Lux Lex Pax

I agree that "religion" is a socially constructed category -- theories of religion try to describe what it means and how it functions. In contemporary American society, religion is often taken to mean belief in God. The two assumptions are that religion is mainly concerned with belief and supernatural beings. But those of us who are religious or study religion know that religion is about much more than belief and often doesn't involve supernatural beings. What is problematic is that the concept of religion as belief in God is often the normative view. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has often assumed that religion is about belief, so belief is the only thing that is protected by the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Religion as belief is a pretty pervasive view, and that's because that's the position religion occupies in some people's perspective. But anyone who has studied pre-modern religion knows that that view of religion is preposterous. Sometimes, however, contemporary views of religion are read anachronistically onto the past. Thus, people pick and choose passages that seem to support their views of religion as belief but completely ignore, say, something like the Rule of St. Benedict. In my view, one of the most significant problems in the study of religion is that people often assume that the concept of religion occupies the same social role at all times, places, and cultures. But there are obviously going to be many differences given the variation in societal complexity, with some societies being much more differentiated and complex than others. So, in order to understand religion, one must in many ways understand the society in which the religion is embedded. 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.

Exactly. The way I see it, given the existence of NELC, Jewish studies, Buddhist studies, etc, there are three main reasons for maintaining a religious studies department: 1) the theories and methods stuff that doesn't fit neatly into anthropology or sociology; 2) the study of Christianity because, as far as I can tell, there are no Christian studies programs at most of the schools that have Jewish studies, Islamic studies, Buddhist studies, etc.; 3) normative or constructive work in religion, by which I mean the kind of work that most characterizes subfields like religious ethics, philosophy of religion, and theology. Beyond those three contributions by religious studies, I'm pretty certain most other subfields that usually constitute religious studies can be pursued elsewhere throughout the university. I will say, however, that I love the interdisciplinarity of a religion department. There's a synergy that probably can't be replicated when everyone in the room has had very similar methodological training.

Near Eastern Studies, NELC, and the like leave a lot out that would normally be covered by a religion department. Near Eastern Studies tends to be very text-focused and philologically-oriented, and not very interested in the more philosophical or theoretical issues involved in the study of religion. They're also mainly interested in Islam and Judaism, and less so in Christianity, which might matter for those interested in studying Christianity. The biggest problem with religious studies is that it's united by subject matter, rather than a methodology, so that one could conceivably study religion in any of the humanities or social sciences without there being a specific department called religious studies. There are limitations to this approach, but that seems to be the way the UC system in general has take toward the study of religion -- only UCSB has a program worth mentioning and even it doesn't have very good coverage of the usual religious studies issues.

If you do good work, you'll be fine coming from a small, conservative college. You will have to do a master's degree if you want to get into a top church history/historical theology doctoral program. Given your background and interests, I suggest you look into the MTS program at Duke Divinity, MAR at Yale Divinity, and M.Div. at Princeton Theological Seminary -- you might also consider the M.Div. at Duke and Yale as well if you're interested in ministry, want more time to prepare yourself academically, or want more funding. These three schools have strengths in the areas you're interested in, produce a good number of doctoral students, provide good funding, and will be more friendly to Christians from conservative backgrounds than most other top programs. Your academic record seems to indicate that you'll be competitive at these schools. Get good letters of recommendation, write an excellent personal statement, knock the GRE out of the park (M.Div. programs generally don't require the GRE), and you'll be in very good shape. I don't think transferring is a necessity, especially if it'll cost you more and possibly set you back a year.

