Advice for Divinity School Applicants

[Jufarius87]

Hello All,

 

To keep it short and simple, I went through this process a couple years back. By standards of the admissions game and academia I did well, I applied to only three schools (HDS, YDS, and Duke) and ended up completing an MAR at Yale.

 

The advice I want to give is not about admissions though, there are a lot of people on the boards that can do that, this pertains to vocation. You see, when I applied I went strictly for big name schools. My motivations for study at the time were murky (do I want to teach, preach, do some sort of culturally-religiously aware NGO work?) and I figured big names would open the most doors. If I wanted to pursue ordination, I could fix my deficiencies at a denominational seminary later. 

 

Unlike most professions though, you really only need one door to open. That door is your church's ordination process OR an acceptable PhD program, depending on your path.

The pit fall for "big name" Divinity schools though is that depending on your ordaining body and/or academic focus a big name may not be beneficial beyond simply the name. When I studied at YDS, I was a newly converted Greek Orthodox Christian among a predominately Episocpalain/Lutheran/Liberal-Catholic student body. "Culture Shock" would be an understatement of my experience (though I will add that on a personal level I found the student body largely accepting and supportive of theologically conservative minorities). If you have a desire to get ordained, even if your church body will accept an M.Div from your school, ask yourself whether you want your seminary years to be defined by spiritual warfare, because even among a friendly crowd, theological divides will force you to ask yourself some really uncomfortable questions about your faith that may better be left to a Th.M/D.Min/PhD than your first spiritual formation degree.
 

As to PhDs, name is not as important as you may think when it comes to your MAR/MTS prep program. Relevant language study, a strong core curriculum in your intended focus, and *****studying with the right faculty who can provide you with good LORS***** are all more important than "the name". The name of a school can give you access to these things, but often times so can a denominational seminary.

After seminary, it took military service and a near death experience to pull me back to faith. I've changed gears as well. I am applying to public policy schools with a human rights focus. This time the correlation of the curriculum with my future goals is more important to me than name. So, with humility, I warn you to consider your application list thoroughly. Add a denominational seminary to it if you have specific needs. Best of luck to all.

 

Edited November 28, 2013 by Jufarius87

[Macrina]

That's all well and good, if you have the vocational clarity to discern where you want to go before you begin the application process. For many, discernment is an ongoing and changing process, and most of us make decisions with only very limited information about where we might end up, or who we might become. I have an MDiv from a "big name" school, though one that was supported by and supportive of my denominational process and standards. It has only opened doors for me, and my educational background is never, ever in question. For that, I am grateful.

I would also suggest (gently) that if your educational experience generates a significant faith crisis, then the issue is with your faith practices, and not with your divinity school. Challenge is good. It builds up what is strong and forces you to reconsider those things that don't hold up. If it takes away the very foundation of your belief system, then that system was not well established in the first place.

Choose the program that will help you to grow and learn. The bigger names are the bigger names for a reason. Yes, the program and atmosphere is often more challenging than at a smaller denominational seminary, but they will give you a solid foundation in the academics, as well as personal challenges that will form and strengthen you, regardless of your faith background (or lack of it )

[Jufarius87]

1. I went in with a similar mindset. That it is an ongoing and changing process. What happens when that process leads you to something entirely outside the original intended goal? Very few law grads would recommend a JD if you are not going to practice, very few doctors would recommend going for an MD if you don't plan to be a doctor (or do very specific research). This is professional schooling, why is ambiguity accepted in the case of divinity school?

 

2. With few exceptions, YDS [and HDS] don't think the Bible holds up, lets just be honest about that fact. Most of what the they teach would be anathema in broad spectrum of Evangelical/Catholic/Orthodox circles and only finds a home in the so-called "mainline" churches (and even there the radical nature of the message is toned down as to not offend). That said your point on challenge is true *if it is counter balanced with being in a supportive community, at least partially of your own faith group, where you can actually live the liturgical life of your church". That was part of my point, make sure you are going to get support if you choose an ecumenical context.
 

3. First sentence is great. Second sentence really doesn't pan out in my opinion. The bigger names are often times bigger because they are attached to a prestigious university, and that doesn't *necessarily* mean a thing in theology. Finding matches for coursework in your topic of interest and names in your field are more important. Sometimes there is a correlation with the big names, sometimes not.

 

[dr. t]

2. With few exceptions, YDS [and HDS] don't think the Bible holds up, lets just be honest about that fact. Most of what the they teach would be anathema in broad spectrum of Evangelical/Catholic/Orthodox circles and only finds a home in the so-called "mainline" churches (and even there the radical nature of the message is toned down as to not offend).

