Seminary: Is it really an education?

I recently mentioned that in the fall I will be returning to seminary.  When such a pronouncement is made, I am usually met with a multitude of questions.  There is always the, why (which I will address in a subsequent post).  Others to whom I speak want to know, “What’s required for that,” since few of my friends or family are familiar with theological education on a graduate level.  And to be fair, I certainly had no idea about this particular field of study, nor the requirements thereof, before I entered seminary.  But after I began my graduate career, I attempted to explain the requirements by remarking that it’s like going for a doctorate, but not actually getting the title.  At which point I am generally met with incredulous smirks and comments about my affinity for hyperbole.   

I readily admit my weakness in the area of hyperbole.  Readily.  However, I don’t want to be misleading about the rigorous requirements of the program to which I am dedicating a great deal of time, effort, and (let’s be frank) money.  I decided to engage in a cursory inventory of graduate programs in which I would be interested, were I not head-over-heels in love with my education, and formation, at seminary. 


In the interest of reality, I looked at the two state universities nearest me to conduct this research, as I am not going to uproot my family for my graduate education.  They are: Colorado University, 30 minutes from my home; and Colorado State University, 90 minutes from my house.[1]    Naturally, the courses and degrees available at seminary do not have identical programs at these state schools.  Thus, I have chosen three, secular, academic tracks in which I would be interested as basis for comparison:

• Master of Fine Arts | PhD in English
• Master of Arts | PhD in Philosophy
• Juris Doctor, a “law degree”

 These will be compared the closest programs available at Denver Seminary:

• Theology vis-à-vis English
• Apologetics and Ethics vis-à-vis Philosophy
• Master of Divinity

To facilitate ease of comparison, I have ordered the degrees from least credits required to greatest, giving pride of place to the secular programs; and provided conclusions at the end of this post.    

 

 Master of Arts, Philosophy

Colorado State University: 30 credits (3-9 credits of thesis)[2]

Colorado University: 30 credits (4-6 credits of thesis)[3]

Graduate Certificate, Biblical and Theological Studies

Denver Seminary: 30 credits[4]

Master of Fine Arts, English

Colorado University: 45 credits (9 credits of thesis)[5]

Colorado State University: 48 credits (12 credits of thesis)[6]

Master of Arts, Theology | Apologetics and Ethics

Denver Seminary, Theology: 62 credits[7]

Denver Seminary, Apologetics and Ethics: 62 credits[8]

PhD, English

Colorado University: “The PhD program is a five year curriculum that comprises a language requirement and three basic components: coursework, a comprehensive exam, and a dissertation.”[9]

PhD, Philosophy

Colorado University: 85 credits with Diagnostic Paper, Qualifying Paper, Oral Exam, & Dissertation[10]

Juris Doctor  

Colorado University: 89 credits[11]

Master of Divinity

Denver Seminary: 97 credits

• 2 foreign languages with qualifying exam scores of 70% or higher
• 3 credits of mentored ministry experience
• Oral Exams[12]

Based on the hour of research I conducted, which consisted mostly of locating the school and then departmental website multiple times because I kept forgetting to reference it, I am able to draw the following conclusions:

• If I complete my theological education with a “Graduate Certificate” from Denver Seminary, I will have no letters behind my name.  Yet, I will have completed graduate-level academic requirements that at two other schools would earn a Master of Arts degree in Philosophy.  That is a challenge to quantify for friends and family, let alone potential employers.
• There is a 14 - 17 credit difference between a Master of Fine Arts in English and a Master of Arts in Theology or Apologetics and Ethics.  At the graduate level, one is considered a full-time student when taking 9 credit hours per semester, making the difference between these degrees at least 1 year.
• Similarly, there is a 12 - 8 credit difference between a PhD in Philosophy/Juris Doctor and a Master of Divinity.  This range indicates ½ to 1 year difference, with the extended time spent in the master’s program, not the doctoral ones!

Therefore, seminary education represents a greater investment of time, and resources, than even other fine arts doctoral programs.  Yet after such effort, one is granted only Masters status in the eyes of friends, family, and employers …and encouraged to go for that PhD afterward.

        
So the next time I say, “it’s like getting a master’s or doctorate, but without the initials,” I will at least know that I’m not being hyperbolic – I am being completely honest!

 

*******

For further articles on seminary education see the topic on Patheos here; one of my former profs weighed in (Dr. Buschart – I thoroughly enjoyed his course and found it extremely formative).        