Initially landing a tenure-track position and getting granted tenure are two different processes. Getting tenure is connected to scholarly productivity, teaching, and department service of various kinds, but it's mostly about publishing. Tenure, as far as I can tell, doesn't rely at all on the prestige of the university where you got your doctorate; if that were the case, they probably wouldn't have hired you to begin with. On the other hand, landing a tenure-track position is dependent on a number of factors, of which, unfortunately, prestige of one's doctorate granting institution is one. It is still possible to get a job from a less prestigious school; you'll just have to work that much harder. I should also add that the job market has been very rough in recent years, and there are no signs that it's going to get better any time soon, so everyone is struggling to find jobs, even those at top schools. I'm hearing stories of freshly minted graduates competing against and losing out to people who have done post-docs, are assistant profs elsewhere, and have already published and been out of their programs for a while. It's tough for recent grads to compete with that, regardless of where they got their degree.

To be clear, I wasn't proposing a split. I was merely stating that the distinction between theology and religious studies wasn't getting at what furtivemode wanted. Sure, there's cross-over from professional training in religion to the academic study of religion, but they're still very different animals that can be distinguished from each other more easily than religion and theology.

I think vocational/professional degree programs versus academic programs would be a better split. You can still study theology in a number of religion departments (Yale, Duke, Northwestern, Princeton), so theology versus religious studies doesn't really get it right.

Liberalism is a vague term that, in this context, serves to mystify and confuse rather than explain. It needs to be given determinate content and distinguished from related concepts. Whatever one might mean by liberalism, liberalism in theology and doctrine needs to be distinguished from liberalism in politics. Some schools might be theologically conservative but politically liberal. Moreover, we need to get a hold of what liberalism of the theological variety means in this discussion and what its implications are. For instance, can one be theologically liberal but still fall within orthodox (little "o") Christianity broadly construed? Historically, I take it that theological liberalism meant that one assumed the truths propounded by science, the historical-critical study of the bible, and Kant's philosophy (in particular the Critique of Pure Reason) while trying to defend an orthodox Christian theology. In other words, liberal theology was an attempt to salvage Christian orthodoxy in light of modern advances in science, history, and philosophy. Of course, not everyone agreed about the verities of science, history, and philosophy nor how to proceed in light of them, so you had divisions between the modernists and fundamentalists. If this intellectual history is right, we need a reason justifying why a school like Fuller ought to be labeled theologically, as opposed to politically, liberal. I'm not taking a stance on whether it is or it isn't; I'm just saying concrete facts, details, and examples would help a lot more in figuring out where various schools stand on the theological spectrum than tossing around "isms." Also, to better help ShavedIce, we need to know something about his church's theological commitments and denomination.

There's a lot of good advice there. However, I'd caution about imitating the sample statements too much since philosophy and religious studies are very different in some respects. To state it strongly (and most controversially), philosophers tend to view themselves as disembodied intellects, caring only about good arguments, so their SOPs are going to be geared in that direction. Religious studies is a bit more holistic, caring about your research interests but also about you as a person since they're going to be stuck working with you for many years. As an example of the different approaches, the philosophy department at my school doesn't conduct interviews when hiring new faculty; they just read their work and choose the person with the best arguments, regardless of how they might comport themselves in the classroom or socially with faculty. That kind of thing would never fly in religious studies departments.

I agree with much of what you said, but I don't think impressing a cute girl should be the criterion of what a top program is. If you're in Christian theology and ethics, for example, most cute girls would be impressed if you said you were at Harvard, less impressed by Duke, and probably not impressed at all by Emory. For those in the know, however, Harvard would be the least impressive, at least for those interested in working within Christian orthodoxy. If you want to impress anyone at all - and I'm not sure that should be anyone's goal - you should find out which programs, or better yet, which faculty members others hold in high esteem, and go work with them.

