Best theology programs?
August 30, 2006, 10:33 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
First Things blogger R. R. Reno, associate professor of theology at Creighton University (PhD Yale), has compiled his own rankings of the best theology programs in the country. His list in part:
5. The Catholic University of America, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Trinity Evangelical Seminary
4 & 3. Princeton (Department of Religion) and Boston College
2. Notre Dame
1. Duke
Check out the whole post for his candid, if not always accurate, descriptions of several other programs, including Harvard Divinity School, Yale Divinity School, and the University of Chicago Divinity School (where I spent some time).
He forgot “dotCommonweal U.,” the cyberspace educational institution. No degrees are offered, but if it’s knowledge of “religion, politics, and culture” you’re after, enroll now.
Although Reno’s top five are certainly top theology schools, one would not necessarily glean that from his remarks. Sounds more like a praise of my friends ode.
Further, though one cannot imo characterize those schools as orthodox, Reno seems to highlight the orthodox in those schools to show why he thinks they are superior.
And what does he mean when he says:
“Second, the historians of ancient Christianity, which includes New Testament studies, are pretty antagonistic to the idea that what the Church has taught over the centuries is, in some important and legitimate way, to be found in the Scriptures”
I guess he doesn’t like Peter Brown.
I understand it is a blog but a professor should do better than this. Few editors would let a piece like this see the light of day.
I don’t see what use rankings serve in this capacity. But there’s little doubt about the basic accuracy of Reno’s wider observation. It is absolutely undeniable that the most thriving programs feature the most orthodox faculty. Additionally, the students who are the brightest, most eager and driven students are now the most orthodox students, and they are flocking to these universities. In doing so they are leaving oldine places like Vanderbilt, Union, Chicago and Yale in the dust. (Many of these places are also having major financial problems.)
We can interepret this trend any number of ways. And of course trends change quickly. But it is a fact.
“There’s little doubt….It is absolutely undeniable….It is a fact.”
I have doubt about this self-serving, self-satisfying claim. I deny that the “brightest, most eager and driven” young scholars are also ‘the most orthodox.” Is it a “fact”? Show your math. We all have our anecdotes, and mine–informed by time spent at a Catholic and a secular institution–don’t square with yours.
I really could have been clearer.
It’s not really a case of orthodox students out-classing non-orthodox students, which would be a silly assertion. It’s that the only people really interested in classical questions anymore are vibrantly, happily, and eagerly orthodox. There are downsides to this. These students often seem eerily alike to me and are often too quick to fasten onto the latest encylical.
Bill,
Are you thinking of Raymond Brown? Peter Brown has written on the late antiquity period but I suspect it is Raymond Brown that Reno has in mind. His book Priest and Bishop was widely circulated among the clergy of the archdiocese at the expense, as I understand it, of the late Cardinal Cook. The reaction was not wholly favorable, and in the early 80s Msgr. George Kelly published a book attacking Brown.
Recently I heard a homily in which the faithful were told that betwen the first Easter and the Ascension 40 days later, Christ laid down a detailed blueprint for the church to guide the Apostles. The problem is that Acts is is hard to understand if you make that assumption.
Joseph–
If a detailed blueprint was created, then why didn’t Christ resolve the circumcision issue up front (pun intended)? It almost brought the original Apostles and Paul to blows. Paul was no doubt one of the supersalesmen of all time, but without the decision that Gentiles need not be circumcised, Paul would very likely have been less successful in bringing Gentiles to Christ, and it would be a much different Church that we have today.
I’m perfectly content with a no blueprint strategy by the Risen Christ. The Apostles had seen His actions (it’s difficult to think of a more memorable and divine experience than to witness the presence of someone who has risen from the dead) and heard His words, including the promise of the Holy Spirit as the ultimate guide and protector for their efforts in the world on Christ’s behalf. Besides, a detailed blueprint laid out by Christ would seem to minimize the value of the two greatest gifts God had given humans–reason and free will. As we all know, children learn best when they make their own mistakes, and either figure out their error or receive constructive guidance by a parent or teacher. We’re still children two millenia later, hopefully much wiser, though I have my doubts when I see war, poverty, racism, and destruction of the environment, to name just a few of the mistakes we haven’t learned from.
And you mentioned Peter Brown, who, IMO, is the author of the best bio of St. Augustine to be found.
I have to say, I’m not quite sure the point of a list like Rusty’s. Who is the list for? What’s the list for? What are the likely consequences of making such a list?
I think decisions to go to grad school are very personal, and decisions where to go are very mucch focused on the individual.
Personally, I found my own decision to go to graduate school, and which graduate school to go to, to be dependent upon a number of factors.
An overarching concern is practical –it’s hard to get a job in the humanities — which grad schools had the best likelihood of getting one a job –at the type of place one wants to teach? As it turns out, differing schools have different hiring hilosophies. If you want to teach at Steubenville in Theology, I wouldn’t get a degree from Harvard Divinity School. If you want to teach in a secular religious studies department, your chances might be better coming from Princeton. Notre Dame has people on its faculty from a number of different schools, including Princeton and Harvard — and Notre Dame..
So, bottom line, from a practical perspective: if you want Rusty Reno to hire you, you know where to go and where not to go.
I went to Duke. I took classes in the said department on a graduate level and I did find it to be a wonderful place, but I am in no way a professional in this field. After reading the article, and the post below, why do I get the feeling that the subtext here is that students should avoid any place where their theological proclivities will be unduly challenged?
As I am applying to graduate schools, I am very appreciative of Cathy’s practical concerns. I wonder, If the tide really is moving away from the old bastions of religious scholarship, will hiring practices shift as well?
Also, as Prof. Reno’s post and some of the comments suggest, many people are heralding a return to or triumph of orthodoxy in American graduate programs. I would like to ask if this is really a new development. It seems that many of the most prominent academic theologians of the last fifty years — i think of Jaroslav Pelikan, George Lindbeck, Bernard McGinn, Martin Marty, Paul Ricoeur, etc…– were all daring and original, but squarely orthodox. Was there ever a time when those with, as Reno says, ”a liberal revisionist agenda” ruled the academy? It seems to me that we are not seeing a shift towards orthodoxy but a shift in the schools where original orthodox theologians are working (in the case of Yale, Louis Dupre and Lindbeck have retired, Cyril O’Regan is now at Notre Dame).
What really bothers me about this thread is the way some folks appropriate the term”orthodox” for their point of view.
When NPLC began its common ground initiative 10 years ago, one of its key points of dialogue was that no one group in the church has possession of the whole truth.
Interestingly, the statement accompanying their new vision statement (after 10 years of learnings) seeks a Church of the “vibrant center.”
If the point of theological studies is continued diviseness, I’m not sure how I’d rank schols.