Good place to get a theological education

[Kuriakos]

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 think Gordon Conwell might be your best bet, then. You can learn more about the Boston Theological Institute which allows GC students to take courses at a number of other institutions here: http://www.bostontheological.org/work_of_the_consortium.html

[Lux Lex Pax]

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.

To be clear, I wasn't proposing a split. I was merely stating that the distinction between theology and religious studies wasn't getting at what furtivemode wanted.

Sure, there's cross-over from professional training in religion to the academic study of religion, but they're still very different animals that can be distinguished from each other more easily than religion and theology.

[phdapp]

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 went to a very conservative school and read a lot of liberal scholars... Understanding all sides is a good thing. I wouldn't consider myself a "fundie" - labeling all conservatives as fundamentalists is something liberals enjoy doing.

[phdapp]

A conservative view of the Bible would be as described in the Chicago statement on inerrancy. Most schools that agree with this see the need for study of the Biblical languages. Therefore, I would suggest that in many cases, the strength of the Greek and Hebrew departments at the school is indicative of their understanding of Biblical Inerrancy. Of course, this is not always the case, but I believe it often is true. So, I encourage you to evaluate this in making your decision.  I had forgotten about Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and Mid America Reformed Seminary in my initial recommendations, but their language programs are among the best. RTS Jackson, WSC, WTS and MARS all also have top notch Biblical Language programs and I assume they are required in the M.Div program at all those schools. Each should offer a MA also, but I encourage you to get a M.Div for your chosen profession.

 

It is true that these terms are hard to pin down, as others have noted. I believe the Chicago Statement well defines the conservative view of the Bible. Thus being conservative would entail the doctrines which such an understanding of the Bible would result in, such as an orthodox understanding of the Trinity and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. 

 

Concerning Fuller, despite the various people chiming in to rebuke me, I still hold that you will find that many of the professors would not be considered conservative by this definition. Consider the following account from a former Fuller student:

"During my five quarters at Fuller, I have had professors who defied the trustworthiness of Scripture, questioned the literalness and existence of eternal hell/lake of fire, taught a form of theistic evolution over the six-day creation account established in the book of Genesis, hinted that Jesus may not be the only way to heaven, and shaped the gospel message and Jesus’ work on Calvary to make it fit the paradigm of a cultural mandate and social justice type of message instead of the orthodox view of what the gospel and the cross means, which is God’s punishment of sinners with eternal hell, Jesus’ sacrifice and atonement to satisfy God’s justice and wrath, Jesus’ imputed righteousness, salvation by faith in Christ alone, etc. - See more at: http://stevecha.net/rebuke-letter-against-fuller-theological-seminary/#sthash.LFF6I5gP.dpuf"

 

 

If you review the faculty list you will find scholars that take positions that cannot possibly be considered conservative, and I would doubt that even they would accept that label. Further, I would not expect Fuller to be more academically rigorous than a more conservative school. The last president of Fuller seemed to have a love affair with Mormonism. 

 

One other note, I entirely disagree with the assertion that conservative schools do not provide a top notch academic environment. If fact, it seems that the more liberal a school is, the more the focus moves away from academics. Review the list of required classes and it seems that the more liberal a school is, the more the focus moves from academics to practical ministry training. I'm sure someone will point out that I am painting with broad strokes here, and that is true. But I find it to be generally true among schools that are conservative or have considered themselves conservative in the recent past. Of course, I expect schools like Princeton, Yale, Chicago and Harvard to be academically rigorous, but they have not pretended to be conservative for a very long time. In fact, it was the liberalism of Princeton that caused many of the professors to leave there and form Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929 (illustrating how long conservatives have separated themselves from such institutions).

 

Modern fundamentalism does have an anti-intellectual element in it and I do take issue with that label. I see a clear distinction between fundamentalists and conservatives. Al Mohler = conservative; Jack Chick = fundamentalist. DA Carson = conservative; Peter Ruckman = fundamentalist. Ravi Zacharias = conservative; Fred Phelps = fundamentalist. Again, people use these terms differently, but in my circles, this is the distinction we make.

