Ph.D or DTh?

To continue this thought: when asked about the path I have chosen in gaining my education, I don't ever want to have to say anything quickly under my breath. For example, I am thankful that my master's degree is from the outstanding University of Wales, but that I can also speak openly, with great delight about the first-rate Spurgeon's College through which I have studied. I can tell my whole story because I'm very content and confident in the credibility of the schools with which I've chosen to affiliate. I desire to have this same experience at the doctoral level. It doesn't matter if I'd end up with a doctorate from El Centro de Estudios Universitarios de Monterrey; if I had to go around hoping that no one would ask whether I had gained this degree by way of MIGS, then I would place myself in an unfortunate situation. I want to be able to tell my whole story with joy and openness, and not feel as though I have to conceal or downplay anything questionable or controversial. Now, I have great confidence that GST is a great school, and a great fit for me. I simply, as I've said, want to get as total a picture of what it means to belong to the GST family and to bear its name as possible. Of course, people will have negative things to say about any institution one might attend. I know certain conservative administrators who would never hire someone with a Harvard or Duke credential because they view those schools as too liberal. Does this mean that one should not attend Duke? Of course not. Similarly, anything that might be said against GST might not necessarily be enough to discourage me from enrolling with them. Yet, I feel that I benefit from knowing what is being said up-front. Then, later, I needn't be phased by anything said against the school, for I will have factored both positive and negative into my choice to attend that school in the first place.

So, I need the kind of input I can't gain through referring to published guides like Bear's, institutional websites, through dialogue with school representatives, or even through others like me who largely detached from the academic culture in which a given institution functions.

Yet, ultimately, my point applies not only to GST, or even primarily to GST, but to most any institution overseas that you and I might consider. We know about these schools because they've made their presence known or because we've learned about them through dialogue here. But what could someone with more direct knowledge add to our discussion?

 

Russell, I believe wholeheartedly that you have found the credible school you went looking for. I agree fully that, among all the options available to us in theological research by distance, GST ranks near the top, and is an outstanding choice!

In coming to essentially the same conclusion that you have, I've utilized all the same channels that you have. (although, I've not spoken to anyone in Texas)

Perhaps I should not have zeroed in on GST; I have done so because they really are receiving the larger portion of my attention. I really only use them by way of example. My point is that perhaps we need to add one additional test to our criteria for assessing a foreign school--how is that school viewed and received in its own country? Much obsessing takes place on this forum regarding whether a given degree (or the institutions we're attending) will be viewed as helpful within the American academic community. Perhaps how that degree (or the institution we're attending) is viewed in its country of origin should provide us some indication of this.

 

There is indeed much to be said concerning this criterion, and I agree that this should be one of the issues a potential student in a non-US program should examine. I most definitely did this with PU, and also with GST, although with the latter I had less feedback since GST is only several decades old, while PU is over a century old.

Your point is well taken, CL, and I agree that you should seek feedback from the proper channels. Not only with GST, but with any non-US program. There is truly wisdom in a multitude of counselors.

Russell

 

I was just looking at the UNISA theology and religion webpages. And yeah, apparently you can do a Th.D. in religious studies. I saw that one person did a very interesting Th.D. in comparative shamanism.

But I found it a little peculiar that the Religious Studies department is listed under the Faculty of Arts, not the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies.
http://www.unisa.ac.za/about/departments.html

What's more, the Religious Studies department seems to emphasize the D. Litt. et Phil., although they do state that one can "still" earn a Th.D. if one elects to do so.

So I kind of get the impression that this department is in the process of budding off of the more Christo-centric theology faculty. The Semitics Department is also listed under the Arts Faculty. It apparently has Islamic and Judaic Studies majors. (As well as a stray Mandarin Chinese major that seems to be lost.)

But I guess the point I'm trying to make in this thread is that the degree title (Th.D., Ph.D. or even the odd D. Litt. et Phil.) is less important than what your major and dissertation topic are. And similarly, the question of whether you are applying for a teaching post at a state or sectarian university is less important than the nature of the courses that you are being hired to teach.

I don't think that just doing a Christian theology degree with a Ph.D. rather than a Th.D. is going to make you any more employable if the opening calls for a specialist in Buddhist Abidharma. Just as a Th.D. with a dissertation in comparative shamanism might not cut it at Dallas Theological Seminary.

It's what's inside the wrapper that counts.

 

I wonder, for instance, if a master's in Anabaptist/Baptist Studies followed by a doctorate in the same vein would adequately prepare one for teaching in a setting where Christian religion/theology courses are offered but where such courses cover a much broader range of Christian history and doctrine than the area of the candidate's specialization--in this case, Anabaptist/Baptist Studies.

