Duke Divinity School

Schools like Duke Divinity School and Yale are liberal schools with no solid Christian background. Is going to schools like Yale and Duke a good fit if you're attending a conservative RCA church? I also stay away from schools like Franciscan University of Steubenville which is a private and coeducational Catholic university in Steubenville, Ohio based on Catholic doctrine. No real biblical principles. Many here on degreeinfo hail these liberal schools as great because they attended them. What's your thoughts? : )

 

To state the obvious, if you are conservative in your theological beliefs, you should attend a conservative seminary, if you are liberal, you should attend a liberal seminary. Otherwise, you will be very unhappy with the curriculum and delivery. I can't speak to FUS specifically, but not all Catholic seminaries, colleges, churches and members are liberal and many of them very much uphold biblical principles. One of my colleagues, a staunch Catholic who is a member of the faculty group I attend that gets together for prayer weekly, is very conservative and seems to be very much a Christian. I cannot imagine Dr. W praying to saints, fuzzing up his theology or doing anything other than following Jesus.

While I'm not particularly enamored of seminaries or our cultural errors of making a professional class of clergy and creating a clergy-laity distinction (a distinctly unbiblical concept in the NT era), I figure if one simply must go, they should attend a place that matches their theological beliefs and that generally behaves in a Christian manner, i.e., I believe high percentage of "Christian" leaders, including seminary administrators, pastors, televangelists and sundry big wigs, do not at all behave in a properly Christian manner, but are greedy power brokers and two bit politicians. You will not discover this in a statement of faith or "What We Believe" tab on the school's website--they'll usually say all the right things, just like the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (which is North Korea, not South).

If I were looking for a seminary to attend (heaven forbid), I'd look into criticism of the seminary first, find out what their enemies say about them, are they hated for the right reasons (following Jesus) or the wrong ones (covering up sexual abuse, consolidating power, basking in adulation, setting up conferences with themselves as keynote speakers, chasing after political fame, squelching opposition from Christians who want to biblically hold them to account for their excesses, etc.)? For example, this is why I have grave misgivings about places like SBTS, under the leadership of Mohler. In any event, best to you.

 

I don't believe that every Christian would agree with you about what the phrase "solid Christian background" means. Many would include the history of the church, its tradition and its theology in what a satisfactory Christian background should include. (To say nothing of the practical pastoral stuff for those aspiring to be clergymen.) Based on your earlier posts, you seem to be a fundamentalist/evangelical Protestant of a very narrow sort, somebody who (foolishly in my opinion) thinks that training in religion starts and stops with Biblical exegesis. If that's your orientation, then Dallas Theological Seminary may be the best choice for you. They are exceedingly Biblical and very well regarded in hard-core evangelical circles. They even offer some distance learning degree programs:

https://www.dts.edu/online-seminary-education/

https://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

I've never attended Franciscan University of Steubenville, though I do like the school and have defended it against your criticisms in the past. Your only criticism of them seems to be that they are a Catholic university, something that doesn't bother me at all (despite my not being Catholic).

Well, I have to agree that Duke's Divinity School doesn't have much to offer me either. My reasons for saying that are the precise opposite of yours, since I'm not a Christian and their program appears Christian-centric. So like you, I think that it's best for me to look elsewhere.

Duke does have a PhD in the Study of Religion. But I'm not sure how appropriate it would be for me, given the lineup of specializations offered and the faculty that teach them. (For example, their 'Asian Religions' specialization covers a vast amount of territory and only has three professors, none of which seem to be specialists in the areas of interest to me.)

https://graduateprograminreligion.duke.edu/

At one time I was very attracted to UC Santa Barbara's Religious Studies graduate program, but it seems to have faded in recent years and is no longer what it once was. It still might be the one of the best of a bad lot though, and I still like it better than Duke.

http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/academics/graduate/

Frankly, I can't think of very many religion graduate programs that would be a comfortable fit for me. That most emphatically includes the prestige universities, which often aren't all that impressive when you look at them in detail.

That's ok though, since at my age I'm not really looking to undertake anything as rigorous as a PhD program. In addition to a dissertation, UCSB wants multiple languages and expects students of non-Western religions to live for a year in the communities they are studying.

