dannwigner's Xanga

Seminary vs. University

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:40:41 GMT

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?

April 23, 1985 -- a day that will live in infamy

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:24:02 GMT

If you want to know why, read this: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913612_1913610,00.html

Beware of the Vanity Press

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:24:54 GMT

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

The Role of the Public Intellectual

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:47:22 GMT

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?

'Nuff said

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:17:59 GMT

Idealism (and a little bit of a mystical application)

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:51:17 GMT

I haven't posted in a while, so I thought that I would put something up. Don't expect anything else for a while, because I'm teaching three classes this semester -- which is in addition to my other part-time job, my full-time job, and the fact that I'm working on my dissertation (I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment).

My irascible friend and I were talking the other day about the various uses/definitions of idealism. As we spoke, I realized that we were operating from very different frameworks -- not only different definitions. He seemed to assume that idealism was unquestionably negative. It was only a viewpoint that kept you from seeing the world as it really is. For my part, I view idealism as a viewpoint (or more specifically a framework for a viewpoint) which can be negative or positive depending on how it informs your daily actions. As such, idealism is something which my friend didn't (and seemingly couldn't and wouldn't) apply to his everyday life (although I actually argued that he was being idealistic -- just in a negative way).

The more I thought about idealism the more it occurred to me that my view of it has led me to some basic assumptions as well. For instance, my area of study and expertise is Christian mysticism. The underlying basis of Christian mysticism is that the God of the universe communicates with the normal, average person. That is a pretty idealistic notion! To say nothing about the notion that God himself came down and walked among us!

When it comes down to it, I believe that by keeping an ideal in mind which sometimes may (not "is") be contrary to reality could be detrimental, but by striving after an ideal we are motivated to be better -- to create a better reality. When we decide that the ideals are unattainable, don't we open the door to a pessimism and cynicism that destroys our will to try?

So, what do you think about idealism? What is it? Is it good or bad? Can it be applied to your everday life?

Quote

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:39:10 GMT

"Do not ask yourself what the world needs; ask yourself what makes you come alive. And then go and do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive. -- Harold Whitman

Shame and Guilt, Honor and...Glory

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:53:18 GMT

As some of you who have read this blog for a while might know, I tend to make posts concerning the topic of heroes from time to time. There is one aspect of this subject which I have treated often in personal conversations, but I've never managed to write it down here before. It connects well with a couple of my early posts about heroes (http://dannwigner.xanga.com/583275351/heroes/ and http://dannwigner.xanga.com/587807034/emerging-perspectives-individualism-vs-the-community/).

You've probably heard something before about how Eastern cultures tend to be "honor and shame" cultures, and this type of culture is generally contrasted with the West as a "guilt" culture. It has always bothered me that Western cultures are quantified as "guilt" cultures -- that's leaving out the positive side of things. Western cultures are "GLORY and guilt" cultures, which is a very important contrast to "honor and shame," and these differences play out significantly in both the concepts of heroes and the place of the individual vs. the community.

Now, before I go any further, I freely admit that I'm generalizing, and if you think that I'm generalizing too much or inaccurately -- well, that's why there are comments : )

Specifically, the West has historically set a high value on individual accomplishment. As a result, praise for a job well done is philosophically embedded in our culture in order to promote this end. So, it is hard-wired into the Western mind that one should strive to do great things, and he or she will be rewarded for those things (or at least praise those who accomplish great things). Now, the flipside of the glory of individual accomplishment is that each person is solely responsible for his or her mistakes. The focus within Western Christianity on one's personal sin is in part a result of this mindset.

Now, this way of thinking is in many ways entirely opposite from the East -- in the Western mind, you want to stand out and do great things -- so that your family, friends, country, etc. may be enhanced in reputation as a result, while in the Eastern mind, you do not want to stand out in any way that would dishonor your family, etc.

The West's focus on glory is very evident in how we portray our heroes. Our heroes are not always entirely virtuous or saintly -- but they always accomplish great things. In many ways, biblical heroes mirror this Western trait (as the Near East straddles the two broad viewpoints) -- Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, etc. -- they commit grievous sins, but they also accomplish astounding feats.

If you made it thus far, you're probably saying..."Okay, but so what?" Well, it is my contention that we are losing the Western perspective -- we're cheapening it in these postmodern times. "How?", you may ask. Well, it actually begins with Christianity.

When Christianity enters the West, we figured out that maybe the best thing in the world was not our own glory, but the glory of God. Now, that's the right perspective, but it caused a problem for us. Many interpreted this move to mean that glory was somehow "bad." Rightly interpreted, the "glory" for our accomplishments does not go to us, it goes to God, but this concept has been subtly misunderstood that glory was something to avoid -- something that only vain people seek. So, when glory ceases to be a motivating factor, the next move is to saying, "Well, why do I need to accomplish anything anyway?" This subtle trend has begun to move the West away from being a "glory and guilt" culture to what I like to call a "fame and apathy" culture. The unequivocal good in the West today is to be "known," but it doesn't matter what you are known for -- in fact, we idolize celebrities that often make very paltry contributions to larger society. We've become a society that entertains itself, concerning itself, and then idolizes the people who entertain and idolize themselves the best. In a way, we've become much more vain than those who were worried about glory being a sin. As a result of the devaluing of achievement, we become apathetic -- we simply don't care anymore.

So, how does this all relate to heroes? It's pretty hard to be a hero when you're too self-involved to care about anyone or anything else.

What do you think? Where do we go from here?

Why Superman is better

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:29:32 GMT

'nuff said http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1884973

No Mystic Monday (Tuesday, etc.)

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:41:36 GMT

Sorry, folks (I'm being optimistic that more than one of you read this blog), but I'm too busy this week to write a "Mystic Mondays" post. On Thursday, I'm meeting with my supervising professor, so I'm currently gearing up for that appointment.

In the meanwhile, I thought that I would enlighten you concerning one of the great wonders of the world -- if you're a guy who shaves at least part of his face (sorry, Kenneth). I'd like to give a "shout out" to the lowly styptic pencil (http://www.drugsdepot.com/viewitem.php/drugsdepot/pd214716/CLUBMAN_STYPTIC_PENCIL_.25OZ)

Easier to use than toilet paper, completely painless, and usually under a dollar -- how could you go wrong?

You may now return to your regularly scheduled program...