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

 

Yes, I agree very much with what you are saying.

I also believe that your perception of what is taking place with the Religious Studies program at UNISA is quite accurate. Something similar has taken place with the Rel. Studies department at Univ. of Natal in South Africa. There seems to be a pervasive attitude that the "phenomenological" approach to religious studies employed commonly in South Africa should be set apart from the more confessional and "revelation"-based stuff that goes on in the theological faculties.

 

To be honest with you, Russell, the folks I know in the British academic community don't seem to know much about GST. That doesn't bother me though. Their lack of familiarity with GST could be attributed to a number of things. For one, they may simply move in different theological circles. Also, because of the particular nature of what GST does, it is quite possible that many traditional, residential colleges simply have not been made aware of GST's work. Perhaps most significantly, until only recently GST was both unaccreditted and unattached to a recognized university. Yet, I am of the conviction that, with its relationship to PUCHE in place, GST is likely to gain increasing visibility within the British academic community, and within the global academic community. This seems inevitable.

It is my opinion that other institutions seeking to do distance learning well should become acquainted with GST. There is much to be learned from the example of excellence they set.

I am with you 100% in asserting that, among South African theological faculties, PUCHE ranks right near the top. This is evidenced when I look through the faculty lists of all the other South African theology departments. PUCHE degree holders are in positions of influence throughout the South African theological community. This suggests to me that PUCHE is greatly respected by peer institutions in its own country. It is to South Africa what a Fuller or a Princeton are to the US. To me, this doesn't seem to be an unfair comparison.
Of course, Fuller and Princeton also have distinguished themselves as "global" centers of excellence in theology.

I am very curious, though, about SA Theological Seminary and how it is viewed within the South African theological community. Clearly, the UZULU theological faculty has some very respectable individuals in its ranks. Their New Testament guy, for instance, currently is president of one of the South African academic societies, like the Biblical Society or Academy of Religion, or something like that. But, what about SA Theological Seminary itself?

 

This is a very valid question, and an important one for you to be mulling over as you contemplate how your future is to take shape. You are probably right in suggesting that a focus upon Baptist and Anabaptist studies will limit you somewhat. Yet, to a certain extent, this will be true with any degree, as you will, at some point, be required to narrow the focus of your studies somewhat. Also, once you have gained the appropriate qualifications, there's no reason why you can't teach outside of the realm of your specialization. The possession of a master's degree in Radical Reformation Studies (i.e., Baptist and Anabaptist) does necessarily disqualify one from teaching courses in Reformation studies or early church history. It simply means you'll have to do your homework.

Now, if you are aiming to gain a position in the small liberal arts college setting, a broader range of preparation would be good, because these colleges generally staff only a few professors who will be expected to teach in a wide range of subjects. However, on a larger undergraduate faculty, or in a Baptist seminary or graduate school setting, your expertise in Baptist history and doctrine will fit right in. Those sorts of institutions generally are looking for specialists.

 

We likely will see PUCHE gaining increasing visibility and respect within the global academic community, as well. The alienation and isolation of South Africa brought about by the apartheid system certainly did not serve the best interests of any South African institution's visibility or acceptance within the global community. Some time will be required to overcome the loss and limitations brought about during the apartheid years. However, in due time, there's no reason why the academic institutions of the "new" South Africa can't move toward the forefront of the theological community. In fact, I am of the opinion that with the "big" questions about church, society, and transformation being asked in South Africa, its theological communit is already being catapulted toward the forefront of the global theological community. PUCHE's relationship with former South African President (and now University Chancellor) De Klerk can only serve to enhance PUCHE's role as a significant institution in a significant culture at a significant moment in history.

 

F. W. de Klerk is also a graduate of PUCHE, and he mentions his days at PUCHE in his autobiography. My PUCHE promoter (tutor) is Dr. Ben de Klerk, who is a third cousin to F.W. de Klerk. So, yes, I think that his connection with the school will add further visibility to an already solid academic institution.

Russell

 

Very neat. Thanks for sharing that with me.

 

CL,

Being a Baptist, would you be concerned about the strong Dutch Reformed ties that Potchefstroom has?

 

There is a movement within the Baptist church to a re-discovery of Reformed Theology. I believe the head of the Southern Baptist Seminary in KY (??) is a Calvinist. There are some Baptists who see this as reclaiming their Baptist heritage and others that look at it with dismay. The whole argument and the scriptural supports are rather interesting.

I am in the process of reading a book called *Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election* by Robert B. Selph. It was written in 1988 and examines the historical routes of this theology within the Baptist paradigm.