 

What?

[Jufarius87]

What?

 

 

 

The precedent of the historical-critical method to the near exclusion of other exegetical options (except perhaps gender and colonial sensitive understandings). This in itself would not be too concerning, I personally think the method is more useful to academics then pastors but that is just me. However the general manner in which historical critical was used to validate things that had nothing to do with the method itself was rather egregious:

 

A. Refute traditional understandings of scripture, the Torah was not authored by Moses, the canon is a product of the whims of a bunch of long dead old white bishops, the gnostic/apocryphal gospels "count" in some sense, etc.

 

B. Dissect the passage and break it down into its smallest possible form. Maybe even less than a verse. Cant interpret the verse in the context of other verses, no no, youre relying on the rules of those dead bishops then. Lets consider "authorial intent" (despite disagreeing on who the human author is. Even if they could decide amongst themselves whether "J" or "Y" wrote a verse they know little concrete about these largely made up authors) rather than looking for some divine meaning in the greater context of scripture (which is an infinitely more relevant tool to pastors).

 

C. Now that we've refuted the standard narrative of faith, as to how the bible (and the Torah came to be) insert your feminist/LGBT/post-colonial/ethnic/racial bias here, keep what you like, disregard the rest as the writings of man.

Some of these modernisms are valuable. Historical-Critical is valuable on a scholarly level and I enjoy reading feminist OT exegesis. I'm not challenging their worth independently, I'm questioning the misuse of exegetical methods better applied to academia than the pulpit to validate an agenda that overturn moral doctrines that have been assumed within Christianity for centuries. The Bible faculty at YDS is largely composed of agnostics/skeptics and the method of instruction I honestly believe does more to attack faith than challenge it. Again all well and great in a PhD program, wrong in seminary context. 

 

Edited December 4, 2013 by Jufarius87

[sacklunch]

These are relatively modern (American) Protestant concerns. So what if the Bible doesn't 'hold up'? If we begin by assuming that it is some authorial, holistic 'text', then historical-critical methods are basically moot. It's interesting (not bad,of course) how such concerns are serious problems for so many young Protestants. 

 

What are 'traditional' exegetical methods? There is plenty of evidence to support that many early Christians did not hold the Torah to be actually written by Moses.

Why should Christians only accept the canonical NT? Why should they adhere to old-ass Catholic standards (or why would they even want to)? I guess if Prots believe it is all set up that way from God....well, I guess you're right.

How does one search for divine meaning?

 

I have no firsthand experience with YDS, so you may very well be right! 

[Macrina]

Searching for divine meaning within a text is one way of applying your own hermeneutic. While you may condemn various academics for their biases, you bring your own to the exercise, just as much as they do.

I would suggest that perhaps a more academic study of Christian history and moral theology might even demonstrate that the reality of Christian practices throughout the past two thousand years is far more nuanced and ambiguous that you believe, and both pastors and the congregations they serve benefit from access to academic methodologies and discipline.

[Jufarius87]

These are relatively modern (American) Protestant concerns. So what if the Bible doesn't 'hold up'? If we begin by assuming that it is some authorial, holistic 'text', then historical-critical methods are basically moot. It's interesting (not bad,of course) how such concerns are serious problems for so many young Protestants. 

 

What are 'traditional' exegetical methods? There is plenty of evidence to support that many early Christians did not hold the Torah to be actually written by Moses.

Why should Christians only accept the canonical NT? Why should they adhere to old-ass Catholic standards (or why would they even want to)? I guess if Prots believe it is all set up that way from God....well, I guess you're right.

How does one search for divine meaning?

 

I have no firsthand experience with YDS, so you may very well be right! 

 

I'm actually not protestant, I'm certainly not a literalist by any stretch. I definitely see the Bible first and foremost as a spiritual-holistic text. That there is (in theory) an objective way to read is because its formation was divinely inspired (note I did not say "God wrote the bible and the prophets/apostles were just secretaries"). But YDS, despite being a divinity school teaches primarily historical methods for people going into spiritual and counseling work.

I do agree with you on the Torah, and the *facts* of historical critical exegesis. My concern is that these issues were abused in the context of a greater narrative at YDS and similar skeptically oriented schools in order to add a debunking element to biblical studies.

As to non-canonical stuff, because you can't have both, they contradict in very fundamental ways about who Jesus was. The non-canon Gospels range in Christology from Jesus being an immaterial Spirit to a sorcerer to a non divine messiah depending on who is writing.

 

Again, All of this is GREAT in a PhD program, but seminary presupposes faith based parameters.