 

 

 

---

[1]In this report, where one university is not listed this indicates that in my cursory search I could locate no information about that particular degree in the specific program.

[2] http://philosophy.colostate.edu/docs/grad-program-of-study.pdf  4/9/14 at 16:42 MST

[3] http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/graduate.shtml#reqs 4/9/14 at 16:32 MST

[4] https://my.densem.edu/ics/icsfs/Grad_CERT_BTS.pdf?target=c4cd38ce-2d1c-4825-ac6f-530d5279bd0f  4/9/14 at 17:19 MST

[5] http://english.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/MFA-course-requirements21.pdf   4/9/14 at 16:40 MST

[6]http://english.colostate.edu/docs/checksheets/mfa-checklist.pdf  4/9/14 at 16:43 MST

[7] https://my.densem.edu/ics/icsfs/MA_TH.pdf?target=b15d54e2-da13-403e-874d-25ed6a9c55eb  4/9/14 at 17:02 MST

[8] https://my.densem.edu/ics/icsfs/MA_AE.pdf?target=ac0268b8-e014-4862-b881-b3478075b7c0  4/9/14 at 17:01 MST

[9]http://english.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/PhD-DEGREE-REQUIREMENTS-August-2012.pdf 4/9/14 at 16:06 MST

[10] http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/graduate.shtml#PhD 4/9/14 at 16:33 MST

[11] http://www.colorado.edu/law/academics/courses-and-registration/requirements-prerequisites/graduation-requirements-and-credit  4/9/14 at 16:36 MST

[12] https://my.densem.edu/ics/icsfs/MDiv_(NoConc).pdf?target=d34b3596-e423-47d4-93e7-30bf0294330b  4/10/14 at 08:59 MST ~ amended from Master of Divinity, emphasis in Christian Formation and Soul Care, to reflect a more general course of study.

Formation in 5 Books

I once again find myself in the tension between having the formation of a post stealing my sleep, and the end of the semester breathing down my neck (3 papers, 1 quiz, and 2 finals remain).  The post that is consuming my waking, non-study time is one I want to address with appropriate thoughtfulness and research, as it is in response to a comment about my previous abortion post.  I will return to it later this week; yet , for today, it sadly has to yield to my assignments.    

In its place, I offer a list of the five most formative books I’ve read since I’ve been in seminary.  Three of which have also provided me with the distinct pleasure of studying under the authors; and to which I return most frequently.  I know these may seems cumbersome because they are textbooks, but if you desire to love the Lord your God with all your mind as we are commanded to, I highly recommend these: 

Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey

 by Dr. Craig L. Blomberg

From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation

by Dr. Craig L. Blomberg

 

Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith

by Dr. Douglas Groothuis

 

 

 

Spiritual Disciplines Handbook: Practices that Transform Us

by Adele Ahlberg Calhoun

 

 

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complentarity without Hierarchy

edited by Ronald W. Pierce and  Rebecca Merrill Groothuis

 

 

When an Answer is Needed

In last Tuesday’s post, I outlined how I would be using social media with purpose; and I mentioned that for me, this meant not engaging in online debates.  I would like to clarify this position before being written off as a coward or intellectual sloth, or merely as one who choose not to articulate her beliefs because they are too weak to hold any weight.  The reason I am choosing not to engage in online debates is because I have been involved in these types of online discourse, and I have found that these debates

1.        Honor no one – not God, not my friend[s], not myself

2.        Change no one’s mind

3.        Reflect a poor representation of my God, myself, and others who also hold my opinions.

Thus, I will save my personal disagreements for in-person interactions, with one caveat, which I’ll delineate below.

That being said, I know that believers are called to give an answer for their faith.  And that silence, while at times may be the most prudent response, can make the silent party complicit in the opposing side’s argument or action. 

There is a tension I am exploring between meekness and setting boundaries, between holding my tongue to live in peace and making my voice heard.  I have a responsibility to both use my voice on behalf of those who cannot, or against those who seek to harm, and to stay my strength so that unity and love are given to a world that needs both.       

 

Sin is not ended by multiplying words, but the prudent hold their tongues.

