A Question about the Religiosity of Programs and Their Professors

[11Q13]

I'll start by saying that I very much consider myself a Christian, but a bit of a odd duck. I have a relatively low view of Scriptural authority, a very very high esteem for Jesus, and a belief in God that seems to hinge on the life and work of Jesus being authentic (how else could miracles be if God isn't real, I mean). I feel like I'm always striving to gain more orthodoxy, I attend church at least once a week, and am very active in ministry and social justice movements, but at the same time I am always hoping but always skeptical that my prayers ascend beyond the ceiling, and that I will someday understand why Jude is inspired but Shepherd of Hermas isn't. I say this because I am a bit paranoid that if I should attend a certain institution where professors have a certain bend I will emerge from my education there having lost my faith entirely, and that the opposite would be true, meaning a strongly edified faith, if I should attend another university. this is scary.

My main question or topic I guess I'm trying to understand better is the place of personal faith in these academic institutions including the personal faith investments of the professors. The impression I've gotten is that people are generally very charitable and open about their beliefs in these programs because it is typically such a greater investment than people make into say a MBA or engineering degree, but I haven't seen this extended into the professorship itself. Is it off limits to ask? Is this thread taboo?

How do you research something like this? I've discovered the perils of making assumptions of an author's personal faith based on their work but certain positions I've read seem to necessarily preclude any religious commitment at all from professors I'd be interested to study under. If I try to guess at institutions by what comes out of them is this a better method? Harvard, for example, presently supplies the entirety of the full professorships at Claremont which is completely secular, and probably a majority of the notorious Jesus Seminar members come out of Harvard. I also know they are very welcoming to atheists (and every religious commitment) into their MTS program. Should I therefor presume the majority of their professors are nonreligious?

If people with inside knowledge could help me break it down by institution or even by professor that would be ideal. If others are interested in other universities to which they're applying feel free to add them. The ones I'm interested in are Duke, Emory, Harvard, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, and Yale.

Cliff's notes:

what are the faith commitments, as specifically as possible, of the professors at the schools I'm applying to, and what difference does it make in your opinion?

[LateAntique]

I'll start by saying that I very much consider myself a Christian, but a bit of a odd duck. I have a relatively low view of Scriptural authority, a very very high esteem for Jesus, and a belief in God that seems to hinge on the life and work of Jesus being authentic (how else could miracles be if God isn't real, I mean). I feel like I'm always striving to gain more orthodoxy, I attend church at least once a week, and am very active in ministry and social justice movements, but at the same time I am always hoping but always skeptical that my prayers ascend beyond the ceiling, and that I will someday understand why Jude is inspired but Shepherd of Hermas isn't. I say this because I am a bit paranoid that if I should attend a certain institution where professors have a certain bend I will emerge from my education there having lost my faith entirely, and that the opposite would be true, meaning a strongly edified faith, if I should attend another university. this is scary.

My main question or topic I guess I'm trying to understand better is the place of personal faith in these academic institutions including the personal faith investments of the professors. The impression I've gotten is that people are generally very charitable and open about their beliefs in these programs because it is typically such a greater investment than people make into say a MBA or engineering degree, but I haven't seen this extended into the professorship itself. Is it off limits to ask? Is this thread taboo?

How do you research something like this? I've discovered the perils of making assumptions of an author's personal faith based on their work but certain positions I've read seem to necessarily preclude any religious commitment at all from professors I'd be interested to study under. If I try to guess at institutions by what comes out of them is this a better method? Harvard, for example, presently supplies the entirety of the full professorships at Claremont which is completely secular, and probably a majority of the notorious Jesus Seminar members come out of Harvard. I also know they are very welcoming to atheists (and every religious commitment) into their MTS program. Should I therefor presume the majority of their professors are nonreligious?

If people with inside knowledge could help me break it down by institution or even by professor that would be ideal. If others are interested in other universities to which they're applying feel free to add them. The ones I'm interested in are Duke, Emory, Harvard, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, and Yale.

Cliff's notes:

what are the faith commitments, as specifically as possible, of the professors at the schools I'm applying to, and what difference does it make in your opinion?

