marXian

What's Luther doing there? (We all know he didn't love anyone...)

If it's any help at all, I'm a current PhD student at NU. Though I'm not in the philosophy department, much of my course work has been there, and I'm working closely with one of the professors. I know a number of the students fairly well. Honestly, I did not know this Ludlow thing was happening until looking at these threads. I don't know what that says exactly, but I would highly recommend you get in touch with some current students and female professors. If you want, feel free to PM me and I can direct you to some folks who I know would be completely happy to answer your questions. As others have said, this isn't going to affect your current offer (this scandal took place initially in 2012, from what I've gathered, and they've had two strong incoming classes since then.)

Grad Cafe probably isn't the best place to start a conversation about this, but I'm curious... I know Masuzawa's book is a big deal, but my sense is that the field in general is trying to move past the standard Asadian genealogy of the category. I read Jason Josephson's, The Invention of Religion in Japan in the fall, which significantly complicates the picture that both Asad and Masuzawa paint. It's still a genealogy, but one that is focused on indigenous discourses and asymmetries of power, rather than Christianity/Europe/the West. Not saying Masuzawa's book isn't important. I just wonder if in attempting to problematize the category of religion, her methodological stance, in certain cases, ends up retaining an oversimplified picture of the production of "religion" only from a different angle. Thoughts? Full disclosure: I'm a theologian in an RS department (at a secular, though private school), so I'm the sort of person Masuzawa probably thinks contributes significantly to the fraught position "religion" finds itself in, which probably has something to do with my desire to move beyond her.

Claremont Lincoln exists (formerly Claremont School of Theology) and offers MAs in Interreligious Studies, Interfaith Chaplancy, and Islamic Leadership. It also has a PhD in Practical Theology which, given these MA options, could probably be geared toward any practical concern you wanted in any religion. Averroes, I would look into it. You sound like exactly the kind of person CLU is looking for. https://claremontlincoln.org/

Sorry I didn't really say much about my project. Right now (for my "second year paper") I'm looking at how Troeltsch and Max Weber understand Christian asceticism as a social form.

Sure. I'm going to use a lot of semicolons though. Troeltsch held the Neo-Kantian view that religion could not be reduced to anything else (e.g. "Society a la Durkheim); however, he also thought that religions couldn't be understood apart from the societies in which they are embedded. His approach to theological history was to understand the social factors that made possible particular articulations of doctrine at certain moments in the history of the church (heavily influenced by Heinrich Rickert's philosophy of history.) For Troeltsch, at the center of Christian social structure is a particular theory of human relationships that extends beyond the church (i.e. represents the universal character of Christianity) and there is a mutual influence between the church and the society in which it is embedded; Troeltsch's challenge was to avoid reducing all social forms to Christianity or Christianity to the social.

Very Troeltschian! 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.) With regard to your comments on the First Amendment, have you read The Impossibility of Religious Freedom by Winifred Sullivan? It's a pretty frustrating read, but only in that it speaks directly to the issue you point out.

Totally agree with this. My year and a half so far in an RS department has had a very positive impact on the way I approach theology.

There are not too many folks who post on here who do what makes up a large portion of religious studies, i.e. ethnographic/anthropological/sociological approaches to contemporary religious populations and/or history of particular religious populations. You'll note that just about everyone who replied offered answers related to philological endeavors (ancient religions, NELC, etc.) Not that there's anything wrong with those fields! =) Lux is exactly right. Departments at state schools typically focus on the "social science" approaches to "lived religion" and "embodied practice" and/or the philological approaches to historical religions and/or the historical approaches to the lived religion and embodied practices of historical groups. All of those things could be studied in other departments and sometimes are. The thing that is usually missing from state programs is theology (and for understandable reasons.) Miami Ohio is an example of a very strong master's program that focuses on ethnographic/anthropological methods. Florida State, the University of Florida, University of Iowa, Indiana-Bloomington also come to mind. There are departments that do actually have some kind of theology/philosophy of religion track, like at University of Virginia, but that's probably less common at state schools.