It'd be easier if you provided examples of what you mean by too general and too specific. If you were interested in Christianity, for example, just saying Christianity would be too general, stating an interest in the doctrine of transubstantiation would be too specific, but perhaps saying something like "I'm interested in developments of sacramental theology during the Reformation and their potential ethical and political implications" might be just right. You want to demonstrate deep knowledge of the field, evidence that you've researched the strengths of the faculty members you're applying to work with, and enough flexibility to show a willingness to grow and learn. When discussing your academic background and preparation, you probably want to be specific in naming who you've studied with, particular thinkers, works, or methodologies you've found useful, etc.; I think specificity is key when discussing academic preparation. When discussing your research interests, however, you want to be a little less specific; perhaps name a thinker but not a particular work that you're interested in; maybe another methodology that'll complement the one or two you've already mastered; perhaps, instead of discussing one possible dissertation project, you present two viable possibilities. As for the intellectual genealogy that furtivemode mentions, I did something similar. I was able to combine my academic background with some relevant work experience and channel it into two potential dissertation projects that could've been completed under different sets of faculty members. To do that, you really have to craft a tight narrative, and you have to really do your research of the faculty members you're applying to work with.

That's great advice, AbrasaxEos. I would also like to add that, although most people who go into academia are passionate about the subject matter, many find the academic life difficult for a variety of reasons. I know plenty of people in the "most competitive" programs who hate it there and would rather go work at a church or go into some other field. All that to say that even those who get into their dream program aren't always happy or successful, so we need to be realistic about what outcomes we would be happy about or deem successful - this goes for everyone in the "most competitive" programs to those at schools that place mainly at community colleges, small state schools, religious liberal arts colleges, etc.

Exactly. No one should pay attention to Perique69's advice since s/he clearly doesn't know what s/he is talking about. (Disclaimer: I was admitted to three and wait-listed at two of the six programs on your list, so I'm not speaking out of envy.) jdharrison and Joseph45 are spot-on. Those are the issues that matter most. As far as top schools by area, that's really going to depend on each individual's interests. We can help you better if you tell us what you're interested in.

Haha - that's hilarious!

By my count, UVa currently has at least 8 BA-only students. So far, that's Princeton, UVa, and UNC. I'm sure if I researched more schools I'd find plenty of other BA-only students to counter your mendacity. It's interesting to see that you play fast and loose with language the same way you do with facts; you don't get to redefine words that have established meanings in particular contexts - admissions - and then whine about others taking you too literally when they hold you accountable. I hope some unsuspecting undergrad doesn't take your advice and retake the GRE because he scored in the 98th percentile instead of that sweet spot between the 90th and 97th percentiles (though Duke's scores, for example, hover around the 99th percentile most years) because prestigious programs apparently care so much about numbers of applicants and all the money (from where, you never told us) they make that they'll reject someone for scoring too high - I hope the ridiculous logic of your argument is apparent.

The word "require" means that it's necessary for admission; you seem to be confusing it with the word "competitive." Though one might be more competitive at top programs with a master's degree, it isn't required. When half of Princeton's admits (3 out of 6) are straight out of undergrad, that blows a huge hole in your uninformed theory. Like I said before, Chicago, PTS, and Union are required by accrediting bodies to admit only people with master's degrees into their Ph.D. programs because they are divinity school- or seminary-based programs. It's hilarious that you refer to providing evidence as "exception to rule tactic."

Too put the point broadly, philosophy of religion in a philosophy department is still going to have a strong emphasis on traditional topics like arguments for and against the existence of God, the nature of religious experience, etc. In a religious studies department, you're more likely to get exposure to continental philosophy (Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Foucault, Sartre, Derrida, Caputo, Marion, etc.) which doesn't care much for the kinds of apologetic arguments that the OP cares about.

That's because few of the top schools actually "require" a master's degree for admission into their Ph.D. programs. In addition to Harvard, you can add Yale, Princeton, Duke, UVa, Emory, Columbia, and just about every other university-based, as opposed to divinity school- (Chicago, HDS, Duke Div) or seminary-based (PTS, Union), program. Just this past year, Princeton admitted three students straight from undergraduate programs. But I have a feeling that actual facts and evidence won't convince those that need convincing in this thread.

No.

