SATS or University of Wales, Lampeter

===



It is confusing because the word "Theology" is used in two ways by schools which should avoid such confusion. (1) the study of God and His relations to the universe, (2) any thing connected as , eg, pastoral ministry.

To show that I am not just picking on SATS, I now am looking at an old Dallas TS catalogue. It divides its curriculum into divisions or departments. If one looks at the dept of Pastoral Ministries, one will NOT find any Theological courses there! If one looks at the dept of NT Studies one sees no systematic or historical theology there! If one looks at the dept of "Theological Studies," one will not find courses in NT or OT or in praxis as missiology either !

YET, the doc, then a ThD, is awarded in EVERY division of study!! So, then one may have a ThD in New Testament or in Pastoral Ministry OR WHATEVER.

What I am exemplifying is that the word "Theology" is used in two ways by theological schools! In the first, it often refers to a particular area of study. But in the second, the degree nomenclature covers all areas of the curriculum of the school . I think that should not be.

So, as another example, remember friend Jimmy who was kind enough to banter with me about Theology here? He got his Bethany masters of Theology in Counseling!He was not then an expert in the subject of Theology despite his degree being master of THEOLOGY!.

Now, my own alma mater, Zululand, does the same. Last May 9th the Uni had 2600 grads. It awarded several D.Ths (which the graduation booklet mistated to be PhDs). My dissertation was the only one done in the area of definition (1) above. Other dissertations concerned, eg, how to handle poverty or how SA Theo schools teach spiritual formation!

But all three of us got the very same Doctor of THEOLOGY degree!

I really should confine my thoughts to my own little world-like how present active infinitives are formed in NT Greek. I have plenty to do in it. But after getting the ThD, you see, I begin to wonder what precisely that means and now being an educator too, I begin to wonder also about the meanings of degree nomenclature.

So here's my initial thought: Why not be more specific in the degree nomenclature and thus express more precisely what the degree is actually in?

EG, instead just MTh , say MPTh, meaning master of practical Theology or MSTh , meaning master of Systematic Theology or MthNT meaning master of Theology in NT? Or simply say MA which covers all!

A counter might be, " Yes,but who would know what the nomenclature means"? Yet you would be surprised how few even know what a ThD is! Why not confuse them even more?

That way, you see, someone chatting with John Smith, ThD, will not embarass Dr. John by asking him to differentiate between Aquinas and Rahner on the meaning of "Person" when applied to God.

Dr. John answers, "But for my degree I only studied the Christian education of adolescents in private schools, not Theology."

To which his respondent rightly asks, "But Dr. John, then, how is it you are a Doctor of THEOLOGY if you have not studied it"?


see?

Bill

 

.........and the Unk IS mad!

 

It isn't without precedent.

That way, you see, someone chatting with John Smith, PhD, will not embarass Dr. John by asking him to differentiate between the views of Kant and Hume on ethics.

Dr. John answers, "But for my degree I only studied the effect of Gallium-Arsenide on the intensity of lasers, not Philosophy."

To which his respondent rightly asks, "But Dr. John, then, how is it you are a Doctor of PHILOSOPHY if you have not studied it"?

 

===


That's true.

I have hopes, but no conviction, that it will not happen, that the Doctor of Theology or Master of Theology degree will reach the state of generality that the PhD has.

I would suppose that when universities or seminaries opted to call their doctorate ThD or MTh instead of PhD or MPhil that these institutions thought that they were qualifying and narrowing the meaning not generalizing it.

This narrowing has occured already in other disciplines . We do not think that a PsyD. or an EdD. is qualified by that degree to expound on lasers.

We WOULD expect the PsyD. to know Psychology, and we would expect the EdD. to know Education.

It follows, IMO, that the ideal situation would be that a holder of the ThD should know Theology.