Professors edit each other's potential journal articles and book chapters all the time. It's part of doing diligent academic work and trying to get a variety of perspectives to hone one's ideas. That type of "editing" is not copy editing; it's making suggestions for the conceptual flow of the paper, for clarity in certain sections, etc. These are very substantive suggestions sometimes. In no way do those people expect to even be mentioned--especially for a chapter or article. Sometimes authors will include a very short list of thank yous in the first footnote (footnoting the title of the article/chapter usually.) If one is writing a whole book, and a colleague reads very large sections of it and makes major suggestions, then a "thank you" in the acknowledgements/preface/introduction is obviously standard. From your post, it doesn't sound like you've had a conversation with this faculty member about this. It would be a bad idea to list his/her name on the article in any capacity without a conversation. In my experience, co-written articles, chapters, books, etc. are rare in our general field (religious studies) except for some special circumstances (e.g. two scholars co-edit a collection of essays and write the introduction together.)

These sorts of things vary from program to program, so I can really only speak to the CIC here in the Midwest, but students utilizing the CIC can spend an entire semester/quarter or a whole academic year at cooperating institutions (though housing, etc. would be entirely up to the visiting student.) Spending an entire academic year elsewhere, in my experience, is rare for students in the humanities and more for students in the natural sciences wanting to work in someone else's research lab. Also, that sort of thing is really only something PhD students do. Grad students at CIC schools (both PhD and MA/MS) will sometimes take one course for some term at a nearby participating institution while still taking courses at their home institution. For example, during my first term, I took two courses at Northwestern and one at UChicago. Do you mean the GTU in Berkeley, CA? If so, I would imagine that would be far more difficult. Things like that become easier once you're a PhD student because initiating those sorts of possibilities with faculty in your area at other institutions is relatively normal since those scholars are people with whom you'll (presumably) be engaging throughout your academic career, especially if your field is narrow. At the master's level, it's (I would imagine) far more difficult to work that out without an already established exchange program.

Quite often, seminaries and div schools have agreements with other local universities/seminaries which allow students to take courses at other institutions. For example, schools in the Big Ten and the University of Chicago are part of the CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) which allows students at any of those schools take courses on another campus (e.g. a student at Ohio State could come to Northwestern or UofC for a semester/quarter and take courses.) Under the CIC, if your home institution is giving you a tuition scholarship, the host institution agrees to cover tuition for courses a visiting student takes there. I'm pretty sure Boston-area schools have a similar set up between BU, Harvard, etc. though there may be differences.

I agree that the most important thing ultimately is that the recommenders really know who you are. Of course, you want to find a balance between that, people in your field, the reputation of the recommender, etc. If one happens to be outside your field, I don't think it's a big deal. I had a professor from my English MA who had been on my thesis committee write me a letter for theology programs because I didn't feel like there were any other profs at my seminary who would be able to write a letter as well as that prof. Because he was totally outside the field, I asked him if he would focus on my ability to analyze texts. The reality is that most applicants will have something "imperfect" about their LORs, i.e. having to go outside the field or subfield, names that aren't well known, etc. So regarding the diversity issue, I also agree that it could potentially be a problem--but I think you ultimately have to go with the profs who know you best. Don't throw in a token diversity recommender who really doesn't know you as a student.

I think it's definitely possible to be admitted into a good program with a bible college background. For instance, there's a second year theology PhD student at UVA who went to Pensacola Christian and Dallas Seminary. That sort of info is usually readily available on the "Current Graduate Students" page of most department websites, so you can look and see where admits come from and whether or not they have master's degrees. Remember though that whether or not someone can be admitted without a master's degree really depends on the particular subfield. Usually theology (and biblical studies) require at least an MA in theology (or similar degree.) If you want to go into academia, I recommend going for an MA or MTS rather than an MDiv. The other important piece that hasn't really been touched upon yet is what you want to do more specifically. As derewigestudent pointed out, if you want to work on the Reformation, it is absolutely crucial you develop your Latin. German, of course, is important too, but Latin is (arguably) more difficult. If you want to do 19th/20th century (which is what I do!) then German is going to be most important (assuming you're doing Protestant theology, of course.) The other question you'll want to ask yourself is what tradition you'd like to focus on (e.g, If the Reformation, are you interested in Luther or Calvin; if 19th/20th century, the liberal or orthodox traditions?) I work on early 20th century theology, social theory, and neo-Kantianism, so definitely feel free to PM me if you have more specific questions!

