique because he went to the (to them) liberal PTS (which I don't think those people understood was different than Princeton U., but that's another story). I guess here though, shavedice would know best about his own exact context. And your right, the list he gives probably suggests the schools he should go to, yet, I suppose, I was responding to his comment that he also really wanted to challenge himself, suggesting, to me, that he might be interested in coservative-friendly places that also include other perspectives.

I just want to clarify, I certainly did not say to "look at schools such as PTS or Duke, or Yale, Notre Dame, HDS, etc. " I do very much not think he should look at Yale, ND, or HDS, or etc., given his goals. They just won't be a good fit for someone wanting an education that will serve being conservative, evangelical pastor. I also strenously disagree that Duke and PTS are really only good for people looking to do further academic work. I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm very confident that the large majority of M.Div students at both schools do not go on for further academic work. There are a lot of people that want to be pastors at those schools.

I guess the other thing to consider is that the school you choose will also be a factor for later jobs. You might stick with the church you're at forever, which is fine, but if, after a few years, something happens to you or to the church you're at (good or bad), you might want to do something else. Some jobs/people will love you if you go to Wheaton, for example, and others won't take you seriously. Same thing, of course, can be said about any theological education. And, again, unless someone else is paying for this (or you are independently wealthy), I'd really encourage you to look at the financial aid packages these different schools offer. I think you could probably get out of some of them debt-free, or nearly debt-free, while others, although perhaps great schools, will sink you tens of thousands of dollars into debt. For both of those reasons, that's while I'll again, push Duke or PTS. I think both have great financial aid for MDivs, and while Duke might be considered too liberal for some, conservatives will generally love you if you make it out of a prestigious school like that and are still conservative. In other words, if you keep your conservative bona fides, an education from Duke (or, to a lesser extent, PTS) will open a lot of doors.

My two cents: also look at Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS) and Duke Divinity. PTS has a pretty strong academic reputation (among conservatives) and, as a bonus, has a decent amount of scholarship money to give (if I remember correctly). Take a look at the people there, though, because its brand of conservativism might be different than what you or your church is looking for. Duke might be considered too liberal by people at your church (which is fine), but it's generally regarded as very conservative compared to the other big divinity schools. There are plenty of left-leaning people there, but some of there people are pretty well liked by conservatives (e.g., Richard Hays, Duke Div's dean, is a favorite of Christianity Today). There are conservatives there. If you're really looking for something that would push you, yet still might be acceptable to your church, I'd recommend Duke Div (and they have decent money for M.Divs). Then again, if you're somebody who would think that Fuller is liberal, Duke isn't an option (nor PTS or any other respectable school).

Oh, okay. To me PTS isn't in the same category as UT-Austin and UNC. If you want pretty conservative scholarship, it's a great place to go, but it's kind of a different discussion, since it's a confessional place (at least in my opinion).