 

 

[Jufarius87]

Searching for divine meaning within a text is one way of applying your own hermeneutic. While you may condemn various academics for their biases, you bring your own to the exercise, just as much as they do.

I would suggest that perhaps a more academic study of Christian history and moral theology might even demonstrate that the reality of Christian practices throughout the past two thousand years is far more nuanced and ambiguous that you believe, and both pastors and the congregations they serve benefit from access to academic methodologies and discipline.

 

Divine meaning is, for purposes of ministry, the only relevant meaning of the text. As a *general* rule, people do not wake up on their off day early to hear the mortal opinions of a man (or woman as the case may be), they attend services on the understanding that the minister is at least trying to give guidance that comes from a higher power. That is not to say there are not several ways to derive divine meaning from the text, we're not hit with an overwhelming divine light every time we turn the page, patristics, canonical context, historical critical, and form criticism can all draw meaning from text. But whether it is a divine meaning or an authorial meaning that is historically interesting but spiritually not the point is a different matter entirely.

 

The general rule of ancient exegesis was a combination of canon and patristics, with philosophy as a debunking tool. There was also a predisposition to view the OT in terms of Christology, which is impossible in a historical-critical context.

[dr. t]

So, I can't speak for YDS, but for HDS:

The precedent of the historical-critical method to the near exclusion of other exegetical options (except perhaps gender and colonial sensitive understandings). No.

 

A. Refute traditional understandings of scripture, the Torah was not authored by Moses, the canon is a product of the whims of a bunch of long dead old white bishops, the gnostic/apocryphal gospels "count" in some sense, etc. No to the first bit, I don't see how you can argue against the second. 

 

B. Dissect the passage and break it down into its smallest possible form. Maybe even less than a verse. Cant interpret the verse in the context of other verses, no no, youre relying on the rules of those dead bishops then. Lets consider "authorial intent" (despite disagreeing on who the human author is. Even if they could decide amongst themselves whether "J" or "Y" wrote a verse they know little concrete about these largely made up authors) rather than looking for some divine meaning in the greater context of scripture (which is an infinitely more relevant tool to pastors). Nope.
 

C. Now that we've refuted the standard narrative of faith, as to how the bible (and the Torah came to be) insert your feminist/LGBT/post-colonial/ethnic/racial bias here, keep what you like, disregard the rest as the writings of man. Nope.

 

This seems in general to be a pretty flat understanding of what actually goes on. YMMV.

[Macrina]

Divine meaning is, for purposes of ministry, the only relevant meaning of the text. As a *general* rule, people do not wake up on their off day early to hear the mortal opinions of a man (or woman as the case may be), they attend services on the understanding that the minister is at least trying to give guidance that comes from a higher power. That is not to say there are not several ways to derive divine meaning from the text, we're not hit with an overwhelming divine light every time we turn the page, patristics, canonical context, historical critical, and form criticism can all draw meaning from text. But whether it is a divine meaning or an authorial meaning that is historically interesting but spiritually not the point is a different matter entirely.

 

The general rule of ancient exegesis was a combination of canon and patristics, with philosophy as a debunking tool. There was also a predisposition to view the OT in terms of Christology, which is impossible in a historical-critical context.

Your argument presupposes a division between academic and faith-based approaches to textual interpretation and, indeed, ministerial formation. For many traditions, the two are not necessarily separate, and faith-based interpretation without a solid grounding in scholarship can sound superstitious, irrelevant, or downright kooky. Pastors in the vast majority of traditions can and do merge faith with academic rigor, without losing sight of the truth of the text and without compromising their spiritual or academic integrity. To do this effectively, they need to be taught both.

Your 'general rule' of early exegesis is both overly simplistic and historically inaccurate. Early christian exegesis varied by location, era, and context and the Christian understanding and use of philosophy was probably not what you're thinking it was.

You know, for a guy who struggled with his MDiv and lost his faith before getting through the basic degree, you have a lot to say about what pastors do and don't need. Just because it was your experience doesn't make it universal truth. There are, as you say, several ways to derive meaning from the texts, but it is presumptuous to assume that only one way is appropriate for ministry.

[sacklunch]

Agreed about folks being exposed to both sides. I'm still not entirely sold on how one would go about this...but I'm not a Christian, so perhaps that's why!

