Good place to get a theological education

[HansK2012]

I think TolleLege nails it in post #21: if you are on the middle-to-conservative half of the evangelical spectrum and you are not looking to advance to a competitive PhD program at a secular university then you would not be particularly well served by attending PTS, Duke, HDS, YDS, etc. Although it is surely correct that many students at the aforementioned institutions go on to pastoral ministry, they serve primarily in mainline contexts or at least on the progressive end of the evangelical spectrum.

 

All of these terms--"conservative," "liberal," "mainline," "evangelical," etc.--are so relative that broad statements are difficult to make. However, I think it's fair to say that if you want to serve as a pastor in a conservative, evangelical church helping lay-people to better understand and apply their Bibles, then you will receive far more relevant training (note, not necessarily "better," but "more relevant") at schools like Gordon-Conwell or TEDS than you would at places like PTS, Duke, HDS, et. al.

Edited January 7, 2014 by HansK2012

[Joseph45]

Oh yeah, one more thought (gosh, arguing and offering advice is much easier than writing a dissertation). If you, shavedice, do want to do college ministry, Duke, PTS, and perhaps Candler (which I know less about), might be great places insofar as you're in the middle of collegeville. A lot of Duke MDiv students even serve as RAs in the Duke dorms.

 

Sorry if I was harsh Tollelege (but the internet is sooooo much fun to argue through). I see your point. I think I was mad because I was trying to distinguish the conservative-friendly big-name schools from the not so conservative-friendly schools (which, it seemed to me, you lumped together; ND being a separate case, of course). From a conservative perspective, there is a huge difference between Duke and HDS.

 

Also, I think you're right that, in certain ways, conservative churches are going to be suspicious of someone from Duke. But, if he keeps his conservative bona fides (e.g., is involved in a conservative church in the area) (and trust me, even some of their PhDs get hired at extremely conservative places), I think many (certainly not all) conservative churches would love somebody who (they think) beat the liberals (i.e., the people at Duke) at their own game, especially for a college pastor. I grew up in a very evangelical non-demoninational church, and people thought this guy who went to PTS was the smartest guy ever, and entirely irreproachable from any outside critique because he went to the (to them) liberal PTS (which I don't think those people understood was different than Princeton U., but that's another story). I guess here though, shavedice would know best about his own exact context.

 

And your right, the list he gives probably suggests the schools he should go to, yet, I suppose, I was responding to his comment that he also really wanted to challenge himself, suggesting, to me, that he might be interested in coservative-friendly places that also include other perspectives.

[cadences]

I just want to clarify, I certainly did not say to "look at schools such as PTS or Duke, or Yale, Notre Dame, HDS, etc. "

I do very much not think he should look at Yale, ND, or HDS, or etc., given his goals. They just won't be a good fit for someone wanting an education that will serve being conservative, evangelical pastor.

 

I also strenously disagree that Duke and PTS are really only good for people looking to do further academic work. I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm very confident that the large majority of M.Div students at both schools do not go on for further academic work.  There are a lot of people that want to be pastors at those schools.

 

That's true - as how some of us here at PTS say, '"C" is for clergy.'

 

P.S. Tongue-in-cheek remark, btw! Please don't hate, haha

[Macrina]

Shavedice, how much education does your church want you to have? A 3-year ordination-track degree is a significant commitment, especially if all you really need is a year-long certificate program for a lay ministry.

While I think lots of theological education is a good thing, it isn't always necessary and this may be one of those times when it isn't the best idea.

[newenglandshawn]

Conservative school & academically rigorous? This will be a serious challenge.

 

This is simply not true. Just because a school may be "conservative" (whatever that means), doesn't mean it's not "academically rigorous" (again, whatever that means). Of course, there are plenty of schools that are not "academically rigorous" that aren't conservative.

 

I would highly recommend Gordon-Conwell. Not only do they fall within the "conservative" category, but you could also get broader exposure (if so desired) through the Boston Theological Institute, taking classes at places like Harvard, Boston University, and Boston College. I think this would be invaluable as a youth pastor, since many young people will have questions that could best be answered by a conscientious pastor who has been exposed to a broader perspective. Taking a class or two from a place like Harvard could get you thinking more apologetically, which resonates with young people.

