Doctoral Schools of Theology

There seems to have been an influx of postings about Theology degrees, particularly at the doctoral level, which leads to some unique questions:

• What RA DL theology schools are available at the doctoral level?
  
• What are the associated costs?
  1. Cost per credit or
  2. Total cost for the doctoral program?
  
• What are the entry-level requirements to get in?
  1. Do you have to have lower-level degrees in religion?
  2. What if your bachelors and masters are not in religion?
  
• If the candidate has never studied Greek or Hebrew, can he still study Theology at the doctoral level?
  
• Other pertinant information that you might contribute...

Pray tell?

 

Some quick thoughts in response:

At present, only two RA institutions offer PhD's in theology on a DL basis: Bible Baptist Seminary (or is it Baptist Bible Seminary?) in Pennsylvania and Regent University in Va. Beach, VA. Both are quite pricey. Both would require solid master's level qualifications in theology (although my understanding is that, in both programs, some flexibility exists regarding the specific type of master's degree one possesses--MA, MDiv, ThM). A substantial background in biblical languages also would be expected; although, I know that, at least with BBS, students are given the opportunity to make up for deficiencies in language background.

The primary issue with both of these programs is that they are designed to concentrate on a narrow "brand" of theology. At BBS, the focus is on a rather fundamentalist version of dispensational/Baptist theology. At Regent, the focus is on a Charismatic/Pentecostal rendering of theology. Both schools are quite unapologetic about the narrow foci they've carved out. Unless one identifies with these theological systems, study through these institutions might prove less than satisfying.

Cory Seibel

 

PhD/ThD's (theology) in my opinion are two of the most difficult doctorates. Much closer to the PhD requirements of many years ago in terms of languages and prerequisites. For a ThD you are often looking at BA, MDiv (90 credit hours), MTh., then ThD. Proficiency in biblical languages expected.

North

 

Regent is much more open to those of a different theological position than BBS. For example, the BBS application states unapologetically that if one embraces the current Pentecostal/Charismatic movement one should look elsewhere for academic training. Regent, however, is open to students of myriad faith traditions.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

North is right. It is much quicker and just as efficient in terms of employablility (ha good luck) to go the PhD route based on MA than the ThD based on the ThM. But the foreign ThM (eg Unizul) is not the equivalent of the US ThM as in Dallas or Western seminaries. For in the former it is thesis only based on the ThB but in the latter it is four years of classwork plus thesis. Further, even at the doc level at Unizul languages , at least in the prospectus, are not mandated in Theology. But, I cannot imagine how such a doctorate would not be greatly enhanced by exegetical skills in the Biblical languages.

 

Bill,
I agree. I have always found it amazing that a seminary would require a certain belief system of their students before enrollment. If they already had all these things figured out ahead of time, why are they going to seminary at all?

I don't know if they still do this, but Dallas Theological Seminary used to require you to be a dispensationalist before you could enroll. How many people know enough about eschatology to form that type of opinion before seminary? Those are exactly the people I would not want to enroll, because it shows that they are either so educated they don't need seminary, or they are so closed-minded already that there is no way we could ever teach them anything.

 

Perhaps BBS is afraid that in the middle of one of the classes on cessation theology, a charismatic may jump a desk, run an aisle or manifest one of the gifts of the Spirit.

 

==========================================
Russell:
That's right! We certainly must keep that Holy Spirit under control!

BLD:
I do understand that students should not be allowed to dominate a class with contentious argument. But if a student is "there" to learn why not as time allows discuss contrasting views. As for DL learning, what possible difference does it make?

 

If I remember correctly Pensacola Christian College/Seminary suggests that those who are Pentecostal or Hyper Calvinists should find another college option.

North

 

You remembered correctly, North, at least in terms of the Pentecostals.

 

Russell,

I certainly agree with what you're saying here. My point is that the curricular make-up of Regent's PhD is designed to concentrate rather exclusively on a niche theology: a charismatic/Pentecostal brand of Renewal Theology. This is quite different than a PhD degree program that endeavours to expose students to a broad range of theological perspectives (even though I'm sure a certain amount of this ideological interaction would take place). Students who don't feel at home in that sort of theological atmosphere might not find Regent's PhD program to be for them.

Cory Seibel

 

I agree, Cory. I would think that all seminaries have their own niche to one degree (no pun intended ) or another.

 

If one doesn't know at least the outline of one's own theology by the time he is 22 (age to begin if right out of college--I was 23, but had been waylaid by the temptation of law school for a couple of years), then perhaps paying attention at church should be stressed more. Schools reflect certain faith traditions; they seek to maintain those traditions; it is therefore not unreasonable that a school expect its students to affirm the general theology of that tradition.

Seminary is a place to hone ministry skills, learn how to develop resources, and be able to relate theology and ministry. It is not a place to be "spoon-fed" basic theology.