Perhaps the best fit for me at this stage in my life might be the University of Wales Trinity St. David's distance learning programs. (Not perfect fits by any means, but close enough to still be attractive).

http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/ma-study-of-religions/#d.en.32559

https://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/mres-religious-experience/

 

To clarify, when I use the terms "conservative" and "liberal", I'm not talking politics, Democrat/Republican--don't care about those things. Just whether a religious institution, seminary, church or person follows Jesus, considers Him a real person, Son of God, worthy of worship, the only way to the Father. Those are the things that for me define "conservative" in terms of the Christian faith. Besides, Christian leaders have been all over the board in terms of their politics over history, it's only been the last 40 years or so with the rise of Falwell that evangelicalism took such a hard turn to the right. Politics come and go, but my personal belief is it's what you think about Jesus, who he is, that lasts forever. Anyway, I'm uncomfortable with the anti-Catholic tinge to the original post; it's been my experience that Catholicism is an enormous tent and people of all theological stripes, staunchly liberal, staunchly conservative, live under it.

 

There is no way a staunch Catholic doesn't say Ave Maria, most probably daily. At a minimum, every Catholic fulfills Mass obligation, and Mass has at least one supplication to Mary and many passages honoring Her. Every Catholic "prays" to Saints, it's Magisterium. OTOH, no faithful Catholic worships Saints as Gods, so intercessory prayer does not conflict with your definition of "conservative Christian".

Of course, as an Eastern Orthodox, I also say our version of Hail Mary ("O Theotocos and Ever-Virgin, Full of Grace, Rejoice, God is with Thee...") or even more scary to Evangelical Pharisees shorthand, "O Most Holy Theotocos, Save Us". It ALWAYS means "intercede for us before Your Son our Lord and Saviour". She is Not a God, but also most definitely NOT the same as us sinners - more of a model of what we should be. The woman has 3 lines in the Gospels, and that teaches Christian praxis better than the whole Epistles put together. I'm so glad our Church (and the Catholics, for they do exactly the same on this) give Her proper honour.

"Clergy-laity distinction" as in placing one class above the other, unbiblical. Setting aside separate people to do "clergy" work, very much Biblical. Just a couple weeks ago I heard a very wise and humble priest lecturing on this specific subject

Amen to that.

 

I've been to mass before, I just didn't understand those things as specific praying to people living or dead--which I oppose. But while my wife was raised German Catholic, parents both immigrants, Catholic school with the nuns and the rules and the uniforms and all, I don't know the ins and outs of Catholic doctrine. Dr. W seems to be a follower of Jesus and seems conservative as I understand the term, as described above.

My big beef with the distinction is placing one over the other or refusing to recognize the priesthood of all believers. If some people choose to spend their time reading the Bible and helping others and putting their necks on the line if need be, like the early church workers, Paul and Peter, James and John, Mary, Martha, Phoebe, Priscilla, etc., then fine, others should support them as they're led by God. But I've seen too much abuse with the sharp distinction between clergy and laity, ran into this repeatedly in Protestant churches, not most of the mainline ones, but many of the ones that identify as evangelical. I just won't put up with it anymore, these self-proclaimed leaders of the church who set up their little fiefdoms and use them to abuse others and deny the spiritual gifts and roles that God has given those others. They essentially want the Body of Christ, the Church, to be nothing but a loud, boasting mouth and several pairs of buttocks sitting passively in seats. They want all the power for themselves. It's what drove me away from the organized church---but I swear not Jesus, and we do still meet with other believers. My little prayer group on campus, for example, consists of a former Protestant and now non-church attender (me), an old school Presbyterian, a Roman Catholic, and a guy who's a pretty typical evangelical. We're all mixed up.

 

My first thought was "religious tribalism." I googled that and it seems that a more refined term would be "denominationalism."

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the confusion here is how some Protestants confuse "to pray" (as in, archaic word for "ask", "I pray thee to pass me the salt") and "to worship" (as God), and accusing others to do this to Saints. Of course, some Orthodox and Catholics blur this distinction, but proper prayer to a Saint asks him/her to pray to God on behalf of someone. Confusing Saints and pagan Gods is literally Haitian Voodoo, not Catholicism.

Yep, this.

Funny, because it is Evangelicals who like to accuse others of denying the "priesthood of all believers". This happens everywhere; if it is less pronounced in Mainline churches, it is probably a function of having stronger denominational structure to keep pastors in line and better training standards. But it is very alive in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Eg., "Young Elderism", when a green priest claims that his Holy Orders charism gives him instant gifts of Holy Spirit and the right to control every aspect of life of his parishioners. It can be ugly; worst cases are believed to be, literally, manifestations of demonic possession. Good Bishop can mitigate this, and it's generally less common in RCC - but happens. In my little denomination, it's the opposite: certain lay leaders disrespecting the clergy and engaging in petty politics and ego trips. This is advertised as the cherished local tradition of "conciliarity" (sobornopravnist').