If universities have both a Religion Dept. and a Div school, it's generally a safe bet the Div school professors consider themselves 'believers' (whatever that might mean). At Duke Divinity the professors are Christians, though of various stripes (you've got everyone from Paul Griffiths, who is a Roman Catholic, to Curtis Freeman, who is a Baptist). Most of the professors in the Religion Dept. at Duke who deal with Christianity are Christians - some will divulge their religious preference(s) in order that the students are made aware of potential biases. It would be taboo to ask professors about their religious preference(s) if they do not give it (they've certainly thought about it and apparently see it best not to offer up that information). Your best bet is to find someone who attends these schools who is sympathetic to your own faith tradition and discuss with them whether they feel edified or not. Also, all of my friends who have graduated from Harvard Divinity(or, excuse me - Hahvad) are self-identified as Christian. You're inevitably going to have to deal with things that will change the way you view your own religious committments. I've never known anyone who attended a school worth anything that has come out completely unchanged when studying Religion.

[jacib]

If universities have both a Religion Dept. and a Div school, it's generally a safe bet the Div school professors consider themselves 'believers' (whatever that might mean). At Duke Divinity the professors are Christians, though of various stripes (you've got everyone from Paul Griffiths, who is a Roman Catholic, to Curtis Freeman, who is a Baptist). Most of the professors in the Religion Dept. at Duke who deal with Christianity are Christians - some will divulge their religious preference(s) in order that the students are made aware of potential biases. It would be taboo to ask professors about their religious preference(s) if they do not give it (they've certainly thought about it and apparently see it best not to offer up that information). Your best bet is to find someone who attends these schools who is sympathetic to your own faith tradition and discuss with them whether they feel edified or not. Also, all of my friends who have graduated from Harvard Divinity(or, excuse me - Hahvad) are self-identified as Christian. You're inevitably going to have to deal with things that will change the way you view your own religious committments. I've never known anyone who attended a school worth anything that has come out completely unchanged when studying Religion.

While everyone at Harvard will be Christian, the MDiv students will range from Catholics and Calvinists all the way to feminist Unitarians who will engage with self declared Neopagans in their ministerial work. Doctrinal orthodoxy is in general not what most of the programs teach; critical thinking is. Moody Bible Institute (though a great school that I have a deep respect for) these institutions are not. Though the degree of heterodoxy will vary, any school with Unitarians won't be a place where your beliefs are challenged by apologists. The majority of the people who teacher Christianity will be Christian (though there could be some Jews as well... Geza Vermes wrote a lot on Jesus), this is true throughout most of the subfields around religion. People tend to have an interest in what they are (this I think is one of the big problems of the field but that's another story). Occasionally there will be scholarly conflicts, there was one in Anabaptist historical studies a few years ago, I forget the details but it definitely to a degree pitted secular historians against sectarian ones... even there the battle lines were not split exactly on partistant lines AND all these people still had to work in the same departments, edit the same journals, go to the same conferences. You can't really be straight up rude, though people can argue that you don't "really understand" the religion if you aren't part of it (as often happens when Anglo-American scholars study say Islam, or Sikhism, or Buddhism, or Bahai).

From my experience studying undergrad at one of the best religion programs in the country, one of my professors (of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism) related a story of how he was teaching a particular text and one of his students stopped him and said, "Oh that's not what it means?" to which the professor responded "O rly? How do you know?" and then guy goes on to explain how he really did those meditation practices and that's not what he saw so... I think professor at the schools you are applying to tend to prefer intelligent, interested candidates with keen analytical skills over any doctrinal tests.

[LateAntique]

While everyone at Harvard will be Christian, the MDiv students will range from Catholics and Calvinists all the way to feminist Unitarians who will engage with self declared Neopagans in their ministerial work. Doctrinal orthodoxy is in general not what most of the programs teach; critical thinking is. Moody Bible Institute (though a great school that I have a deep respect for) these institutions are not. Though the degree of heterodoxy will vary, any school with Unitarians won't be a place where your beliefs are challenged by apologists. The majority of the people who teacher Christianity will be Christian (though there could be some Jews as well... Geza Vermes wrote a lot on Jesus), this is true throughout most of the subfields around religion. People tend to have an interest in what they are (this I think is one of the big problems of the field but that's another story). Occasionally there will be scholarly conflicts, there was one in Anabaptist historical studies a few years ago, I forget the details but it definitely to a degree pitted secular historians against sectarian ones... even there the battle lines were not split exactly on partistant lines AND all these people still had to work in the same departments, edit the same journals, go to the same conferences. You can't really be straight up rude, though people can argue that you don't "really understand" the religion if you aren't part of it (as often happens when Anglo-American scholars study say Islam, or Sikhism, or Buddhism, or Bahai).