 

I wish you the best.

 

[RedDoor]

I can definitely sympathize with your position, phdapp, since I came from similar circles (KJV only, etc), but we have to accept that these distinctions do not hold weight to anyone outside the very small population of conservative Christians and is admittedly very arbitrary. While those in different circles of conservative Christianity will make much of small differences, that does not remove them from the larger crowd of conservative evangelicalism. Fundamentalist has come to mean "very, very conservative" in pop culture; the lines have been blurred in denominations as well between the two, so I don't think it is as cut and dry as we might except.

 

I would also make a distinction that you (and I assume most American conservative evangelicals) would not make: not upholding inerrancy does not a liberal make. If you wish to study why this is an important distinction, I suggest Liberalism without Illusions by Chris Evans, which is a nice survey of liberal Christianity and its place in the Church today. And, if the OP does choose GCTS, he can study with real living and breathing liberals--he may find they're more like Christ than he imagined! If it happened with me (conservative of conservative; of the tribe of Bob Jones and Abeka Books; sat at the feet of Ken Ham), it can happen to anyone.

 

I will agree with you on one point: conservatism nor liberalism is a precursor to academia. Certainly, both sides have powerhouses and pro's and con's. In this situation, it will be best for the OP to consider a conservative multidenominational seminary near other "liberal" universities as suggested (though seminaries can be and are more liberal than some universities and vice versa).

[sacklunch]

phdapp,

 

I assume you are thinking that the 'liberal' schools are so 'liberal' that they are less academically rigorous by giving out first place awards to all their students. We are all so PC that's what we gotta do!! Haha. I wish this was true, but it is far from it. I can almost guarantee a bible related course at HDS will be more difficult than at GC. Hell, I took two classes at GC while I was at BC and they were, quite honestly, too easy. I would never say that the school overall is 'easier' than the others in the BTI (if so, we might class BC behind HDS?!), but that such (as you say) broad strokes are misleading, esp. when considering particular subfields (e.g. an ethics course at BC will be likely more difficult than one at GC, because it's what 'they do').  

[Kuriakos]

Further, I would not expect Fuller to be more academically rigorous than a more conservative school. The last president of Fuller seemed to have a love affair with Mormonism. 

 

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

[phdapp]

phdapp,

 

I assume you are thinking that the 'liberal' schools are so 'liberal' that they are less academically rigorous by giving out first place awards to all their students. We are all so PC that's what we gotta do!! Haha. I wish this was true, but it is far from it. I can almost guarantee a bible related course at HDS will be more difficult than at GC. Hell, I took two classes at GC while I was at BC and they were, quite honestly, too easy. I would never say that the school overall is 'easier' than the others in the BTI (if so, we might class BC behind HDS?!), but that such (as you say) broad strokes are misleading, esp. when considering particular subfields (e.g. an ethics course at BC will be likely more difficult than one at GC, because it's what 'they do').  

I did say that I was not including places like HDS. I understand it is academically rigorous. I know I am generalizing, but what I had in mind are the schools that have moved from conservative to 'moderate' or 'liberal' in the more recent past. They seem to have also moved their focus from academics to practical ministry preparation - again, speaking generally, and it clearly doesn't apply to every situation, but I do see a trend. I know both are practical and academic is important, but the focus has changed. I believe that a strong academic foundation provides the knowledge allowing practical application, thus I would put the focus on the academic if I were designing a program - which I will likely never be asked to do

[Kuriakos]

A strong academic foundation like believing the earth is 6000 years old.

[sacklunch]

*insert levity*

[RedDoor]

A strong academic foundation like believing the earth is 6000 years old.

[xBenji]

Hell, I took two classes at GC while I was at BC and they were, quite honestly, too easy. 

 

Just to satisfy my curiosity (as a GCTS student), would you mind relaying the classes you took? I've not met anyone in the BTI who have come up here to take classes, and haven't had an opportunity to take anything though the BTI myself, so I'd like your perspective on how GC compares in this area.