 ~ Proverbs 10:19

Blessed are the meek…Christ was silent in the face of His accusers.  He was silent on the walk up to Calvary.  He was silent when beaten, when insulted, when accused.  Yet, he overturned the money changer’s tables in the temple.  He answered (most) questions directly asked of Him.  At times, He rebuked those who challenged Him as openly as they approached Him.  So, are we to “turn the other cheek” when insulted, when the gospel is at stake?  Are we to be silent in the face of injustice?  Do we stand idly by when we see our fellow humans coming to harm?  I find that there are times when inaction makes us complicit with evil.  When silence itself muffles the call of the Gospel.  For meekness does not mean that we are always silent.  As Christ did, we are to jealously defend the God-ordained, through-the-blood-of-Jesus right, and therefore freedom, of all to come to the Lord unhindered.  We are to call out to the lost, the broken, and the weary with words of hope and truth.  We are to answer those who question us on behalf the God whom we are to represent.  We are to challenge those, as publically as they are presenting their case, who are preventing or marring the gospel.  And we are to do it all with a spirit of love, an attitude of grace, and complete humility – for not a single one of us may boast in anything except the atoning sacrifice of Christ Jesus on our sinful and fallen behalf.    

In practice, this means that:

1.        Every believer is an apologist.  That means YOU are an apologist.  And I am an apologist.  Certainly not on par with Drs. Lane, Dembuski, or Lennox[1]; but we are still meant to represent God and Christ and the Holy Spirit in our actions, words, thoughts, and yes, arguments.  Figure out what you believe and why you believe it; then learn how to defend it.  Be ready to give an answer for the Gospel at all times, under all circumstances.  Faith in God is not illogical.  It is the most reasoned and rational of all worldviews.  If you’re not sure where to begin, make a list of what you know to be true about God and find the scripture that backs up your statement; if it’s not in there, you need to revisit what you think about God.  Or, you can start with your church’s statement of faith (also called a doctrinal confession, or simply, “what we believe"); same exercise – make sure what they claim to believe is really found in God’s Word.  Or grab a book on theology or apologetics; for if you’ve made it to this blog, you can read and have been given the gift of intelligent thought.  I have been admonished that to waste this is sin.   

2.         If you are being insulted, mocked, and derided for your faith, do not seek the last word.  Turn the other cheek; pray for your enemies and bless those who persecute you.  Always speak truth.  Always offer grace.  Strive with every breath to live out the Gospel with love.  Never retaliate.  Don’t offend willfully.  Be humble and remember that before God, we are all equal – sinners in desperate need of His Son, our Savior.   

3.        If the Gospel is being misrepresented, correct this misrepresentation to the best of your ability, gracefully, as publically as the misinformation is presented.  Do not forward personal attacks against the speaker.  Example: if it’s at your dinner table, only address it with your family and guests.  If it’s a nationally broadcast sermon or speech, use your media outlets to offer a loving, thoughtful, rational counter position.  And heed the call to humility in #2.

4.       Politics do not equal faith.  Gun control is not the same thing as theology.  Yes, faith should map our political opinions.  But when we try to paint God as one brand of political agent or another, we make idols of our political system and mock the Kingdom of God.  The key here is to make sure that your political leanings line up with your theology.  Remember the apologetic exercises in #1?  Put your political views through the same paces – write them down and see if you can find scripture to back them up.  Be mindful of which scriptures you’re employing; and if you find yourself looking to modern television characters quoting Levitcal or Deuteronomical codes, you’re not thinking your position through.  Nor are you really reading scripture.     

 And so I want to encourage you – stand up for what you believe.  Do not be bullied into silence.  Do not allow slander to quiet the proclamation of the gospel.  Yet, do not make the Gospel something it isn’t – political fodder or personal judgment.  Do everything with the love of Christ in your heart, and the humility of a sinner on your tongue. 

 

I said, “I will watch my ways and keep my tongue from sin; I will put a muzzle on my mouth while in the presence of the wicked.”

 ~ Psalm 39:1

 

---

[1] If you want to watch these master scholar-philosophers and apologist in action, the following are links to actual debates with popular secular scholars.

Dr. William Craig Lane vs. Christopher Hitchens – Does God Exist Debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU  accessed 1/29/13 1:06pm

 

William Dembksi vs. Christopher Hitchens – Does God Exist Debate: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/video-christopher-hitchens-debates-william-dembski-does-god-exist/ accessed 1/29/13 1:06pm

 

John Lennox vs. Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion Debate: http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate  accessed 1/29/13 1:05pm

Just so we're clear...

(a type of worship)

Basilica

It is historically documented.  It is intellectual folly to deny that a first century, Palestinian Jew by the name of

     Jesus

was crucified by the Roman government.  There is no scholarly debate: Jesus was a man.  Fully, completely, no-way-around-it, human, male.  This man, worshiped over 2,000 years later, could not then, nor ever have been a woman.