From my experience studying undergrad at one of the best religion programs in the country, one of my professors (of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism) related a story of how he was teaching a particular text and one of his students stopped him and said, "Oh that's not what it means?" to which the professor responded "O rly? How do you know?" and then guy goes on to explain how he really did those meditation practices and that's not what he saw so... I think professor at the schools you are applying to tend to prefer intelligent, interested candidates with keen analytical skills over any doctrinal tests.

I had schools like Moody in mind when I mentioned that schools worth anything are going to help one develop and change their views on religion in general. I attended a very conservative seminary's undergraduate program and eventually left. They encouraged critical thinking on some levels, but I felt like their main goal was to create people who maintained their status quo. Granted, this was a confessional school and not a div school. If one wants to go into that, that's fine - different faiths need people who are going to maintain and defend their idea of orthodoxy. However the academy cannot work like that.

[peppermint.beatnik]

I've never known anyone who attended a school worth anything that has come out completely unchanged when studying Religion.

I like this comment. When I started studying religion I was a practising Catholic. Eight years later I'm agnostic. Go figure.

[LateAntique]

I like this comment. When I started studying religion I was a practising Catholic. Eight years later I'm agnostic. Go figure.

Thanks! I studied at a conservative evangelical seminary and ended up Catholic. The Fathers are dangerous people.

[johndiligent]

The majority of the people who teacher Christianity will be Christian (though there could be some Jews as well... Geza Vermes wrote a lot on Jesus), this is true throughout most of the subfields around religion. People tend to have an interest in what they are (this I think is one of the big problems of the field but that's another story).

I'm a secular Jewish woman, best described as indifferently agnostic. I'd call myself an atheist but I don't care enough about God's existence or lack thereof to assert a belief one way or the other. I'm Jewish by descent and by family tradition: we don't attend temple and we barely acknowledge holy days. I, however, intend to make a career studying and teaching Christianity.

Maybe I'm the weird exception, but I doubt it. There are lots of scholars of Religious Studies who are fascinated and stimulated by the constructs and impact of a tradition but feel no need to participate in it. My cousin studies Satanism, not because he's a Satanist, but because he wants to analyse Satanism and Satanists. My undergrad thesis focused on Roman slaves. I wanted to work on slavery because there's lots to discover about slavery. I study Christianity for the same reasons.

Be careful of broad generalisations. In a divinity programme, yes, it goes without saying that your professors are likely to be among the faithful. But in Religious Studies programmes, I've met more agnostics than I've met comitted Christians.

[11Q13]

You're inevitably going to have to deal with things that will change the way you view your own religious committments. I've never known anyone who attended a school worth anything that has come out completely unchanged when studying Religion.

I'm well aware of the trend, and even the expectation to be challenged and 'changed' over the course of the program. It's in large part because I'm well aware of that fact that I'm asking this question. I entered university a fairly vanilla American nondenominational Protestant and after a whirlwind of coursework and experience emerged as described above. The nuance that you are perhaps not picking up on is that I believe the state of an individual's faith when they finish said program is influenced by their professors and the presumptions upon which their teaching relies, especially their personal faith commitments. ...or, maybe it's just me and I'm weak minded and easily persuaded and prone to despair?

At any rate, I'm hoping the program that I attend will be one that edifies my faith, not because I don't want it to be challenged, but because it has been constantly challenged by antagonists for years now and I could use some positive reinforcement. I'm trying to get a sense of if and how that would be possible at these schools, using the religiosity of the programs and their professors as my primary criterion.

I don't want to get too off topic. I know there are merits and deficiencies in doing it this way, etc, etc. Here is my best attempt to piece together some info, as tenuous as it may be:

I have heard, mostly from people here, that Duke is more or less constituted of Christian theists.