 

I do sympathize with these issues...and I'm admittedly often perplexed by people on both sides. I know some folks who, if their concept of this sacred 'text' were to be shattered, their faith would be completely lost (a more common concern at Duke, I think). On the other side, I know a lot of liberal Catholics who quite frankly could not care less about Jesus. Some of my closer Catholic seminary friends have no issue with Jesus just being some dude. No divinity required. This, even for me, seems a bit bizarre. But, being exposed to such disparate Christian points of view has made me much more sensitive to issues of religious identity. While I don't agree with my friends on most of these issues, I am constantly reminded that (religious?) experience evokes all kinds of meaning, from all sorts of places. Some find it in their text(s), others simply in the company of others. What binds these groups together? Shit if I know. But perhaps we are asking the wrong questions. Perhaps what is important is that we acquire meaning from all sorts of places, and that, I think, is good enough. 

[Jufarius87]

Your argument presupposes a division between academic and faith-based approaches to textual interpretation and, indeed, ministerial formation. For many traditions, the two are not necessarily separate, and faith-based interpretation without a solid grounding in scholarship can sound superstitious, irrelevant, or downright kooky. Pastors in the vast majority of traditions can and do merge faith with academic rigor, without losing sight of the truth of the text and without compromising their spiritual or academic integrity. To do this effectively, they need to be taught both.

Your 'general rule' of early exegesis is both overly simplistic and historically inaccurate. Early christian exegesis varied by location, era, and context and the Christian understanding and use of philosophy was probably not what you're thinking it was.

You know, for a guy who struggled with his MDiv and lost his faith before getting through the basic degree, you have a lot to say about what pastors do and don't need. Just because it was your experience doesn't make it universal truth. There are, as you say, several ways to derive meaning from the texts, but it is presumptuous to assume that only one way is appropriate for ministry.

 

1. There is a division, or at least an order of priorities. If you assume a traditional position of faith (which is reasonable if you are going to seminary), then the text of the bible *as we have it* is valuable, it is what God meant us to have in some sense. Not individual verses, not parsing out disagreements between J/Y/P/D, there is presupposing faith an underlying message God intended through the human authors, but that is not earthly wisdom in and of itself. But if your scholarship only focuses on the last two hundred years of a two thousand year old religion, you are essentially reinventing the wheel. Ancient commentaries that relied on typology, prophecy, and reading Christ into the text are useful for the pulpit, you wont find them at most big name schools. 

 

2. You don't say, its not like we are on a college admissions board writing between work hours, I think everyone and their mother is guilty of sweeping generalities on these types of boards.

 

3. "You know, for a guy who struggled with his MDiv and lost his faith before getting through the basic degree"

Well, that struck me as a more than a little ad hom, as tempted as I am to pick up the same spirit I think I have said my peace as far your points and will be done with it. And I never claimed a universality to what I was saying, I stated it as my experience of the school, I stated that there were exceptions. To the contrary, I was speaking to a very specific group of people (denominationally conservative minorities with specific requirements) that I thought most likely to have a similar experience to mine.

 

[Jufarius87]

So, I can't speak for YDS, but for HDS:

 

This seems in general to be a pretty flat understanding of what actually goes on. YMMV.

 Qualified, I lumped HDS in there based on discussions with affiliated students (who also had YMMV experiences), so that was my bad. So I will say for clarity this was my experience of YDS as a student there.

[Jufarius87]

Agreed about folks being exposed to both sides. I'm still not entirely sold on how one would go about this...but I'm not a Christian, so perhaps that's why!

 

I do sympathize with these issues...and I'm admittedly often perplexed by people on both sides. I know some folks who, if their concept of this sacred 'text' were to be shattered, their faith would be completely lost (a more common concern at Duke, I think). On the other side, I know a lot of liberal Catholics who quite frankly could not care less about Jesus. Some of my closer Catholic seminary friends have no issue with Jesus just being some dude. No divinity required. This, even for me, seems a bit bizarre. But, being exposed to such disparate Christian points of view has made me much more sensitive to issues of religious identity. While I don't agree with my friends on most of these issues, I am constantly reminded that (religious?) experience evokes all kinds of meaning, from all sorts of places. Some find it in their text(s), others simply in the company of others. What binds these groups together? Shit if I know. But perhaps we are asking the wrong questions. Perhaps what is important is that we acquire meaning from all sorts of places, and that, I think, is good enough. 

 

Really, the first sentence sums it up well. None of this is an issue if a school has balance, or if your denomination has enough representation to act as a balance at your school. I'm kind of amazed that "don't go to a seminary where you are the only one of your church org." + "Big name schools might not be your best bet depending on topic" + "Consider a denominational school" is getting so much pushback. 

 

Would you agree that some of the contradictions of terms you've mentioned are part of the underlying issue of my point though. On the issue of Catholic opinions about Jesus you mentioned for example, would you agree that you are going to get VERY different classes on the Bible based which of your friends was teaching it (or comparing that to a traditional Catholic teaching)? Since this is a professional degree in ministry, where you are supposed to uphold the doctrines of your church body (Some form of agreement or oath is taken as part of ordination, more often than not), is not perhaps even an ethical issue to present yourself in one manner (Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, etc.) and then teach future PRACTITIONERS in such a way that is completely contrary to the group's doctrine?

