Lux Lex Pax

Comparing the total number of people that applied to each of the top religion departments is a terrible metric for evaluating interest in each of the programs. The numbers need to be broken down into subfields to be of any use, but even then, not all similar subfields are created equal since some have very different emphases. For example, NT studies needs to be compared with other NT studies subfields, Islam with Islam, Christian theology with Christian theology, etc. A better way of determining the strength of a subfield is figuring out where people who were admitted into multiple programs ultimately decided to attend - information that'll never be made public by those in the know. If someone were accepted to study Islam at Princeton, Yale, Duke, or Chicago, for example, where they decided to attend could be an indicator of the strength of the subfield; however, the decision is also likely to reflect the student's particular focus rather than the overall strength of the subfield. The take away is that, at least at the top programs, overall departmental numbers are misleading if you think that they help you gauge the level of interest in the program because most people don't apply to a religion department in general, they apply to particular subfields with particular faculty with particular strengths that aren't always easy to compare across different programs. I don't understand why that concept is so difficult to understand.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you're wrong. Unless your numbers are absolutely horrendous, your application will be read at most schools. How much time they'll spend reading your application is another matter. Because of the time-intensive nature of the admissions process, I don't think faculty members are elated when they receive 300+ applications for a handful of slots. I also highly doubt that any school cuts the pool from "300 to 50 within the first hour of decision-making," but if they did, it's probably because the school receives lots of applications from people who have no business applying to Ph.D. programs because they're completely unprepared. I have a white male friend who got into an Ivy-league NELC department with a verbal GRE score in the low 80s percentile-wise; if it were just a numbers game, he should've been cut in the "first hour of decision-making." But apparently someone in the department thought that all his other qualities outweighed a low GRE score. I'm not arguing that the GRE isn't important - it is. But posting an official cutoff would've prevented my friend from applying (and gaining admission) into an excellent program, so I wouldn't discount the holistic evaluation of applicants.

I think most programs are hesitant to post cutoffs because they don't want to discourage otherwise well-qualified candidates from applying. Not having an official cutoff allows them to holistically evaluate applicants who might not fit the usual criteria.

From what I've heard, UChicago doesn't fund everyone equally - some might get full tuition plus a stipend which varies by student, some might get no stipend at all.

Princeton University Princeton Seminary Emory

My advice is to apply to History department doctoral programs that have strengths in Medieval and Early Modern European religious history. If I were in your position, I might apply to work with Constantin Fasolt at the University of Chicago. His work spans these historical periods with an emphasis on political, legal, social, and intellectual history. If you were to get in there, then you might be able to branch out into the Divinity school and take a couple of courses in theology. This would totally set you up for jobs in the history of political thought, political theory, and political theology and give you training that few who work at the intersection of religion and political thought have.

You might look into Shaun Marmon who works on Islam at Princeton University. Those who study Islam in the Religion department also work closely with those who work in Near Eastern studies. You could study Islam with that group and get the more philosophical/theoretical training in ethical and political thought from other members of the Religion faculty, particularly those in the Religion, Ethics, and Politics subfield.

It sounds like you're interested in theological exegesis, which pairs nicely with various philosophical/hermeneutical movements. You should look at Kevin Vanhoozer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Perhaps also the program at UVa. Besides Duke (and perhaps UVa), not many people at the well-known or "elite" institutions are interested in theological exegesis, or if they are interested, they don't do it very well.

Checkout Mayra Rivera-Rivera at Harvard Divinity School. She seems to be into theopoetics.

If you want some medieval legal and political thought, you could go with A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West 6 volumes by R. W. Carlyle and A. J. Carlyle (a classic, out-of-print, and hard to get a hold of but still cited), Medieval Canon Law by James Brundage (expensive and hard-to-find), and The Common Legal Past of Europe by Manlio Bellomo. Those will give you a good start for understanding medieval legal and political thought.

http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/?page_id=925

The divinity school at the University of Chicago might be a good place to look at for continental philosophy of religion. I'm thinking in particular of Marion and Hector.

The information I have about Stanford came directly from a faculty member in the Modern Western Religious Thought subfield who does work in what some might consider historical theology or intellectual history. This person advised me that there were members of the faculty that were hostile to theology and that I was probably better off not applying there -- and mind you I wanted work in the area of religious ethics, religion and politics, religion in public life, etc, and not constructive/systematic theology. I think this also bore itself out when they refused to hire someone like Robin Lovin for their open position in religious ethics. He was apparently to theologically oriented for them. With that said, it's always best to ask your POI if your proposed project is feasible given the department and university resources. I asked and was told that I'd be swimming against the tide, so I decided not to apply. Perhaps, as jdharrison has suggested, you can reframe your project as a work of intellectual history and get to more constructive/systematic stuff later in your career. I'd also add that jdharrison is right about the job prospects coming out of a seminary. Even a place like PTS has trouble placing theology graduates -- the lone exception being Hector at Chicago. Religion and society at PTS has had a better track recorded lately, placing people at Harvard and Drew. But those successes are too few and far between to justify going to PTS, unless you want to limit yourself to religiously affiliated institutions.