All the people I've contacted who study/ied at Harvard are Christian, but again its difficult for me to reconcile this with their graduates who seem to find teaching positions... I have also visited the university and the Divinity School and did my best to pretend the Protestant iconoclasm (I mean, ironically, the removal of crosses from seemingly every historic university edifice not considered a chapel) didn't hurt me in some way, and the Divinity School's emphasis on pluralism makes me all the more curious. To take a specific professor as an example, Jon Levinson does work in Jewish-Christian dialog, however he doesn't wear a kippa from what I've seen, which implies he's not religious... He essentially heads up the Jewish Studies program so I feel like I should be entitled to know that information? Aren't I?

I visited Yale as well, and the admissions people, as well as the students I spoke with all seemed to be perfectly normal Christians whom I would presume hold less atypical beliefs than my own. This was a bit of a surprise to be honest, because I had been reading some work of John J Collins and his thoughts on the Old Testament (together with his wife on the NT). Honestly some of the most painfully grim criticism I have encountered. Naturally, I expected since he taught there I would find a student body of like thinkers; or at least people that looked like they had just been told the rug has been pulled out from under the authority of the entire pre-Davidic Old Testament thanks to Dr. Collins. But this wasn't the case... so what's the deal with Dr. Collins? and of course any students or alumni please share!

[Mathētēs]

I had schools like Moody in mind when I mentioned that schools worth anything are going to help one develop and change their views on religion in general. I attended a very conservative seminary's undergraduate program and eventually left. They encouraged critical thinking on some levels, but I felt like their main goal was to create people who maintained their status quo. Granted, this was a confessional school and not a div school. If one wants to go into that, that's fine - different faiths need people who are going to maintain and defend their idea of orthodoxy. However the academy cannot work like that.

Late Antique,

I take issue with your statement that "schools worth anything are going to help one develop and change their views on religion in general." You allowed that your previous seminary encouraged critical thinking on some levels. Therefore, they did attempt to help students develop and change their views. Positive development and change doesn't necessarily require complete overhaul or subversion to be helpful or significant. From your description, it is incorrect to conclude that a confessional education is not "worth anything" merely because you significantly disagreed with the confession of your educators.

Confessional schools will presumably attempt to maintain assent to the confession they profess. Institutions without a declared statement of faith may appear to uphold "freedom of inquiry." However, perspectives exist in every type of institution and the powerful, consciously or unconsciously, pressure the less powerful to conform. This includes orthodoxy in any form, to belief or non-belief on any issue. Yes, the academy and the world do work like that.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Mathētēs

[LateAntique]

Late Antique,

I take issue with your statement that "schools worth anything are going to help one develop and change their views on religion in general." You allowed that your previous seminary encouraged critical thinking on some levels. Therefore, they did attempt to help students develop and change their views. Positive development and change doesn't necessarily require complete overhaul or subversion to be helpful or significant. From your description, it is incorrect to conclude that a confessional education is not "worth anything" merely because you significantly disagreed with the confession of your educators.

Confessional schools will presumably attempt to maintain assent to the confession they profess. Institutions without a declared statement of faith may appear to uphold "freedom of inquiry." However, perspectives exist in every type of institution and the powerful, consciously or unconsciously, pressure the less powerful to conform. This includes orthodoxy in any form, to belief or non-belief on any issue. Yes, the academy and the world do work like that.

I should've been more clear. The aspects of my education that encouraged critical thinking were not in favor with most of the faculty or the administration. It was a small degree program, something akin to a 'Great Books' program (which they've subsequently shut down). The academy has its sacred cows - I didn't mean to imply that it's somehow a utopian bias-free zone in which there are no pressures for conformity. However, in the state school I attend, I've had a much easier time voicing opinions concerning a variety of things that would've never flown at the confessional school. None of my professors have encouraged me to take any kind of view as being normative at the state school - I challenge their favorite authors, their sacred cows, and everyone's happy at the end of the day. I did the same thing at the seminary and got the boot. No, the academy cannot work like that. We cannot go around booting out people for asking questions.

I also did not say that a confessional education isn't worth anything. I'm quite glad every one of my priests received the education they did. Though, even their education helped to shape and mold them - change them - edify them, even. I certainly never intended to imply that a complete overhaul was necessary. In fact, nowhere did I say anything even remotely close. I don't know where you got these ideas - if I hit a nerve, I apologize.

[Mathētēs]

Hi, LateAntique,

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts and experiences. Thank you also for offering an apology, but it isn't necessary. I hope you are enjoying the break and your paper is going well. Blessings and peace.