As with the prior mentioned idea of vocation/calling being something subjective that can be sorted out later, this seems like a slippery slope and we are already reaping the rewards.

 

Edited December 4, 2013 by Jufarius87

[Macrina]

1. There is a division, or at least an order of priorities. If you assume a traditional position of faith (which is reasonable if you are going to seminary), then the text of the bible *as we have it* is valuable, it is what God meant us to have in some sense. Not individual verses, not parsing out disagreements between J/Y/P/D, there is presupposing faith an underlying message God intended through the human authors, but that is not earthly wisdom in and of itself. But if your scholarship only focuses on the last two hundred years of a two thousand year old religion, you are essentially reinventing the wheel. Ancient commentaries that relied on typology, prophecy, and reading Christ into the text are useful for the pulpit, you wont find them at most big name schools. 

 

2. You don't say, its not like we are on a college admissions board writing between work hours, I think everyone and their mother is guilty of sweeping generalities on these types of boards.

 

3. "You know, for a guy who struggled with his MDiv and lost his faith before getting through the basic degree"

Well, that struck me as a more than a little ad hom, as tempted as I am to pick up the same spirit I think I have said my peace as far your points and will be done with it. And I never claimed a universality to what I was saying, I stated it as my experience of the school, I stated that there were exceptions. To the contrary, I was speaking to a very specific group of people (denominationally conservative minorities with specific requirements) that I thought most likely to have a similar experience to mine.

Look, I've got better things to do right now than to disagree with someone on an anonymous message board, but I think your information is incorrect and your reasoning is flawed. What irritates me in all of this is that you're not even in the discipline, you've just stopped by to impart your wisdom to us all.

1) your thread title doesn't make it seem like your advice is, after all, directed to "a very specific group of people (denominationally conservative minorities with specific requirements)" - rather, you've framed it as "advice for divinity school applicants."

2) you make sweeping and erroneous generalizations about what is and is not studied at various divinity schools and your knowledge of the specifics of early Christian exegesis seems inaccurate. I know that as this conversation has unfolded, you've gotten more specific in some of your criticisms, but I don't think you can speak for the "big name schools" - at least not without a lot more research and actual facts to support your position.

3) I think it's inappropriate of you to come in here and offer "advice" about an area of studies that isn't your area and is colored by your personal spiritual struggles. It's clear that you were hurt by your experiences at divinity school, but you've turned that outward into a critique of major institutions framed as "advice for divinity school applicants" and I don't think that your personal struggles should be given that weight. I'm attempting to offer this as a corrective of sorts, because I believe that the institutions and practices that you struggled with are valid and important voices in contemporary theological education.

And 4) what you set forth (faith-based, divinely-inspired readings, with the exclusion of any academic nuances, as the only way for pastors to engage with sacred texts) is wrong. That's not how the majority of clergy and congregations and Christians approach scripture, discernment, life. Just as no one who comes forward for ordination does so solely on the strength of God's word to them, so too faithful interpretation must be carried out in a community of different voices. Rejecting contemporary academic voices as unable to speak the truth is narrow-minded, biased and wrong. It's certainly a hermeneutic of sorts, but it's not one that generates much support in the North American academic community, and you're posting on gradcafe, so....

Lex orandi, lex credendi and all that.

[marXian]

FWIW, even more conservative seminaries, like Fuller for instance, engage in what has here been described as "non-traditional methods." Not a single Fuller prof. thinks the Torah was authored by Moses, that the whole thing must be read literally, etc. There are certain terms used positively at Fuller, like infallibility, that probably wouldn't be tossed around at a div. school, but by and large, much of what the OP has described as "anathema at Evangelical/Catholic/Orthodox schools" isn't quite right depending on the Evangelical/Catholic/Orthodox school you're looking at.

 

I didn't read every post, so maybe this has already been said, but to bring this back to practical advice to applicants searching for a good fit for an MDiv program, there's a spectrum (obviously--as with most things) and not a stark division between "traditional" and "non-traditional."

[sacklunch]

Really, the first sentence sums it up well. None of this is an issue if a school has balance, or if your denomination has enough representation to act as a balance at your school. I'm kind of amazed that "don't go to a seminary where you are the only one of your church org." + "Big name schools might not be your best bet depending on topic" + "Consider a denominational school" is getting so much pushback. 