Stanford doesn't do theology, and in fact, the department seems pretty hostile to theology. One could probably do a historically oriented project like, say, something on Schleiermacher's thought with Brent Sockness. But the Modern Western Religious Thought subfield doesn't seem to have the resources to study much outside of Continental European Christianity from the early modern period to about the early 19th century, with a smattering of Continental philosophy up to Heidegger.

It's slim pickings on the West coast for theology or religion more generally. I was in the same position and decided to move out to the East coast for my doctoral program, but I hope to move back afterwards. I'd add Claremont and maybe UCSB to your list depending on specific interests. UCSB is rather limited, but it does have a philosophy of religion emphasis. Claremont has more resources for theology, but it's funding isn't very good.

From the Harvard website: "Consideration by More than One Program — Occasionally, an application may be transferred by the Office of Admissions and Financial Aid to a second department that may be more suitable to the applicant’s academic interest. Candidates for admission to member programs in the Harvard Integrated Life Sciences (HILS), may also apply to more than one program (see following section). The Graduate School does not recommend submission of more than one application. However, if you choose to submit multiple applications (up to a limit of two), the applications may not share any item. Each application must have its own transcripts, recommendations, financial data, test scores, etc. All supplemental materials must be scanned, uploaded, and attached to your online application. It is Graduate School policy that an individual may submit only one application per program. It is Graduate School policy that an individual may submit no more than three applications during the course of his or her academic career." The rest can be found at: http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/prospective_students/application_instructions_and_information.php

Most universities limit the number of applications you can submit to them in any given season, so you might not be able to submit applications to four different departments at the same university.

I think people often confuse a statement of purpose (SOP) with a personal statement (PS). The PS is usually required by professional degree programs that don't necessarily require previous study in the subject matter. To get into law school, business school, or a divinity program, for instance, you don't need to have studied law, business, or theology, respectively, to have gotten into those programs. A PS is to provide a greater sense of who you are, of your story, of why you want to study x, adversities you've overcome, special achievements that don't appear on your resume, or anything else that makes you stand out as an individual. The SOP, on the other hand, is usually required for research degrees, like doctoral programs, where applicants are expected to have had previous education in the subject matter. It isn't, primarily, about your personal story; instead, most programs want to know what qualifies you for the study of x and why they should choose you over the dozens or hundreds of other well-qualified candidates. Again, this shouldn't be stuff that can easily be ascertained from your CV. If you'd like to explain certain items on your CV in greater depth that have a direct bearing on future graduate work, then do that in your SOP. For instance, if you were a TA or RA, discuss some of your responsibilities; if you helped organize a conference in your field of study or a related field, you might want to explain that; if you wrote interesting paper or did interesting research, discuss it -- although not in excruciating detail; if you have had work experience in your field that bears on your research interests, elaborate on it in the SOP. I'd be careful with work experience when it comes to religion. Certain theology programs might be ok with ministry related experience but most religious studies programs probably won't be, and for good reason: they want to know that you can think like a scholar of religion, not a practitioner of a particular religion. Within these constraints, you can still talk about ministry experiences, but discuss them as if you were a religion scholar. Say, for example, that you got involved in inter-religious/multi-faith dialogue when you worked in ministry and that that experience got you interested in religious pluralism in democratic societies. You can discuss that in your SOP, with the caveat that it not be a huge part of your SOP. Remember an SOP is still about your academic qualifications.

I agree with jdharrison. The difference between historical and constructive theology is the difference between saying "Calvin believed in a penal substitutionary theory of the atonement" and "I believe in a penal substitutionary theory of the atonement" or some variant on that. In other words, someone engages in constructive theology when he expresses his own views on theological matters. I take constructive and normative theology to be synonymous. Systematic theology, on the other hand, I take to be concerned with topics like revelation, the Trinity, Christology, theological anthropology, etc. -- that is, with the traditional theological loci and how they interrelate. Someone working in theology can do constructive theology, or systematic theology, or both, but they don't necessarily overlap. I can be a constructive political theologian who doesn't work on doctrinal issues, or I can study the systematic theology of Karl Barth or Thomas Aquinas without ever setting forth my own views on the matter, or I can do constructive systematic theology by, say, expressing my own views on the doctrine of the Trinity. These categories aren't set in stone, but they do tend to be the way people think about theological scholarship. For the sake of those new to theology, I would probably contrast constructive with historical theology, on one hand, and systematic, moral, political, and practical/pastoral theology, on the other.