Regarding the MDiv vs. two MAs, it really depends on what you want to do. If you want to do something more on the biblical studies side of things, what's most important is your language prep. Depending on what preparation you've done already, you may be able to do enough prep in the time of an MDiv. I know some people on this forum have done an MA and an MTS (or something like that) in order to get even more prep in among a wider range of languages. If you're going to do something in theology, two MAs in different disciplines is certainly not going to hurt, especially if they're in theology and philosophy. I have an MA in English and one in theology. The English degree gave me a good background in critical theory which has become integral to my work now and was a factor in my admittance to my program. Of course, there are other directions (church history, etc.) If you figure out early on in your master's program what you want to do (or if you're pretty sure already), you can get to know professors in that area and see what they think. But it's really difficult to say for sure. When I was applying to Ph.D programs two years ago, I was also considering staying at Fuller for a Th.M and I was in conversation with some faculty at philosophy programs (for an MA.) Ultimately, I decided that I just needed to go on to a Ph.D. This may sound a little crazy, but people do get sucked into earning master's degrees, especially if they cross disciplines. If you set a plan for yourself now (and continue to talk through it with other students and related faculty wherever you end up), it should become clear (or at least clearer) to you what you need to do.

First, congrats on the interview! But I'm confused by this distinction between "institutional" interviews and "other." Usually, if a department has an interview process prior to offers of admission being made that is the discretion of the department--at least, that's how it works at Northwestern. In other words, it's not the university itself that is mandating all programs conduct interviews. At NU, some departments interview and some don't (religious studies does not.) Again, every program seems to be slightly different when it comes to admissions, so some here may have different thoughts or experiences, but I wouldn't take an invite to interview from your POI as something casual as opposed to something that would be more formal if sent from the university itself. If you haven't been offered admission, and your POI made it clear it's an interview, then that interview is going to ultimately decide whether or not you're admitted. On the other hand, some programs (like mine) offer admission via a phone call (or email) from the DGS and the POI along with an invite to a prospective students weekend (many NU departments do this.) That isn't an interview weekend, but an opportunity for already admitted students to see what the department is like, meet faculty in RS and those related to the student's AOI, etc. in order to make a decision about where they'll attend. It's my understanding that interview weekends also serve this purpose.

Though I didn't attend one of those schools for my MA, it seems that in general, there is quite a diversity of backgrounds of students who are admitted to those programs, which means that a degree from Master's College would not automatically disqualify you from being admitted and wouldn't even necessarily be a huge hindrance. Others on the forum who did/do attend those programs will probably be able to offer more detailed info, especially about tuition. I do want to add, however, that the transition from Master's College to a place like Yale or PTS may be quite a shock if you're not prepared for it. I do know a few people who have been able to make that "jump" without an issue. But I think for the vast majority of students at places like Master's, Moody, etc., going straight from their very conservative undergrad institutions to an Ivy div school or seminary probably wouldn't be possible for them spiritually. Since you've self-identified Master's as fundamentalist, it sounds like you're maybe aware of the vast difference in approaches to biblical and theological studies that you'll likely encounter at places like Yale or PTS. For what it's worth, if you want to go into academia, I think you're on the right track by thinking you should go to a top tier school for your MA or MDiv. I know someone who is currently in a PhD program at a top tier school who went to a very conservative undergrad institution (along the lines of Master's) but made the mistake of getting an MDiv at that same institution. That person then went on to get two more master's degrees (one in philosophy from a very good MA program and an MA in theology from a top tier div school.) However, he/she was applying to Ph.D programs after each degree--just couldn't get into a top tier program until the very conservative background was basically buried. At least, that's how he/she felt about it.

With regard to #2, that is not at all uncommon for a PhD program in any discipline. As you point out, many programs may average 200 applicants a year and admit 4-5 students. There must be far, far more very qualified applicants than there are spots (such as the person you reference.) The application process is also far, far more subjective than undergrad or even an MA program, which means that reasons for a person being rejected sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with his/her actual abilities. Sometimes it can have a lot to do with the internal politics of a department (e.g. you POI can only take one student this year while next year he/she will take two or three.)

Always err on the side of professionalism. It's always a good idea to allow faculty to dictate the nature of a relationship, e.g. allowing them to be the ones to joke first, to invite you to use their first name when addressing them, etc. Since you don't know anyone on the adcom...

None of this is taught at Fuller. None.

Wow. I've heard some crazy stories about application experiences, but this is definitely one of the crazier ones. Glad it worked out though!