 

Would you agree that some of the contradictions of terms you've mentioned are part of the underlying issue of my point though. On the issue of Catholic opinions about Jesus you mentioned for example, would you agree that you are going to get VERY different classes on the Bible based which of your friends was teaching it (or comparing that to a traditional Catholic teaching)? Since this is a professional degree in ministry, where you are supposed to uphold the doctrines of your church body (Some form of agreement or oath is taken as part of ordination, more often than not), is not perhaps even an ethical issue to present yourself in one manner (Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, etc.) and then teach future PRACTITIONERS in such a way that is completely contrary to the group's doctrine?

As with the prior mentioned idea of vocation/calling being something subjective that can be sorted out later, this seems like a slippery slope and we are already reaping the rewards.

 

 

 

Makes sense. And, yeah, I can sympathize with why this would be an issue. This was at a flagship Catholic school/seminary, so I do think some of your points are relevant. Then again I think most of the folks there knew this coming in. Because these are not the types of questions many Catholic seminarians care about asking (or think are relevant), it complicates things (as you said, you did not mean this as a universal for div students).

 

If you are conservative, go to a conservative divinity school. I think that is basically the take home message here. Of course, as you said, divinity schools should be training practitioners. What these folks 'practice' widely varies. If they are more liberal, as the bigger names generally are (I use liberal here loosely!), then someone who is more theologically conservative might find a better place to study. I mean, let's consider what the mainline divinity schools claim theologically: Catholic (liberal BC, sorta liberal ND), Methodist (Duke, Emory...Yale??), liberal-noneswithprioraffilations (Vandy, Chicago, Harvard). They are all pretty damn liberal, eh?

 

Edited December 4, 2013 by furtivemode

[Balatro]

I can't speak for Yale now but while there, Episcopalians were dominant though with Berkeley being there, that's why. I imagine that it's the same still.

 

As someone who wrestled with the academic formation required for divinity school, with the ministerial formation, I understand some of the concerns raised here. As an individual, do I think Christianity rests on the divinity of Jesus and his attributed miracles? No. Would I ever dare stand in front of my congregation and say that? No.

 

I'm a fan of Bishop Spong so I'll borrow a title of his and say, that as a lay theologian and current priest - I've had to "reclaim the Bible." My time at Yale required me to do that, but I wasn't a literalist going in, I was already quite liberal.

 

Part of making divinity school work, especially attending a place like YDS, (or even HDS, Chicago, Duke, etc.) is that you have to be open to growth. If you're not becoming more traditional in some aspects, more liberal in others...you entered divinity school with a closed mind. Counseling others that are considering this process, I've stressed the importance of not entering a school that is opposite your own worldview but also not one that matches up. Divinity school needs to be uncomfortable and at times stressful, that's where growth happens. That said, barring specific individual circumstances, I'd never encourage a fellow Episcopal applicant to look at Fuller or say Wake Forest (being from NC). It's not because these schools are bad, they aren't, it's because they are so outside the Episcopal worldview that I question the applicant's ability to achieve meaningful growth there. The point Jufarius87 is, it sounds like you chose the wrong divinity school, maybe you entered with a closed mind, or maybe divinity school just didn't work out for you - much like law students love the academic rigor of school but realize that practicing law is different.

 

I am curious, as a Greek Orthodox, why Yale? More than anything, it sounds like you traveled too far outside of your comfort zone and as a result, your time at Yale and you yourself, suffered for it.

[dr. t]

Makes sense. And, yeah, I can sympathize with why this would be an issue. This was at a flagship Catholic school/seminary, so I do think some of your points are relevant. Then again I think most of the folks there knew this coming in. Because these are not the types of questions many Catholic seminarians care about asking (or think are relevant), it complicates things (as you said, you did not mean this as a universal for div students).

 

If you are conservative, go to a conservative divinity school. I think that is basically the take home message here. Of course, as you said, divinity schools should be training practitioners. What these folks 'practice' widely varies. If they are more liberal, as the bigger names generally are (I use liberal here loosely!), then someone who is more theologically conservative might find a better place to study. I mean, let's consider what the mainline divinity schools claim theologically: Catholic (liberal BC, sorta liberal ND), Methodist (Duke, Emory...Yale??), liberal-noneswithprioraffilations (Vandy, Chicago, Harvard). They are all pretty damn liberal, eh?

 

 

I would actually say that, although they're frequently closely connected, it's not theological liberalism or conservatism which count, but social. The people I know at HDS are always up for a good argument, but all of them will view a conservative social outlook - specifically one which does not acknowledge the legitimacy of other faith traditions - as devaluing and demeaning people who fall outside it, a point I happen to agree with. A subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one.

