|
dannwigner
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Dann
Country: United States
State: Texas
Metro: Lubbock
Gender: Male
Interests: Theology. Leann. Libraries. Tolkien. Comic Books. Exercise.
Expertise: Theology and English.
Occupation: Education/training
Industry: Nonprofit
Message: message me
Member Since:
1/6/2005
|
|
| From time to time (not very often), I've been asked why I am studying at a university for theology rather than a seminary. I was thinking about the merits and detriments of the two paths again recently, and I thought I might post my observations about them -- because I think that some people who might read my blog could be interested (hope springs eternal). So, in my decade or so of theological study, here is what I have noticed. Please note that these are general observations -- particular programs might be different. General differences in attitude -- A university by its nature will represent many perspectives in a theology or religious studies program, and all of these perspectives will be considered from an academic perspective. Quite often your own view is not the majority, and you have to allow for that (your religion may not even be in the majority). This pluralism can be viewed positively or negatively. Positively, you have to learn how to survive in an environment where your view is not assumed to be "right." This situation helps a person learn the ins and outs of his/her faith. You also gain better perspective of other's views. Often when one just learns about a position without knowing someone who holds it, it is easy to get a parody of the view or person. Negatively, there is a greater likelihood that one can be "swayed" to other positions or lose a sense of your own faith. However, this possibility depends on the strength of your faith, not the "malicious" nature of the university environment. A seminary makes no excuses about providing only one viewpoint (of that denomination or only that seminary, if it non-denominational). As you might expect, the positives and negatives are somewhat reversed in this case. Seminaries are focused on training one for ministry, not academic study. So, it really depends on what you want to do with your degree. On the Master's level -- The main seminary degree is the Master's of Divinity (M.Div), and this degree is usually considered the major professional degree for ministers. It trains one for ministry in most venues. On the university side, there are a plethora of degrees with either the Master's of Arts (M.A.) or Master's of Theology (Th.M) being the most common. The M.Div concentrates on practicalities of ministry, and the university degrees focus on research. The M.Div does have the advantage for many people in that this degree is usually seen as sufficient for any type of ministry. If you are going the university route, then you will probably have to get other degrees. The M.Div is longer, because it is based on the notion that one has never had any religious training. The university degrees are shorter, but they generally require some amount of leveling classes before you begin. They also tend to require a thesis as part of the degree. On the doctoral level -- The long and the short of it is -- if you want to teach (and be able to teach anywhere) get your Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) from a university. Seminary Ph.Ds will allow you to teach in most denominational schools and in some other venues, but the university Ph.D is more versatile. Seminary Ph.Ds are more practical in nature; university Ph.Ds are based on research. Seminaries also often offer a Doctor of Ministry degree (D.Min). This degree offers a level of prestige for many ministers, but it is not considered a terminal degree for most religious studies programs. If you want to teach, don't get a D.Min. Also, you shouldn't get a Doctor of Education (Ed.D) degree, if you want to teach. Some universities view this degree as terminal, and some don't. It generally has the stigma of being less academically rigorous than the Ph.D (although that really depends on the program). So, what do you think? I know that several readers (or at least subscribers) have spent a long time studying too. Is there anything to add? Do you disagree with any of these generalities? What do you think? | | |
| I've been thinking...which often leads to dangerous results : ) Seriously, I've been thinking that I often put up posts that deal with theology and other matters which deal with the area in which I teach and research, but I rarely say much about libraries. This fact just struck me as strange. After all, I'm a librarian too. All too often people are unaware of the librarian's role. As I like to clarify, a librarian is a professional researcher, so we have to know all the ins and outs of finding the best, most authoritative information. Several of you that I know are also involved with research or are in school of some sort, so I thought that some odd research tips here and there might be interesting. This will be my first post of this type. If they're not interesting, let me know in the comments. I say all of that to say...Beware of the Vanity Press! "Vanity Press" is a somewhat derogatory term for a whole industry of publishers who will publish anything you write...for the right price. These publishers have multiplied with the rise of the Internet, and they usually go by the name of "Print on Demand" publishers now. A book which is published by a vanity press is generally not suitable for any type of scholarly research, because there is no way to check if the information is true or something which the author made up. So, how can you tell if a book is published by a vanity press? 1. Look for who published the book -- if you don't recognize the publisher, then it might be a vanity publisher. There is a plethora of vanity publishers, but probably the most well-known are Xlibris, Author House, and Book Surge. 2. Try to find the publisher's website (they all have websites these days). The website should have an "about us" feature which tells the history of the company. If you see the words "print on demand" or "self-publishing," then you've found a vanity publisher. Be careful about very recently started publishing companies as well. Also, many times the author of the book just happens to be the founder of the publishing company -- an obvious sign that the book is vanity published! 3. Sometimes, it helps to look at the book and see what it says about the author. For scholarly research, the author will almost always talk about his/her academic credentials and current/past teaching positions. If these items are left out, it is rarely a scholarly work. 4. Ask a librarian. Seriously, we librarians spend all of our working hours dealing with different publishers and the works which they put out. We can tell if something is vanity published, then steer you in a better direction. --- brought to you by your friendly neighborhood librarian | | |
| What do you think of the role of the public intellectual? For a good summation of a public intellectual, see http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/lightman.html Personally, the concept of the public intellectual intrigues me in the same way as the concept of the Renaissance man/polymath. Such a person is a "hero," but the setting of one's heroism moves away from the battlefield and into the realm of real power: ideas. This is also a controversial issue, particularly in light of Lightman's three levels. When one reaches the third level of being a public intellectual, he or she is often speaking on weighty matters that are outside of his/her field of expertise -- sometimes very far outside. For instance, Richard Dawkins is becoming (or perhaps has become) a public intellectual. His last few books (any since "The God Delusion") have been aimed at a popular audience, not a scholarly one. From a theological standpoint, which is the area he touches upon that is outside of his field, his ideas are ludicrous and outdated. There are times that he argues against religious "perspectives" that have not been held by theologians in the way he thinks for nearly a thousand years. He might think that he is very smart for poking holes in Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God, but he has no idea that theologians have been doing that for centuries (and coming up with better "proofs" as a result). So, it seems to me that being a public intellectual comes with a responsibility (and, hopefully, a humility) to realize one's limits. If you had the ear of the public (i.e., whatever you said they thought was "smart"), could you resist the temptation to allow your prejudices to have free rein -- especially in areas of which you know little? | | |
|  | | |
|