I'd like to second Joseph45 here. I know a number of current/former students at PTS and Duke who are evangelicals looking to go into ministry. That seems fairly common. Duke and PTS won't preclude one from evangelical pastoral positions even at some more conservative churches.

I can't think of an evangelical seminary that doesn't affirm points 2-5 on your list. In the first point, however, you have two different ways of looking at the Bible--inerrant and infallible--and the distinction tends to be the difference between more conservative schools and schools that are maybe a little more "progressive" within the evangelical world. But know that in the grand scheme of theological/biblical education, both terms are usually considered conservative. Some of the schools on the list affirm inerrancy (TEDS, Wheaton, Talbot, RTS.) Both Westminster schools affirm infallibility. FWIW, Fuller affirms infallibility. Gordon-Conwell very confusingly says that scripture is both "free from error" and "the only infallible guide for faith and practice." It sounds like your church would be okay with either though, given their suggestions. Even if you went to a place like Duke Divinity, you would encounter profs who affirm the things on that list, or at least would have no problem with you affirming them.

Are you suggesting Fuller faculty don't believe in God or aren't Christians? Fuller faculty affirm everything you've listed here. I'm curious what you're meaning here by "most evangelicals." I mean, if one thinks that Master's Seminary represents moderately conservative evangelicalism, then sure, Fuller might as well be HDS. But I don't think it's the case that most evangelicals are that conservative. You'd be hard pressed to find more conservative options than the ones listed. In the end, it is up to the OP to decide what is going to best suit his/her needs and the requirements of the church and/or denomination. I just don't agree that Fuller isn't still seen as a conservative institution even among evangelicals.

Canis' suggestion is good, especially since those programs are funded, but given the requirements of your church, they're probably not going to be happy with any of those options. If you're at an evangelical church, you should seek advice from evangelicals (all due respect to you, Canis!) Not to knock the other folks on the forum here--they're great and have great advice. But the evangelical environment is somewhat unique and complex. Unless someone has experience in that environment, it's going to be tough for them to fully understand your situation. (And I say that with the utmost respect for everyone here.) You definitely can get an academically rigorous education at more conservative evangelical seminaries. I'm a Fuller Theological Seminary grad myself, and I think that's probably the most versatile place you could go for what you're looking for. It's not going to be as rigorous as a top 10, but graduates do go on to good Ph.D programs, which means they must be doing something right! Fuller has a Nor Cal campus, so you actually wouldn't have to move if you didn't want to, although you have to do a certain number of courses at the main campus in Pasadena--I think three quarters (that info is on the website.) I'm not sure I quite understand your situation though: You're beginning a job at your church as the college pastor, but you can move anywhere in the US? So they're willing to wait for you to finish? A Master of Divinity degree is 3-4 years of work. I'll assume the timeline isn't a problem. Fuller is usually considered middle-of-the-road among evangelicals, but definitely conservative in the larger spectrum of places you can go for a theological education (i.e. seminaries, divinity schools, etc.) So I guess it depends on how conservative your church is, but Fuller is usually a safe place for the majority of evangelicals. That said, it's really important to bear this in mind as you consider seminary: A seminary education is meant to tear down the presuppositions you've grown up with in the church, not to confirm what you already believe, even at a place like Fuller that is considered more conservative in the larger scheme. It does this so that you can very carefully and critically examine your faith and the pieces that make it up and be able to reassemble it in a way that is going to be fruitful for ministry. You need this process to be able to minister effectively. That's really crucial to understand. Only extremely conservative institutions (that usually aren't accredited) make it their business to affirm the [usually extreme] conservative status quo. So yes, Fuller can absolutely be challenging if you want it to be, and you should want it to be. There are professors, even at the Nor Cal campus (Daniel Kirk, for instance) who are doing great work that challenges more conventional evangelical presuppositions. Your background won't be an issue. I had some training in philosophy and critical theory prior to entering seminary, but no formal theological or biblical training. I actually think it's better that way. I knew lots of folks who were former engineers or bio majors, etc. and I really appreciated their perspective in class. Seminaries do not assume any academic background in either theology or biblical studies. It's great that your church has seen some potential for ministry in you. Continue having conversations about seminary and a future in ministry with any mentors you have. If you were to decide on Fuller, it might be a good idea to test the waters by beginning with an online class or a class at the Nor Cal campus before you pick up and move to Pasadena. Lots of people do that. That way you can see if seminary is something you really want to pursue.