[jacib]

Yo while we're talking about sacred cows, I've been dying to share this somewhere (apologies to the OP, 1. I don't have an answer to your question other than to say, I would imagine the reading lists at most of the universities will be quite similar, I mean at least have the same hits on them, for the big OT/NT courses at least. But one thing you could do is email a few professors asking for syllabi and compare who they read in similar seeming courses. If there is any bias that goes to the core of the institution, you should see it. But I think, in general, they will be more similar than different, but those differences are things you will probably find when you visit. From my experience visiting undergrad places, I knew pretty quickly if I'd be happy there or not, and occasionally I probably had an out-of-character negative experience that crossed some place off my list. When you get in places, ask to email current graduate students. 2. Wearing a kippah does not a Jew make. I know people who keep kosher, light candles on the sabbath, keep the fasts, and only wear kippot when they are going to say haShem, which is technically the only time you need to say wear it according to Conservative [rather than Orthodox] tradition. I've also met a person or two who wears a kippah but does not "properly" keep sabbath. I've heard this is more common in Israel. Also, remember the definition of a Jew is not based on faith, or practice, but rather on heritage. As a famous conservative rabbi said recently, you can eat a ham&cheese on Yom Kippur and still be a Jew. There are 613 commandments, not even the Vilna Gaon kept them all.)

Anyway, one of my professors pointed out to me that religion professors basically since Frazer and Tylor (since anthropology became a separate discipline, that is) that professors of religion tend to assume that religion is a good thing. Whether they be professors of the OT, NT, theology, Buddhism, Islam, Rabbinic Judaism, NRM's, Sikhism, theorists like Eliade or Wach, they all assume that religion is a good thing, and consequently that everything bad is borrowings, corruptions, politics, culture, a cult/scam, anything but religion. These same people also tend to argue that religion is an implicitly incomparable sui generis phenomenon. The only people I can think of as exceptions to this rule MIGHT be those associated with NAASR, but even then I don't think I can remember reading anything that was actual critical of a religion, in general or in specific. That's the most pervasive bias I think you will get at any of the above named schools.

Edited December 28, 2009 by jacib

[Thanks4Downvoting]

I had schools like Moody in mind when I mentioned that schools worth anything are going to help one develop and change their views on religion in general. I attended a very conservative seminary's undergraduate program and eventually left. They encouraged critical thinking on some levels, but I felt like their main goal was to create people who maintained their status quo. Granted, this was a confessional school and not a div school. If one wants to go into that, that's fine - different faiths need people who are going to maintain and defend their idea of orthodoxy. However the academy cannot work like that.

I'd agree with the "help one develop and change their views on religion in general." Well said.

[Febronia]

Most of the professors I know at Harvard Divinity School are personally religious, but it isn't necessarily something that they all talk a lot about. There are professors who are observant Jews (yes, including Jon Levenson), as well as Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, Buddhists, etc. I'm happy to get a bit more specific by private message, but I don't know that I'm comfortable discussing my professors' religious lives to the open internet! I don't think any of them are really closeted about it, but it feels uncomfortable to me for some reason to write too much about that...

Harvard is really the only school that I can speak to, but I think it's fair to say that you can find just about all types here. Those of us who do early and medieval Christianity tend in general to be a fairly traditional bunch-- at least as far as Harvard goes! We (both students and faculty) tend to be Catholic, Anglican, or Orthodox, and while our faith commitments are not often discussed in the classroom, it's certainly not tabboo either. And I certainly feel comfortable talking about spiritual issues with the professors I am closest to, and in one-on-one conversations have often spoken of the impact of what I'm studying on my own beliefs, or how my beliefs inform the way I approach my studies. That's not something that usually comes up in the classroom in most cases (ministry studies classes being the exception). But I think it's pretty universally true that professors here, whether or not they are personally religious, genuinely care about students' spiritual lives, and are more than happy to talk about that if a student wants to. But they also aren't going to pry, or assume that it's something that is important to you or that you want to talk about, because for a lot of people it may not be.