Edited December 4, 2013 by telkanuru

[Jufarius87]

Makes sense. And, yeah, I can sympathize with why this would be an issue. This was at a flagship Catholic school/seminary, so I do think some of your points are relevant. Then again I think most of the folks there knew this coming in. Because these are not the types of questions many Catholic seminarians care about asking (or think are relevant), it complicates things (as you said, you did not mean this as a universal for div students).

 

If you are conservative, go to a conservative divinity school. I think that is basically the take home message here. Of course, as you said, divinity schools should be training practitioners. What these folks 'practice' widely varies. If they are more liberal, as the bigger names generally are (I use liberal here loosely!), then someone who is more theologically conservative might find a better place to study. I mean, let's consider what the mainline divinity schools claim theologically: Catholic (liberal BC, sorta liberal ND), Methodist (Duke, Emory...Yale??), liberal-noneswithprioraffilations (Vandy, Chicago, Harvard). They are all pretty damn liberal, eh?

 

 

Precisely. Or if not a conservative school, at least a school with a real balance. Also as I said in the first post, given how incredibly long a full seminary education is (M.Div, to Th.M to Ph.D) do that first degree at a place that is actually going to help you along spiritually. Save the controversy for when you are grounded in your own tradition and your focus is knocking out a thesis (where the controversy might actually be useful!).

[Jufarius87]

Look, I've got better things to do right now than to disagree with someone on an anonymous message board, but I think your information is incorrect and your reasoning is flawed. What irritates me in all of this is that you're not even in the discipline, you've just stopped by to impart your wisdom to us all.

1) your thread title doesn't make it seem like your advice is, after all, directed to "a very specific group of people (denominationally conservative minorities with specific requirements)" - rather, you've framed it as "advice for divinity school applicants."

2) you make sweeping and erroneous generalizations about what is and is not studied at various divinity schools and your knowledge of the specifics of early Christian exegesis seems inaccurate. I know that as this conversation has unfolded, you've gotten more specific in some of your criticisms, but I don't think you can speak for the "big name schools" - at least not without a lot more research and actual facts to support your position.

3) I think it's inappropriate of you to come in here and offer "advice" about an area of studies that isn't your area and is colored by your personal spiritual struggles. It's clear that you were hurt by your experiences at divinity school, but you've turned that outward into a critique of major institutions framed as "advice for divinity school applicants" and I don't think that your personal struggles should be given that weight. I'm attempting to offer this as a corrective of sorts, because I believe that the institutions and practices that you struggled with are valid and important voices in contemporary theological education.

And 4) what you set forth (faith-based, divinely-inspired readings, with the exclusion of any academic nuances, as the only way for pastors to engage with sacred texts) is wrong. That's not how the majority of clergy and congregations and Christians approach scripture, discernment, life. Just as no one who comes forward for ordination does so solely on the strength of God's word to them, so too faithful interpretation must be carried out in a community of different voices. Rejecting contemporary academic voices as unable to speak the truth is narrow-minded, biased and wrong. It's certainly a hermeneutic of sorts, but it's not one that generates much support in the North American academic community, and you're posting on gradcafe, so....

Lex orandi, lex credendi and all that.

 

1. "the discipline"... who decides that, last I checked, if you earn a degree the "privileges and responsibilities" clause is for life. Also my entire career has been teaching high school religion and history, and working religious affairs for the military. I wont bother to ask you what you do in "the discipline", but as someone who has worked as the logistical manager for catholic and protestant-of-all-flavors chaplains, If they espoused the sort of revisionist hyper liberal "I am being oppressed" narrative of religion you get at YDS they would be chased out of the chapel. Nobody is coming for the sunday morning political lecture from the pulpit, or to hear about your latest textual acrobatics around an OT verse that in less than inclusive, they want to hear what the pastor believes God is speaking through the verse.

 

2. I don't understand what is so difficult about "these people gave me an MAR". I am commenting on my own school. If I gave it a glowing recommendation as the enlightenment of those pesky traditionalists would you then bless off on me expressing a personal opinion *** on a website that exists for the sole purpose of anonymous individuals helping other anonymous individuals get into and select a graduate school***? Are you honestly going to tell me that you think what the early church did, in terms of moral doctrines, and exegesis, is remotely similar to what is being taught today? That the early fathers who primarily concerned themselves with questions of apostolicity and how well Christological formulas lined up with platonic philosophy would be at all approving of Biblical Studies as we've had it since the academy decided that everything worth studying comes out of Germany?

3. This is as much my field, as someone with a JD who didn't take the bar is still a part of the legal scholarly community, more so since all my work up to know has somehow been in religion. They can still comment on the process of law school, because they completed it.