Job prospects outside of the evangelical circuit was one of my concerns. Another, however, is intellectual development. Studying in a philosophy department would allow one to branch out into other areas if the whole defender-of-the-faith thing didn't work out. It would also allow one to think in the context of a broader tradition, whether that be the Christian tradition in Catholic universities or Medieval philosophy programs or the Western philosophical tradition in a secular philosophy department with prominent Christian philosophers. I'm afraid that Christian apologetics programs, though they strive to impress upon students a Christian worldview, just aren't going to be rigorous enough or as connected with broader Christian and philosophical traditions to give students the deep understanding necessary to do good thinking beyond repeating the shallow, overused, and mistaken arguments that apologists always trot out.

I agree. Most of these evangelical schools love Harvard, Yale, and Princeton graduates as long as they tow the party line on doctrine and morals.

If you're dead set on this course of study, I'd go with philosophy of religion in a philosophy department over Christian apologetics in any of the aforementioned programs. A philosophy department would be a very different environment from the evangelical friendly programs you mentioned, but you'd be better positioned for the job market and a philosophy department would provide you with more opportunities for intellectual development should you decide later that you don't want to limit yourself to Christian apologetics. I'd look at philosophy departments at Catholic universities like Notre Dame, Fordham, and Boston College, or philosophy departments that have prominent Christians like Dean Zimmerman at Rutgers, Keith DeRose and John Hare at Yale, or places that do medieval philosophy like Cornell or St. Louis University. I think most of these programs would allow you to explore philosophy of religion/philosophical theology in a way that wouldn't be as intellectually (or spiritually) constraining as studying Christian apologetics at Biola or TEDS.

I should also mention Emory's course of study "Person, Community, and Religious Life." It's their practical theology subfield with a heavy interdisciplinary focus. I had heard a while back that they were restructuring the program, but I haven't heard anything since, and the website indicates that it's still running. Another thing to keep in mind are job prospects. I don't know what your denominational affiliation is, but the Protestant/Catholic distinction could be very important with your particular emphases. I think Protestant schools are probably better in practical theology than the Catholic schools, and the latter are better in patristics. This would seem to bear itself out in hiring patterns. Anecdotally, it seems that patristics scholars from Catholic schools can get placed in Catholic or Protestant schools but not those who study patristics in Protestant schools. The situation seems to be slightly reversed in practical theology, though Catholics seem to favor Catholics here as well. For what it's worth, patristics seems to have undergone a resurgence in the last couple of years with a number of jobs opening up for scholars in this field.

From what I understand, the Th.D. program at Duke is meant to be a place where students can do semi-traditional academic work that is geared toward the church; I say semi-traditional because of its interdisciplinary nature - interdisciplinary for those working in the theological disciplines, i.e., OT, NT, church history, systematics, pastoral theology, etc. Besides being invested in the flourishing of the contemporary church, Duke also has members who connect their work with the history of Christian thought and with contemporary empirical approaches to the study of the church. For example, they have people like Reinhard Hutter and Paul Griffiths who are deeply learned in Christian theology but also have a strong devotion to the life of the church. Geoffrey Wainwright is also someone who has done work on the history of liturgy and theology, though I believe he's now emeritus. There are also people like Luke Bretherton and Mary McClintock Fulkerson who are at the cutting edge of ecclesiology and ethnography. And these are just the theologians who would be considered constructive dogmatic or moral theologians. Combine them with their more traditional pastoral theologians at Duke, and you'd have lots of people to work with on a topic like patristics and contemporary pastoral theology. At PTS, I think this proposal could fit in either theology or practical theology, though it'd probably be easier to gain admission into the practical theology program. I believe James Kay and Richard Osmer, along with Ellen Charry, might be good resources to help connect practical theology to the history of Christian theology. I hope this helps.

You might be interested in Ellen Charry at Princeton Theological Seminary. She's done a lot of work in Patristics and Medieval theology and wrote a book called "By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine" that might be of interest to you. You should also checkout the Th.D. program at Duke, which seems very much amenable to this kind of work. I'm not that familiar with the Roman Catholic schools, but my impression is that many have strengths in this area; I'm thinking in particular about Notre Dame and Boston College, but I could be wrong.