And of course, religious affiliation various by subfield. Many (not all) of the Buddhist studies folks are Buddhist, many (not all) of the Islamic studies people are Muslims, likewise with Jewish studies, etc. Things in the classroom for the most part tend to stay academic, but I'd say that certainly the majority of people (not all!) have solid faih commitments of various kinds, and that keeps things interesting. I think we have a good healthy mix of perspectives, and on the whole, I think the emphasis on pluralism gives a lot of space for people to maintain their own beliefs while still being in community with others and learning from them....

[11Q13]

2. Wearing a kippah does not a Jew make. I know people who keep kosher, light candles on the sabbath, keep the fasts, and only wear kippot when they are going to say haShem, which is technically the only time you need to say wear it according to Conservative [rather than Orthodox] tradition. I've also met a person or two who wears a kippah but does not "properly" keep sabbath. I've heard this is more common in Israel. Also, remember the definition of a Jew is not based on faith, or practice, but rather on heritage.

Excuse my ignorance on the subject. I live in Jerusalem/Bethlehem so I'm going off the customs here. The religious lifestyle of Diaspora Jewry is foreign to me. I'm certainly a bit more cynical on the definition of a Jew based in heritage.

[johndiligent]

Excuse my ignorance on the subject. I live in Jerusalem/Bethlehem so I'm going off the customs here. The religious lifestyle of Diaspora Jewry is foreign to me. I'm certainly a bit more cynical on the definition of a Jew based in heritage.

You're in good company if you can't define Judaism or Jewish identity. Some of the most prominent scholars of Judaism fall on their own swords while trying to do so (thinking especially of Jacob Neusner, but it's true of everyone). But if you're in Israel/Palestine, then you already have a concrete example of Jewishness as heritage in aliyah and the right of return. You don't need to wear kippot to make aliyah, you need one Jewish grandparent. (Hitler used the same criterion.)

I'm North American. In my family and in other Jewish families, there is certainly a common distinction between being Jewish and practicing Judaism. And scholarly definitions seem to migrate toward this distinction as well.

[LateAntique]

You're in good company if you can't define Judaism or Jewish identity. Some of the most prominent scholars of Judaism fall on their own swords while trying to do so (thinking especially of Jacob Neusner, but it's true of everyone). But if you're in Israel/Palestine, then you already have a concrete example of Jewishness as heritage in aliyah and the right of return. You don't need to wear kippot to make aliyah, you need one Jewish grandparent. (Hitler used the same criterion.)

I'm North American. In my family and in other Jewish families, there is certainly a common distinction between being Jewish and practicing Judaism. And scholarly definitions seem to migrate toward this distinction as well.

Have you read Shaye J.D. Cohen's "The Beginnings of Jewishness"? If you have an interest in the 2nd Temple period and the question of "What does the word 'Jewish' mean?", this is a great book.

[11Q13]

....so back on topic. Anyone here an alumni, attending, or have at least visited Duke, Emory, Harvard, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, or Yale that can give some insight?

[LateAntique]

I know several Duke professors pretty well.

[11Q13]

Most of the professors I know at Harvard Divinity School are personally religious, but it isn't necessarily something that they all talk a lot about. There are professors who are observant Jews (yes, including Jon Levenson), as well as Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, Buddhists, etc. I'm happy to get a bit more specific by private message, but I don't know that I'm comfortable discussing my professors' religious lives to the open internet! I don't think any of them are really closeted about it, but it feels uncomfortable to me for some reason to write too much about that...

Harvard is really the only school that I can speak to, but I think it's fair to say that you can find just about all types here. Those of us who do early and medieval Christianity tend in general to be a fairly traditional bunch-- at least as far as Harvard goes! We (both students and faculty) tend to be Catholic, Anglican, or Orthodox, and while our faith commitments are not often discussed in the classroom, it's certainly not tabboo either. And I certainly feel comfortable talking about spiritual issues with the professors I am closest to, and in one-on-one conversations have often spoken of the impact of what I'm studying on my own beliefs, or how my beliefs inform the way I approach my studies. That's not something that usually comes up in the classroom in most cases (ministry studies classes being the exception). But I think it's pretty universally true that professors here, whether or not they are personally religious, genuinely care about students' spiritual lives, and are more than happy to talk about that if a student wants to. But they also aren't going to pry, or assume that it's something that is important to you or that you want to talk about, because for a lot of people it may not be.