[RedDoor]

I would also recommend Gordon-Conwell, but it is my alma mater so I am a bit biased. Shoot me a PM for specifics. I think the faculty at GCTS is more diverse in their credentials than TEDS, but I'm a year or two behind the drastic changes occurring at TEDS.

Edited January 9, 2014 by RedDoor

[phdapp]

 The leadership said that schools such as TEDS, Talbot, Gordon-Conwell, Wheaton, Reformed Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Westminster California would be good places to go.  

 

These are mostly decent choices. Of these, I would say that either Westminster or Westminster California will be most academically rigorous. Yes, they are Presbyterians mostly, they do have a baptist program for those who believe in believer's baptism. Second to that on the list RTS and TEDS are likely tied. I would not recommend Wheaton though for their stray away from conservative views of the Bible - just as I would not recommend Fuller. At fuller you would be taught by people that clearly have a different god than the one of the Bible (i.e., universalism, all gods are the same, faith in any god gets you to heaven, among other things your church would likely consider heresy).

 

I serve as an ordained pastor of a congregation similar to what you describe from what I can tell. I would recommend WTS (or WTS CA) to anyone. My M.Div is from elsewhere, but I would have gotten a better education at WTS. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is also top notch and widely respected both inside and outside of SBC churches, at least among conservatives.

[Joseph45]

These are mostly decent choices. Of these, I would say that either Westminster or Westminster California will be most academically rigorous. Yes, they are Presbyterians mostly, they do have a baptist program for those who believe in believer's baptism. Second to that on the list RTS and TEDS are likely tied. I would not recommend Wheaton though for their stray away from conservative views of the Bible - just as I would not recommend Fuller. At fuller you would be taught by people that clearly have a different god than the one of the Bible (i.e., universalism, all gods are the same, faith in any god gets you to heaven, among other things your church would likely consider heresy).

 

I serve as an ordained pastor of a congregation similar to what you describe from what I can tell. I would recommend WTS (or WTS CA) to anyone. My M.Div is from elsewhere, but I would have gotten a better education at WTS. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is also top notch and widely respected both inside and outside of SBC churches, at least among conservatives.

I think phdapp's comments here are very helpful for clarifying some of the consequences that follow selecting a school.

 

If you go to some schools (probably the ones phdapp recommends), there's a good chance you'll emerge from them thinking thinking places like Fuller and Wheaton are beyond the pale, that you and an extremely small, homogeneous set of people are the only true/real Christians. You might think you are continuing a historical tradition, but you'll only be able to maintain this illusion if you don't read much of the writings of earlier "Chrisitans." This is what some people want.

 

Or, you can decide you don't already have all of the answers before you've started thinking about them, and go somewhere else, and perhaps end up believing that the people at Wheaton haven't strayed from "the conservative views of the Bible"(!!!!).

 

My advice, if you have confidence in the strength of the conservative side in theology, understanding of the Bible and church history, you'll be fine choosing from a lot of places. (I think the recommendation to look at Gordon-Conwell is a great suggestion, for example. It's a conservative school, but you're in collegeville and you could take some classes from other places). If you're scared though of ending up a bit different at the end of your education than how you began it (and from the positions of other people who never studied these topics), there's nothing the rest of us can do to stop you, but that's the reason why the rest of us don't take those places seriously.

[marXian]

These are mostly decent choices. Of these, I would say that either Westminster or Westminster California will be most academically rigorous. Yes, they are Presbyterians mostly, they do have a baptist program for those who believe in believer's baptism. Second to that on the list RTS and TEDS are likely tied. I would not recommend Wheaton though for their stray away from conservative views of the Bible - just as I would not recommend Fuller. At fuller you would be taught by people that clearly have a different god than the one of the Bible (i.e., universalism, all gods are the same, faith in any god gets you to heaven, among other things your church would likely consider heresy).

 

None of this is taught at Fuller. None.

[Kuriakos]

I would not recommend Wheaton though for their stray away from conservative views of the Bible - just as I would not recommend Fuller. At fuller you would be taught by people that clearly have a different god than the one of the Bible (i.e., universalism, all gods are the same, faith in any god gets you to heaven, among other things your church would likely consider heresy).