THAT is precisely what the more "conservative" among our numbers (like a good chunk of the Church of Russia, for example) would call "liberalism" BTW. Break of the ancient rule against "praying with the heretics". Of course, this is nothing of the sorts, and "sane" reading of this canon simply forbids open Communion. Yet there's a lunatic fringe, that goes as far as rejecting people who were not baptized by full triple immersion by a properly ordained Priest who was, in turn, baptized by triple immersion, all the way to Apostles, and who is not in communion with bishops who allow triple-pouring Baptism. Because, you see, otherwise the magic doesn't work. Madness. I believe there are certain Tradi Catholic sects who are this way too. And don't let me started on the politicized schism back home and terrible things some "canonical" priests at home do in the name of "upholding Tradition". Ugh.

 

To falseteacher:

If you are really interested in finding a distance learning program in religion that suits fundamentalist faith-commitments and aren't just trying to troll Degreeinfo, then check out Tracs' offerings:

http://www.tracs.org/TRACS_Members_all.html

Tracs is a fundamentalist Christian accreditor, recognized by the US Dept of Education, that requires schools to satisfy its doctrinal standards as a condition of accreditation. And those doctrinal standards are pretty extreme: The Bible's total inerrancy, its absolute authority in all matters it addresses, historical and scientific as well as religious, the literal existence of Adam and Eve, a literal 6-day creation etc.

As for me, I certainly wouldn't enroll in any of the Tracs schools and their kind of approach to the philosophy of religion, to historical religious tradition and to religious practice doesn't have anything to say to me religiously or academically.

But you might feel differently.

http://www.tracs.org/documents/AccreditationManual2018.pdf

 

I think you are on to something very profound! A religious diploma mill is the way to go.

 

Phdtobe I don't think religious diploma mills are a way to go. My issue is that these heavily accredited school's boasts about there there accreditation when it's a melting pot of interfaith religion. Duke and Yale find to be very liberal and are on the far left of it's teaching. I despise diploma Mill's because it doesn't challenge the students to learn.

 

Fair point.

 

I am a graduate of Liberty, so I think I have some standing on this. Liberty is far right. I don't think you can argue, that Liberty is far more pleasing to God than Duke and Yale because that would be nonsense. You should earn a degree that makes you feel very good about yourself after completion and meet your current and future objectives. Rating them of which is more pleasing to God is BS- it is no different from two opposing teams praying to God for a win. Play the hand that you have been dealt and make the best of it, demeaning others do not make your hand any better.

 

You're arguing against accreditation, based on your belief that accreditation enforces theological 'liberalism'?

So what about my counterexample of Tracs and the Tracs schools? These schools are exclusively fundamentalist Protestant. Tracs refuses to accredit schools that don't teach the Bible's total infallibility and inerrancy, its absolute authority on all matters that it addresses (including history and science as well as religion), the actual existence of Adam and Eve, a literal 6-day creation and more.

Despite my own interest in religion, I think that kind of approach is foolish and short-sighted. It certainly doesn't have much attraction or value for me.

But there it is. It does seem to be the counter-example that defeats your implicit argument against accreditation. (So does Dallas Theological Seminary, which is both regionally and ATS accredited.)

 

Thank you.

 

Yet people insist on making all kinds of moral judgments, especially in this (neo-puritan) day and age. (Where seemingly every issue turns into a moral issue and becomes an occasion for moral condemnation.) I'm not convinced that our moral intuitions are any more objective than our religious intuitions.

I have no problem with people trying to behave in such a way as they imagine is pleasing to God. (However they conceive of that, provided they stay out of my face while doing it.) That includes students trying to choose a theology program that conforms with their chosen tradition and faith commitments.

So I don't really want to criticize falseteacher for that. What I do want to criticize is the argument against university accreditation that he seems to want to construct atop it.

 

Assuming he possesses a degree from an unaccredited university, his grasp of the English language is a bright, flashing advertisement for accreditation and standards in higher ed.

 

I have attended a, recognized accredited school as well as an unaccredited school and I have learned my lesson to not go back because of transfer purposes. I learned a lot in them but it didn't do me justice for trying to land a job but I was thankful for the education that I have received. To tell you all the truth I wish I could go back and erase my former posts about accreditation because I support it. However I don't disapprove all unaccredited schools. Some are legit. I also agree with what many of you have spoken about as it relates to accreditation. I don't want to bring any embarrassment to this website. I admit my wrong and I own up to it.

 

As you may think it to be odd that I called myself false teacher, simply because of the my false impression about the rhetoric I was hearing concerning unaccredited schools. U couldn't change my name so I went with it. I stopped communicating on for awhile also. My unaccredited school degree has left me with embarrassment and now I can't attend any other school. So there you have it. This is probably the first time you may see me openly expressing myself in this forum.