 

Interestingly on page 41 of the ATS standards for accreditation, ThD and PhD are listed as if they were the same exact degree.

http://www.ats.edu/accrediting/standards/DegreeStandards.pdf

 

The Harvard Divinity School has a comparison chart contrasting the Th.D. (awarded by HDS) and the Ph.D. (awarded by the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences).

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/afa/thd_phd_comparison.html

Harvard also has posted recent dissertation titles in religion.

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~csrel/doctoral/theses.html

Judging from these (scroll down for the Th.D. dissertations), there's less subject-matter difference between the Th.D. and the Ph.D. dissertation topics than the comparison chart might lead one to expect.

 

===


I think the PhD/ThD are to many the same degree. EG, Dallas TS formerly offered the ThD, now only the PhD. Same work, new nomenclature.

I am not saying that they are different in purpose or even in programs.

What I AM saying is exemplified in the very site you provide:

ATS lists the purpose of the ThD/PhD to be research in and teaching of Theology.

THEOLOGY, not sacred music for which ATS rather lists the DMA,DSM,or DCM, nor Missiology for which the ATS rather lists the DMiss, nor leadership in Rel Ed for which the ATS rather lists the EdD, nor ministry for which the ATS rather lists the DMin, or , more specifically, for educational ministry, the D.Ed.Min.

These are specific. I like that!

We know what they are about because we can trust the nomenclature to indicate their nature. We do not think that an EdD is the same as a DMin! We do not think the D.Miss is the same as the D.ED.Min. !

In this spirit of these examples, all I am saying is that my ideal would be that if one has a ThD , then while he would not be expected to be expert in Music or Ministry, he should know Theology.

 

===

Yes, Harvard does as Unizul in that dissertations for ThDs oft are in areas of Ethics or social issues as gender studies or WHATEVER.

I used Unizul as an example of that very thing above.

Again, my point is made by the Harvard site itself. Look at the "specializations." Note that one in the ThD may at Harvard specialize in a number of areas and one of these is "THEOLOGY by which Harvard means (only) " Systematic or Historical Theology!" Theology in that sense is not ethics or social concerns or ministry or education or sacred music or counseling. Theology in that sense IS Theology!

So, in the interesting Harvard site we have Harvard using the term Theology in two ways: The Doctor of THEOLOGY degree can be awarded in just about WHATEVER.

BUT Harvard realizes that "THEOLOGY" most precisely is the Systematic or Historical study of doctrines.

All that I am vainly wishing is either redefine THEOLOGY to mean the study of WHATEVER, or rename the degree from Doctor of THEOLOGY to Doctor of WHATEVER.

If it's not in Theology, then why call it "Doctor of Theology"?

If a DMin or an EdD means in ministry or education, then why cannot a ThD mean in Theology?

 

It does indeed seem that DMin and EdD programs of study have stayed a little truer to their descriptions. Occasionally I have seen the DMin veer off from Practical Theology to Church History or New Testament or Old Testament studies. I see less EdD Counseling Psychology programs than I used to. A friend of mine has an EdD in Christian education, but I think the people he counsels at the Baptist Hospital think he has an EdD in Counseling Psych. In reality, his counseling training is from an MA in Counseling that he acquired after his EdD. If more people listened to you, Bill, there would be less confusion.

 

Just a few observations:

Perhaps it isn't even necessary for me to mention here that the historic tendency within South African culture (the system with which this thread has been chiefly concerned) to use degree titles like "master of theology" and "doctor of theology" in a comprehensive manner hasn't been so much a reflection of attitudes toward the nature of the various theological disciplines as much as a reflection of the specific faculty in which these degrees are offered. Throughout the South African system, the MTh and DTh, when offered, are offered through a university's "faculty of theology." If we look at UNISA as an example, we will note that this parallels the D.Ed. from the Faculty of Education, etc. SATS, being the first private theological institution to be granted its own independent degree-granting authority, it truly a unique case in that it is offering degrees completely without reference to this university faculty structure.