 

If you think Wheaton is no longer conservative, then you are probably a fundie. As for Fuller, it is clear you haven't the foggiest idea what is taught there. I don't think I met a single religious pluralist in the student body much less a professor while I was there. There might be some "universalist" students (no faculty that I know of) but I suspect they would be universalists in the Barthian sense. 

[Joseph45]

And, let's be honest, if people have to use obviously false and malicious accusations to speak against a school, it doesn't boad well for them or the schools they insist are the real conservatives (excuse me, I meant adhere to the "conservative views of the Bible.")

 

I would think twice about trusting the advice of people who, however sincere they may be in their accusations, forward less than honest information.

[ShavedIce]

Shavedice, how much education does your church want you to have? A 3-year ordination-track degree is a significant commitment, especially if all you really need is a year-long certificate program for a lay ministry.

While I think lots of theological education is a good thing, it isn't always necessary and this may be one of those times when it isn't the best idea.

 

My church wants me to earn an MA.

[ShavedIce]

These are mostly decent choices. Of these, I would say that either Westminster or Westminster California will be most academically rigorous. Yes, they are Presbyterians mostly, they do have a baptist program for those who believe in believer's baptism. Second to that on the list RTS and TEDS are likely tied. I would not recommend Wheaton though for their stray away from conservative views of the Bible - just as I would not recommend Fuller. At fuller you would be taught by people that clearly have a different god than the one of the Bible (i.e., universalism, all gods are the same, faith in any god gets you to heaven, among other things your church would likely consider heresy).

 

I serve as an ordained pastor of a congregation similar to what you describe from what I can tell. I would recommend WTS (or WTS CA) to anyone. My M.Div is from elsewhere, but I would have gotten a better education at WTS. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is also top notch and widely respected both inside and outside of SBC churches, at least among conservatives.

 

I read Wheaton's doctrinal statement and it seems thoroughly evangelical to me.  

[Joseph45]

shavedice;

 

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

[ShavedIce]

I've been thinking about earning a degree from a conservative school and at the same time take some classes at a non-conservative school in order to get a broader perspective. 

[newenglandshawn]

I've been thinking about earning a degree from a conservative school and at the same time take some classes at a non-conservative school in order to get a broader perspective. 

 

I would again definitely recommend Gordon-Conwell if you want to accomplish both these things (and, for the record, I've stepped foot on that campus once in my life, so I have nothing to gain from endorsing the school)!

[HansK2012]

And, let's be honest, if people have to use obviously false and malicious accusations to speak against a school, it doesn't boad well for them or the schools they insist are the real conservatives (excuse me, I meant adhere to the "conservative views of the Bible.")

 

I would think twice about trusting the advice of people who, however sincere they may be in their accusations, forward less than honest information.

 

I think you're being uncharitable here. The poster who commented on Wheaton and Fuller could have expressed his/her views with a bit more nuance and tact, but I don't think you have any grounds for imputing malice or characterizing the poster's statements as "obviously false."

 

The confusion seems to stem from the slippery nature of the designations "conservative" and "liberal." These terms are completely relative and so blanket judgments that presuppose but do not acknowledge their starting point are bound to be unhelpful. Standing form the vantage point of HDS, Duke and PTS look mighty conservative. And yet, to the observer seated at Gordon-Conwell, PTS appears to be way out of bounds theologically--far too liberal. Move down the conservative spectrum to an RTS or Westminster and now all of sudden even Gordon-Conwell begins to look a bit suspect.

Edited January 9, 2014 by HansK2012

[Joseph45]

I think you're being uncharitable here. The poster who commented on Wheaton and Fuller could have expressed his/her views with a bit more nuance and tact, but I don't think you have any grounds for imputing malice or characterizing the poster's statements as "obviously false."

 

The confusion seems to stem from the slippery nature of the designations "conservative" and "liberal." These terms are completely relative and so blanket judgments that presuppose but do not acknowledge their starting point are bound to be unhelpful. Standing form the vantage point of HDS, Duke and PTS look mighty conservative. And yet, to the observer seated at Gordon-Conwell, PTS appears to be way out of bounds theologically--far too liberal. Move down the conservative spectrum to an RTS or Westminster and now all of sudden even Gordon-Conwell begins to look a bit suspect.

