Cultural differences with Potch, mainly. I just looked at their theology department one day, tied it in with the positive things I'd heard about them locally (and the affiliations of the folks making the positive comments), and decided it just wouldn't really look right on my resume. Nothing against the school -- I'd still recommend it to folks who want a Ph.D. in theology, especially pastors in protestant denominations -- but it has "old, respectable, upper-class, Dutch Reformed institution" written all over it, and that's not really a good fit for my resume. (It comes from growing up in the same city as Reformed Theological Seminary, I think; maybe it matters a little more down here than it would in most cities.) There's also the fact that I plan on using it mainly as a writing credential, and it's hard to spell/pronounce. Peace, ------------------ Tom Head www.tomhead.net
And in all my ramblings, I forgot the most important reason: I want a Ph.D. in religion, not theology. When I was putting together a thesis proposal for GST/Potch, it occurred to me that theology, as a field, basically translates to one of the following: 1. Christian theology. 2. A reaction to Christian theology (e.g., radical theology or a liberalized natural theology that uses the Christian language-game). 3. From-the-ground-up natural theology, like Whitehead's or Hartshorne's. These are all very interesting and valid fields of study, but I felt like I was pushing the envelope by studying Max Kadushin as is, and it looked as though there would be no way that my Ph.D. could be tied in to Asian religious traditions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. Not that I would necessarily want to study such a tradition as part of my dissertation proper, but why go to the trouble to earn a Ph.D. in comparative romance languages when you really want to study English literature? Peace, ------------------ Tom Head www.tomhead.net
Let me qualify this a little: Somebody is bound to point out that Maimonides, Buber, Kaplan, et. al. are studied from the perspective of theology all the time, as are some Indian thinkers. This is without question true. But my point (and I should have made it more clear) is that they are studied as if they were operation from within a Christian framework. Martin Buber is usually studied as if he were a tabula rasa, and his theology is described as "dialectic theology," but there's not usually any attempt, in theology, to sympathetically immerse oneself in Hasidic Judaism and understand Buber from that perspective. This is why Kadushin is not good grist for a guy taking on a mainstream Ph.D. in theology; he's a very rabbinic thinker, and can't be properly understood outside of the context of rabbinics. I suppose my point is that I don't want to study religious thinkers objectively; I don't believe that there is such a thing as a detached observer, so I won't pretend to be one. My primary objective, as a theologian or a religion student or what have you, is or will be to understand a thinker, as much as possible, from his or her own perspective. This means no Sufism without a greater sympathetic understanding of Islam, no Hasidism without a greater sympathetic understanding of Judaism, and so forth. To give you an example of how I work: I never touch Kabbalah because only Jews over 40 are supposed to study Kabbalah. I'm not Jewish, so this proscription doesn't technically apply to me, but out of respect for the religious tradition I generally observe it. (I own two books on Kabbalah, but use them only for the strictest academic purposes; I don't read them from cover to cover, or study them for pleasure.) Peace, ------------------ Tom Head www.tomhead.net
FWIW Spertus Institute offers what look like exhaustive DL RA Masters and Doctorate programs in Jewish Studies. I don't know what value these degrees would have outside the Jewish world, though. www.spertus.edu Joybaum