A number of faculty members I know are gloomy about the prospects of constructive/normative work outside of the seminary/div school context. I don't think religious studies departments know what to do with people who do constructive work, so if that's your thing, you might be shutting yourself out of most religion departments. For instance, there's rumbling that Yale's religious studies department wants to get out of doing normative work. If you look at where the faculty are primarily situated, most of the normative faculty are primarily affiliated with the div school and the historical/descriptive work is done primarily in the religious studies department -- this is obviously a generalization. U Chicago is also having a difficult time figuring out whether it wants to support constructive work; it's had openings in theology and ethics for many years now, but for some reason, it can't seem to fill those vacancies. Stanford had a position that a prominent Christian ethicist applied for but was turned down because he was too theological. This is obviously a small sample of cases, drawn from elite schools that most of us will never have the opportunity to teach at, but there does seem to be a general trend in recent years away from constructive work. I'd like to hear what others think about this issue and whether my observations are accurate.

Keep in mind faculty turnover and retirement. For instance, I've heard that Machinist at Harvard is phasing into retirement, which has left some of his current students in precarious positions.

For graduate study in theology, study more philosophy, especially the hard stuff -- Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, etc. For admission into programs, work on your statement of purpose. It should go through at least 15 drafts. You want to show, rather tell, about how you are a perfect of the particular program you're applying to. It should be a coherent narrative about your research interests and educational background that doesn't just repeat things found elsewhere in your application. The statement of purpose is where your personality will shine through, so it shouldn't sound like someone else could've written it.

I would imagine letters of recommendation from faculty members in the other program you would like to gain admission to would have extra weight.

I think the major problem here, and in Western philosophical and religious thought generally, is the desire for certainty. The story begins with Descartes and his battle to overcome radical skepticism, and reaches new heights with Kant's philosophy. They want absolute assurance that what they know and believe is true, in an absolute, indubitable sense. This lead to Descartes's cogito and Kant's transcendental philosophy, both of which were primarily epistemological and metaphysical projects. In their own ways, both Descartes and Kant wanted to provide room for faith in a world dominated by scientific knowledge. In other words, they want to reconcile religion and science. It's important to note that both assume that science sets the standard. If we fast forward a little in history, we see fundamentalists, who sought certainty as well, making arguments from scripture that basically take for granted that science sets the terms of the debate, so we see them making arguments about how parts of scripture don't conflict with scientific knowledge and making scientific claims about scripture. The problem with all this is that it presupposes that we need absolute certainty to combat radical skepticism and that science provides such certainty. We see this fear of skepticism and resort to scientism everywhere today: People assume that scientific studies settle arguments, the humanities are trying to model themselves on the sciences in order to have purchase in the public square and legitimate their place in a capitalist system that squeezes out non-utilitarian values, etc. But is that the right way of thinking about our standards for knowledge and conduct? I doubt it. Once you accept this way of thinking, you're left with no recourse but to look for inerrant foundations either in the bible, as some Protestants do, or in tradition, as some Catholics do. As people of faith, we need to question these moves and the assumptions underwriting them regarding skepticism, foundationalism, and scientific knowledge. Theological liberals and theological conservatives, rather than questioning the rules of the game, have joined right in. Liberals assume scientific knowledge is basically the most accurate picture of reality and try to reinterpret theology in light of those claims, which ends up leaving very little room for theology and traditional doctrines. Conservatives also assume scientific knowledge is basically right, but, rather than jettisoning theology, they attempt to argue for traditional theological beliefs in the idiom of modern science and foundationalist epistemology. Postliberals have tried to get beyond these constraints by using Wittgenstein. Others have tried to turn back the clock as if the Enlightenment had never happened. At this point in my studies, I don't have a definitive answer, and I'm not sure I will ever have one or if one is even desirable. But there are other options out there besides conservative biblicism with its doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration and liberal secularism with its abandonment of religious faith in favor of scientific faith.

There are lots of great resources out there on this topic. You could look at how the Roman Catholics have handled this approach. For a Catholic approach, Dei Verbum is a good place to start. It came out of Vatican II and provides a nice, short overview of Catholic teaching on scripture. It's arguably quite Barthian, i.e., influenced by the Protestant theologian Karl Barth. Barth would also be a great place to look. I think he struggles more deeply with scripture, biblical criticism, and theology than just about any other theologian. Here's the link to Dei Verbum: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html Here's a link to a one-page bibliography on Barth: http://www.academia.edu/1738449/Karl_Barth_and_Scripture_A_One_Page_Bibliography Dei Verbum introduces some necessary distinctions like the four senses of scripture (literal, allegorical, tropological, anagogical). You might also want to look at Hans Frei's The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative for an account of how scriptural interpretation has changed in the modern period. On Barth, I would read the recommended primary sources in the bibliography and stuff by George Hunsinger and Bruce McCormack; they're both excellent Barth scholars. I would also suggest Karlfried Froehlich's Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. These resources are just a starting point for thinking deeply and theological about scripture. I think it's important for your friend to see that views on scripture and scriptural interpretation haven't been static. They've changed quite a bit throughout history. For instance, the contemporary view that the literal sense is historical hasn't always been the case. The best way to get beyond our contemporary categories for scripture is to look at how it has been handled by theologians throughout church history.