That being said, within the South African system, the divide between theological disciplines isn't as neat as has been suggested here. The various areas of Christian ministerial "praxis", as it has been described, are not viewed as theoretically independent disciplines as they are commonly here in the States. Furthermore, here in the States, we evangelicals tend to deal the "practical" disciplines from a largely pragmatic perspective, making a point to sanctify them with a sprinkling of proof texts for good measure.

In the South African system, practical theology is a theoretically cohesive discipline in which folks working in a number of areas of focus (Christian education, pastoral counseling, preaching, evangelism) are interacting within a shared theoretical framework. Gerben Heitink's definition is widely employed today: Practical theology is "the empirically oriented theological theory of the mediation of the Christian faith in the praxis of modern society." You'll note that practical theology is an expressly "theological" discipline. In other words, in our reflection upon Christian praxis, our work has not been fully accomplished until we engage in in-depth theological reflection. Thus, practical theology is very much a theological discipline. I agree with Bill that one should not be able to become a DTh in any discipline without knowing theology, but also know that practical theologians like myself are interacting with the theological corpus on a different front.

Furthermore, there is a growing awareness in South African society that ALL theology has its origins in praxis: the praxis of God's redemptive and revelatory work in history, Christ, and the Church. Moreover, some of my South African friends are advocating the reality that ALL theology is inherently missiological in nature: the existence and nature of scripture is missiological in orientation; the Bible arises out of God's mission, is devoted to the story of this mission, and was penned within missiological contexts. Theological hermeneutics can only be done in a missiological context, as well; as we live out our identity as "strangers and aliens here", "citizens of heaven," we are challenged to understand and articulate our theology in a way that faithfully and effectively connects with gospel, tradition, and context. Thus, rather than there arising some sort of growing distinction between the theological disciplines, these disciplines actually seem to be growing into a greater harmony within some sectors of the South African system. I think that this is a very healthy and positive thing. I desire and pray for a similar result within North America.

As you might gather, then, I do not see the availability of a multiplicity of degree titles as a positive thing, but rather as deeply unnecessary.

In actuality, it seems to me that this thread should be more hung up over the reality that many institutions offer the PhD in theology than the ThD in practical theology. Indeed, it is precisely Barth's critique of modern theology that we cannot establish our theology on philosophical grounds. Our knowledge of God is wholly the result of His gracious choice to reveal Himself to us. Thus, should not the implication that theology can somehow be subsumed under the broader heading of "philosophy" compromise the integrity of our enterprise? To paraphrase one of the early church fathers, "What does Ph. have to do with Th.?"

 

I like what you said. I think theology is indeed an important part of all doctoral study in the fields of ministry. I wonder though if the so-called non-theology U.S. doctoral programs really do relegate the theological component to mere proof texting? My DMin project/dissertation requires a theological rationale chapter, as, I believe does many other DMin program projects.

 

Bill,

I offer a hearty "amen" to the notion that practical theology should entail rigorous theological work. I can say from my own experience that both Spurgeon's and Pretoria expect a high standard of theological scholarship from their students.

That being said, it also is the case that both of these institutions assume that their students bring a certain level of preparation with them.

In this regard, I do share your concerns about some of what has been articulated here about the MTh admission standards at SATS. It seems inconceivable to me that one could be admitted into MTh research without a prior background in formal theological education. Within the South African system, it seems to me that this sort of thing is highly exceptional. I share your feelings that it would be difficult for students to engage in theological scholarship at the appropriate level without any prior training.

I agree that "interact" is a highly subjective concept. Indeed, the South African practical theological community encourages a healthy awareness of the inherently subjective nature of all theological scholarship (cf. Polanyi, Gadamer, etc.). Thus, the notion of "intersubjectivity" is highly valued. The "academy" provides the arena within which this intersubjectivity is exercised in a way meant to ensure that an appropriate standard of "interaction" has been met by the researching scholar.

Blessings!

 

Bill,

Amen and amen.