 

4. Lux et veritas. Light and Truth... The founders of the big names knew what this meant, it is still technically Yale's motto. Pray tell, what do you think the Lux stands for? I never said there would be no academic nuance. Patristics is so reliant on languages and interpretation-by-precedent (much like the legal system) that it is I think academically richer than assigning single letters to hypothetical authors within the OT and trying to figure out how your artificial authors somehow actually affirmed everything Christianity fought against for its first est. 1900 years of life. People by large do not feel fed when presented with the new methods. A look at which denominations are growing and shrinking is enough to see that.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Jufarius87

[Clare236]

Hi all!

 

As a recent graduate of YDS this past May, I'd just like to affirm that YDS is a really good place - more than just a big name! -  where one can find both more theologically/socially conservative and liberal scholars.  Although I do agree with Jufarius that the biblical studies historical critical methodology can be hard for students' faith journeys , it seems to me this is a critique of historical-critical methodology (which just doesn't take up theological question of what it means for a text to be scripture) ... and not so much a problem with Yale in particular.  Most divinity schools still teach historical-critical method as the bread and butter of exegesis, though perhaps some have moved into literary criticism quicker than YDS.

 

As for the 'big name,' I really appreciate having studying at Yale and not just because of the name-recognition.  Sure, it helps to have studied at a famous university and especially when dealing with international scholars who have heard of Harvard and Yale but not the smaller schools.  But more importantly, Yale offered wonderful resources that I couldn't have had at most other places.  YDS students can take courses downtown, and take advantage of all the institutes and centers that are part of campus, and I got to go on some amazing international trips to visit with seminaries in other parts of the world thanks to both the Div School and funding from various departments downtown.  Although I'm doing my doctorate now at a great research university, it doesn't have the reach or the resources that Yale did, so I have to admit I miss that a lot!

 

Finally, I think Divinity School is the perfect place to explore and figure out one's vocation.  I did an MDiv and for the whole three years dithered between pursuing ministry or academia, but that was okay... I graduated situated well-enough to do either, and though I am now doing doctoral work, I still keep a finger in college chaplaincy etc.  Although I probably would have been regarded as more on the conservative end of things theologically and ideologically, and felt lonely sometimes, I generally had a good time and found friends in who were genuinely interested in my well-being and growth and ideas.  Sure, life might have been difficult if I had made my true thoughts known all the time... but honestly I didn't feel that threatened by the liberal bent at YDS and was fine letting people say what they said and pursing my faith and sharing it as I felt comfortable, not hiding but not inviting antagonism either.

 

So, while I want to affirm Jufarius' warning  -yes, indeed divinity school can be a hard and isolating place - it really is what you make of it, and I think Yale is as good a place as any to explore.

 

 

 

 

 

[Macrina]

I would actually say that, although they're frequently closely connected, it's not theological liberalism or conservatism which count, but social. The people I know at HDS are always up for a good argument, but all of them will view a conservative social outlook - specifically one which does not acknowledge the legitimacy of other faith traditions - as devaluing and demeaning people who fall outside it, a point I happen to agree with. A subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one.

I think this sums it up well.

Look, I'm sorry you had such a bad experience of your time at divinity school and I really hope your MPH works out better for you, but you come across throughout this post as narrow-minded and judgmental, and not just of your particular program at one specific institution, but of a whole branch of academia and of the church.

I don't disagree with a number of elements of your position - I think considering other options is always a helpful idea, and choosing a place that will be in some ways supportive is wise. But I do think you've framed your contributions rather too broadly and I cannot agree with your sweeping condemnations of 'big-name schools', or with your analysis of how pastors should be formed/preach, or with your devaluing of certain voices within the academy, and so on.

Much of your position seems to stem from your experiences, your feelings. And, while I understand how difficult it must be to find that your very faith was challenged by your experience of a degree that you no doubt expected would build it up instead, your experience was more a result of a mismatch between you and your divinity school, and should not be construed as grounds for dismissing an institution or genuine scholarship. That's all. I wish you all the best with your future studies.

[dr. t]

So, to be clear, when I said:

 

a conservative social outlook - specifically one which does not acknowledge the legitimacy of other faith traditions 

 

I had things in mind like:

 

YDS [and HDS] don't think the Bible holds up

 

Refute traditional understandings of scripture, 

 

insert your feminist/LGBT/post-colonial/ethnic/racial bias here, keep what you like, disregard the rest as the writings of man.

 

to validate an agenda that overturn moral doctrines that have been assumed within Christianity for centuries

 

So, there's that.

Edited December 5, 2013 by telkanuru