Further, the schools which specify such requirements are simply saying, "Look, if you don't agree with our presuppositions, you are going to be very uncomfortable here." I shudder to think that a full-fledged Pentecostal would seek to go to a fundamentalist school, knowing that his position would be under constant attack. The same could be said of a fundamentalist going to, say, Union in New York, or Harvard or Yale. Seminary is a place to grow, not a place for battle.

Craig

 

Too many people going to college or seminary, have a very simplistic view:

"Jesus loves me this I know, that is all I need to know."

(Of course, this is not inferior to

"My hope is built on nothing less, than Scofield's notes and Moody Press." )



Craig

 

===========================================

Hi Craig

I think it would be right for a seminary upfront to state its distinctions, even to caution that class time will not be much allowed for dissension from these.

But I think you are both over-estimating the entry level theological skills of seminarians, and not correctly stating the rigor of seminary theological training.. While some enter seminary with undergrad degrees in religious studies many don't. To suppose that the Sunday eve service experience in,eg, a Conservative Baptist church, equips parishoners to contend with conflicting eschatological views or the usage of the Greek for "baptidzo" or contrary soterial opining or whatever-which items along with much more is covered in that first year of Systematic Theology seminary experience is very optimistic. One learns more about theology in seminary than merely RELATING it. In my experience Systematic Theology there opens up a wide array of topics and views the average pastor would never broach from the pulpit!Even exegetics in the originals is an ongoing assessment of credo proffered in theogy. Let me give a personal example.

For years I sat under the preaching/teaching of Tim Lahaye, who,you might guess was really good at indoctrination! When Tim found out that I was attending a Pentecostal assembly on occasion, he preached a warning sermon demonstrating that 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 taught that the "perfect" there was the completion of the NT canon. Unfortunately I was not there that Sunday. So I asked my step dad-the business manager at Tim's church- why Tim thought that. Casey said he couldn't explain it. So much for how theogy grips the parishoner! So later I spoke with Tim.

But upon acquiring some hermeneutical prowess in seminary it became plain to me that Tim's explanation was impossible to exegetically defend. (butI never became a practicing Pentecostal). Suppose I had been, when that interpretive skill was aquired, in my second year at Dallas? Suppose that as Russell said to graduate I needed to sign the DTS creed (not sure actually must). Should that two years be wasted , should my graduation be postponed simply because I could not sign? Now my contention is that seminaries are right to indicate at the outset their "peculiarities", but I think that as long as the student is not argumentative and absorbing classtime for that ,about his own unique understanding of truth, he/she should be allowed to graduate. Who ultimately is behind that seminary..isn't it God? Is He not also the God of the Pentecostal or the amillenarian or the sprinkler of babes? (I know you are not denying this).

As far as the seminarian being challenged on all sides because of that uniqueness, I never saw that happen to others and it did not happen to me, and there were many occasions where it could have. Of course I felt no need to wear my theology on my shirt! I can privately disagree or chat after class with the prof.

It is too bad when in those places which should equip the student to interpret for himself/herself ,the divine calling rather is perceived to be stuffing down the seminarian's throat narrow dogma. I don't believe Western is like that...and I'm glad!

 

addendum

Re the openmindedness of my alma mater (gee I enjoyed those years) we had an English Bible class taught by Dr Laney (ThD-Dallas) in the Corinthian Correspondance. Since I was a ThM at the time I was required to provide a very short lecture. I chose 1 Cor 12:13. I discussed its meaning in terms directly opposite of the usage of that verse in the Western statement of faith profs (only) must sign.and directly opposite from dispensational foundations which take that verse's referent to be "Spirit baptism." Yet my prof "A'd" me for the course and my peers applauded my "speech." They had their opining and I had mine..and that was OK!

 

I just looked at Regent's website, and the only reference that I saw to a Ph.D. program was a short blurb saying that they had applied to ATS to get one accredited, and giving an e-mail address for more information. I didn't see that page that they had up a few months ago, though I didn't search for it very hard.

Is ATS giving them some heat on this, perhaps asking them to make changes in the program or something before they roll it out?

True. And for those like myself whose interests run to religion conceived broadly rather than to Christian theology narrowly conceived, these kind of programs are virtually worthless.

That's ironic (and sad) since Regent has styled their program as a Ph.D. in 'religious studies' which is my area of interest. Unfortunately it was nothing that I recognized, and I'm sure that they would not have recognized me either.

 

One does not need to be a dispensationalist to enroll in a degree program or graduate from one.

 

DTS

===========
==============================================
Hello Ed:I have in my hands the 89-90 Dallas Theological Seminary Catalogue. Here it is written, "The completion of minimum requirements does not automatically qualify the student for the degree. He or she must...(be) committed to the primacy of the divinely authoritative, inerrant Scriptures, which are interpreted within the framework of evangelical, premillenial, DISPENSATIONAL theology."(page 46). The same is found on pages 42,40,36, and 48.

But you would still say one does not have to be a dispensationalist to graduate from DTS?

Understand, I think highly of Dallas!