North

 

As someone who was absolutely sure he'd go with Potch for about four months, but abandoned the idea partly because of Potch's reputation as a staunch Reformed institution, maybe I can help:

Potchefstroom definitely has Dutch Reformed ties. It publishes the academic journal of Reformed theology in South Africa, its on-campus faculty seems to come entirely from a Dutch Reformed background, and its telematic B.A. looks very Reformed in its orientation and priorities. It was praised highly by Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til, who received an honorary Th.D. from same. And so forth.


However: Potchefstroom does not discriminate against members of other denominations or faiths, or, indeed, against members with no faith at all. And at GST, two-thirds of your faculty -- your promoter and first reader -- will in all probability be an Anglican, or at least this was the impression I came away with. The person who would most probably have acted as my first reader is a full professor at the University of London, King's College, and spent a year as a visiting lecturer at Harvard Divinity School. I was given the opportunity to appoint an external promoter of a Conservative Jewish background, with faculty approval.

So while the degree is Reformed (however much a degree can belong to a given faith), and a case could be made that Potchefstroom in fact has the number one Reformed theology department in South Africa, the study itself can be Reformed or not, as you choose.


Peace,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

Michael,

My own theological position is Wesleyan-Arminian, and I have no concern about PU's Dutch Reformed history. This is who they are and I respect them for their position. I have also received nothing less than a mutual respect from them.

Actually, the research proposal which I submitted to PU/GST stated that I would be researching and writing within this perspective. Both my GST and PU promoter approved my proposal, calling it an interesting and valuable research topic.

I earned my D.Min. from a Presbyterian seminary (US, RA & ATS), at which the D.Min. director was strongly Calvinistic. Never once did I feel that I was being coerced to change my theological position, it was rather a collegial atmosphere and relationship.

Russell

 

North, Tom, and Russell,

Thanks for your perspectives and information.

North: The president of Southern Seminary, Al Mohler, is indeed a Calvinist. There were and are two distinct groups of Baptists, the Particular or Calvinist Baptists, and the General or Arminian Baptists. Actually, the Arminian Baptists were the first English Baptists; they preceded the Calvinist Baptists by thirty years.

Tom: Considering what you wrote about Potch's not discriminating against others with differing positions, did you still feel uncomfortable with Potch's strong Reformed position to the degree that you didn't want to study with them?

Russell: Could I ask, what denomination are you affiliated with?

 

Not at all; I was very comfortable with what I perceived as the likely process of doctoral research with GST/PUCHE. My only concern related to its Reformed history dealt mainly with how the degree would be perceived, since I'm only a few miles from Reformed Theological Seminary.

My reasons for not choosing GST/Potch were extremely complex and, to a great extent, aesthetic. I wasn't sure I wanted a doctorate in theology given my likely strong interfaith ties; my study approach could be better described as Australian than British or South African; the name of the university is somewhat hard to spell, which would matter little if I were a teacher or pastor but matters a great deal if I plan on using it as a writing credential;
I wanted a longer dissertation than the South African norm would allow; etc. I would have no concerns about considering GST/PUCHE for a second doctorate (a Th.D., perhaps) once I've finished my Ph.D., but for my first doctorate, I just felt that I would be better served by another school. But I would certainly recommend GST/Potch as a credible alternative, without reservation.


Peace,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

Tom,

Very interesting.

Could you explain what you mean by an Australian study approach as opposed to a British or South African study approach?

 

Michael,

Good question. Though I don't think I would refer to myself as a "Reformed Baptist," I am very comfortable in reformed circles. For the reasons already cited by Russell and Tom, I'm quite confident that affiliation with Potchefstroom will not require me to fit into a certain theological mould. If you review the list of theological colleges affiliated with Potchefstroom, this will be evident. Certainly, a degree bearing the name of "Potchefstroom" doesn't necessary imply adherence to Reformed theology.

I'm mainly interested in the fact that, with a Potchefstroom PhD, I will possess a highly credible degree. The possibility that others might make assumptions about my doctrinal convictions based upon the institution from which I've graduated matters no more to me in this situation than it would if I decided to attend Drew, Emory, Southern Methodist, or Denver.

 

Good point! One's alma mater will indeed suggest that one has a certain worldview, e.g., if one graduated from Liberty University there are those who would think one was a fundamentalist Baptist. Yet, there are many LU graduates who do not espouse this theological position.

Personally, I am pleased with the alma mater of my D.Min., which is Presbyterian. However, I am not, so for me this is not really an issue. As long as the school is rooted in orthodox Christianity, there is room for individual diversity.

Russell