And of course, religious affiliation various by subfield. Many (not all) of the Buddhist studies folks are Buddhist, many (not all) of the Islamic studies people are Muslims, likewise with Jewish studies, etc. Things in the classroom for the most part tend to stay academic, but I'd say that certainly the majority of people (not all!) have solid faih commitments of various kinds, and that keeps things interesting. I think we have a good healthy mix of perspectives, and on the whole, I think the emphasis on pluralism gives a lot of space for people to maintain their own beliefs while still being in community with others and learning from them....

Wow somehow I missed this post. Thanks, it's very helpful!

[Perique69]

....so back on topic. Anyone here an alumni, attending, or have at least visited Duke, Emory, Harvard, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, or Yale that can give some insight?

I have an MDiv (2002) ThM (2008) from Emory. In the classroom, there's not much if any talk about profs' personal beliefs. "Personal faiths" are irrelevant to me in terms of studying Xtian theology, etc. I don't care what the professor "believes in" as long as they don't conflate their own "faith" with what they teach. You might say I totally "lost my faith" studying theology. Translation: what I thought was "my faith" was little more than borrowed rational beliefs that didn't penetrate the surface of anything worthwhile. Many disagree, but I think studying theology should transform rather than reinforce one's "understanding." Some schools offer more "transformation opportunities" than others. So choose accordingly.

[Perique69]

"I say this because I am a bit paranoid that if I should attend a certain institution where professors have a certain bend I will emerge from my education there having lost my faith entirely, and that the opposite would be true, meaning a strongly edified faith, if I should attend another university. this is scary."

I have an MDiv / ThM from Emory. I'd argue that, ultimately, you will determine the outcome of your "faith." Where you study will influence how your faith develops, or stays the same. At Emory, there is little to no talk about profs' personal beliefs in the classroom. I personally don't care what a prof "bleieves in" as long as they don't conflate their "beliefs" with what they teach. I'd want a refund if my theological studies didn't radically transform my beliefs.

[Perique69]

test

[Perique69]

.

Edited February 17, 2010 by ghost6

[lovethequestions]

At Notre Dame, it tends to depend somewhat on what area you're in. Within systematics, for example, it's fairly safe to assume that most of the faculty are going to be Catholic, but I can't really speak to how that plays out in class or interactions with them. Within CJA (the area I know best), most of the faculty are practicing Christians of one stripe or another, but, as has been stated about other schools, it's not something that gets talked about in class particularly often. Since Notre Dame is a department of theology, there's an explicit presupposition that religion is a good thing, and that the institution as a whole is a Christian one; and certainly there is ALWAYS a theological discussion or four going on in the lounge. But in the classroom, at least in my experience, no one cares whether you're Christian or not--the focus really is on the quality of the work you're doing and the level of analysis you can bring to the table, and there aren't any "faith-based" boundaries that limit where speculation leads you. If you have a faith background or personal experience that can lead you to contribute something unique to the discussion, that's almost always seen as a positive thing.

I was a little nervous coming from a religious studies department for UG into a theology department, particularly as I explicitly consider myself a non-theologian (and yes, I know that can be a contentious statement). But it's been a really positive experience for me overall, and if I sound idealistic, it's because I'm absolutely crazy about the CJA faculty. They run an amazing show here.

There are definitely ways to make yourself uncomfortable with religion at Notre Dame, though. If you have even the slightest proselytizing streak in you, whether you're Catholic or atheist or anything in between, I'd say, try very hard to keep it under wraps, or you're likely to piss people off considerably. If you're at all uncomfortable with people publicly airing their religious beliefs or practices--if you'd rather study religion than see it happen, or think the two should be separated in some concrete way--this probably won't be a terribly comfortable place for you. (I tend to lean in this direction, so I don't mean to be snarky.) If you don't like the Catholic church, well, this is a Catholic school, and the overwhelming majority of people really like it that way--though that certainly doesn't mean that you can't criticize the magisterium. If you are Catholic, you should know that the "First Things" people and the "Commonweal" people definitely have strong and conflicting opinions--there are plenty in both camps, but you can expect lively debates, if you're inclined that way. (And if you're not, they will rage around your head.) All of this is a little bit off topic in that it has more to do with students than professors, and much more to do with community life than classroom discussion. But the life of the community does play a huge part in the experience here.

Edited February 19, 2010 by lovethequestions