I'll admit, I'm trying get people angry. At the same time, he didn't just say that Fuller and/or Wheaton weren't conservative anymore; he made specific charges against Fuller that other people flatly rejected. More importantly, it wasn't just any charge. While I do think he's being sincere, he accused the professors at Fuller of worshipping another God than the God of the Bible. It's a very serious charge (at least for "conservatives) and one that, again, in its specifics, was flatly refuted.

 

The reason I reacted so harshly is that I believe such types of inaccurate, malicious, and slanderous charges are actually quite characteristic of the types of narrow conservative circles that the poster apparently is coming from. Note that I don't say extremely conservative because this isn't a spectrum issue; there are a bunch of different conservative groups (certain brands of Pentacostals, Presbyterians, Church of Christ (non-instrumental), baptists, etc.) who think they are the only ones who are right. Maybe they are, but, my point is, if they have to rely on false and malicious depictions of those they oppose, I for one am suspicious of them.

 

So, while I agree that the terms liberal and conservative are vague, non-technical, and generally unuseful, I disagree that my response to the poster is the result of this confusion. For me, while the opinions have varied greatly on this forum--some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with--the poster is the first to stake out a position through a false depiction of a school. And I think that's telling. It's not because he's hyper-conservative. It's because he's a part of group so narrow that it can only defend itself by misrepresenting the positions of others. I don't think that's a good school to go to.

[matthewadam22]

I am finishing my last quarter at Fuller and I will again clarify that none of the professors are religious pluralists, or any of the other things phdapp accused them of. Fuller is on the 'progressive' side of evangelicalism and thus can get pigeon-holed as straying from the true path by the more conservative/fundamentalist evangelical camp.

 

I will say that I was in a similar situation as the original poster. I left my church that I loved to gain some more education to be a better minister at that church. Since attending Fuller I'm not sure I could sign the doctrinal statement of the staff at that church. This is not because Fuller poisoned or brainwashed me or destroyed my faith. Rather, I have been exposed to different arguments and points of view that resonate better with my reading of the Bible and my experiences in life, making certain aspects of ministry more important and others less so.

 

You will likely be challenged in healthy ways and educated to serve the church greatly at places like Regent (Vancouver), Wheaton, TEDS, Gordon-Conwell, and Fuller. Places like Westminster, RTS, and SBTS may train you well for a very (very) limited sector of the church but I recommend against them. It is not that they are not 'academically rigorous' but that they are limiting in what they teach and the type of ideas they expose you to. If you are going to be a college pastor I second the importance of serious consideration of Duke Divinity and Princeton Theological Seminary for potential options. The faculty at these institutions are top notch and for the most part sympathetic to evangelicals.

 

This is a great resource for holistically thinking through some of the issues of choosing a seminary...

 

http://www.fuller.edu/admissions/how_to_choose_a_seminary/

[sacklunch]

I mean this in the most sincere way: the admins need to split 'religion' into two sections, (perhaps) 'divinity/seminary' and 'religious studies.' 

Edited January 9, 2014 by furtivemode

[Lux Lex Pax]

I mean this in the most sincere way: the admins need to split 'religion' into two sections, (perhaps) 'theology' and 'religious studies.'

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.

[sacklunch]

Fixed?

[Macrina]

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.

I respectfully disagree. I enjoy the diversity and range of the posts on here, both the theological/professional and the religious studies/academic topics, and I think the conversation is often relevant and interesting. Although posts can get caught up in doctrinal or denominational issues, in general the breadth and variety of topics on here, all (ok, most) of which pertain to the study of religion/theology at the graduate level, is helpful and keeps the board moving along.

I'm also not sure that we could divide into professional/vocational versus academic any more easily than with the theology vs religious studies division. The problem lies with the theological/professional side of things. There are people in professional programs with academic goals and interests - think of the MDiv students who intend to apply for doctoral programs, or the not infrequent questions about choosing between an MDiv and an MTS or similar.

[sacklunch]

Makes sense. Though we might be just as well served adding Classics and History to the mix, eh? 

[Macrina]

Makes sense. Though we might be just as well served adding Classics and History to the mix, eh?

Well...only if it's the right kind of history...