As a man, Jesus was a Jew.  He was raised in an orthodox Jewish home.  He practiced the Jewish religion (yep, I said that Jesus was religious.  Which, in the anthropologistic and historical sense implies that he practiced his religion…, well, religiously).  He followed the Mosaic Law to the letter.  Not one iota was ignored, not one minutia disobeyed.  His lineage was carefully documented to prove that he was the answer to eons of prophecy.  He was educated in the Hebraic traditions and scriptures; and he observed all the festivals and Sabbaths as one who understood their true purpose.  He taught with authority and corrected the misunderstandings of the mortals he came to save.  Of the Israelite leaders, he expected much.  To those on the fringe or outside the faith, he offered a way in.         

Jesus hung out with sinners and outcasts; ate with them, walked with them, talked and laughed and wept with them.  He saved them; he forgave them; he loved them.

                HE WAS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Jesus was Divine.  Before the universe was formed, before humans drew breath, before time began and after time ends he will continue to be always and forever Divine.  One with the Father and Holy Spirit in perfect and complete communion. 

Jesus came to earth, while sinners were sinning, to rescue humans who didn’t know they needed saving.  He died in the stead of every sinner who ever was or ever will be.  But only,
     Only
if the sinner chooses to trade his or her wickedness for Jesus’ all-encompassing righteousness.  To trade their own, impending and eternal torment, for his atoning death on the cross.  This choice is always in the heart of the sinner.  Like a marriage proposal, anyone can accept or reject this love.  Unlike a proposal, this love is offered every moment of every life.  Until the moment when life is over.  Or until that soul grows so hard from scratching out a life in the wilderness of death and constant pain, that Jesus [whom I picture weeping bitterly, as he did over Jerusalem just prior to his crucifixion] says to that sinner, “your will be done.” 

To be completely clear, Jesus was everything the Holy Scriptures say he was.  Jesus, the Promised Savior, the Only Son of the Almighty God, will never be a sinner.  He came to save sinners.  He died to redeem sinners.  He lives to give Love to sinners.  If we would but accept it.    

He was, in a specific and tangible and documented portion of linear time, God housed in flesh.  He was Eternity in temporal form.  He is the Healer of the broken, Redeemer of the damned.  He is the One who loves each sinner so much that He would trade his life, his oneness with the Eternal Almighty LOVE Itself, for the sake of that one sinner to be welcomed into His Father’s house. 

But He is not to be made in our image.  He is not a domesticated kitten, upon whom we may assert our ideals or morals or compunctions.  Our culture does not dictate, any more than the ancient Hebraic or Hellenistic cultures which comprised his earthly context, his will.  Jesus’ will was always that of the Father.  And the Father’s will does not deviate from scripture.  Regardless of what our favorite authors may tell us.  Or how we feel, as one-third-world dwellers.

Jesus the Christ is the Lion of Judah, who will return not as prophet or pacifist, but as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  Robes dipped in blood; Warrior for His Father’s kingdom, who will reclaim all that evil has stolen.   And He will win.

For LOVE, true and honest and just LOVE, wins. 

     For His glory and Kingdom and Power are forever.

Amen.

 

 

Please leave a comment below if you have any questions regarding this theology. 

 I am happy to supply scripture references (as well as secular and scholarly). 

John Mark McMillan's "Death In His Grave"

 

 

Enjoying this study?  Here's a link to other articles in this series: The Women Who Knew Jesus

The Only Ecclesiology that Matters

Ecclesiology:  Theology as applied to the nature and structure of the Christian church

As with so many other things, I am guilty of this myself; and, I truly believe it’s rooted in pride.  I, until very (milliseconds ago) recently, thought I had the lock down on ecclesiology.  I’ve thought this before, in different seasons of my life.  Yet each time I think I’ve got it all figured out, I’ve learned something new, I’ve grown in a different way, and I’ve come into a deeper and more beautiful experience of the grace of Jesus Christ. 

But after reading/listening to yet another Christian-bashing-Christian blog/podcast, I am ever more convinced that neither I nor any other fully-human-and-not-divine person completely understands or practices the ecclesiology of Christ himself.  Nobody has ever expressed the perfect praxis of the gospel that should be the nature and structure of the bride of Christ.  We’re too myopic, too self-oriented, too prideful, too fallen.

Origin

Like ancient Israel, we busy ourselves with the daily preening that comes with I’m-better-than-my-fellows-because-hold-the-patent-on-God’s-truthiest-Truth.  And like the ancient Hebrews, we are very, very wrong.  In our fractured version of the Church, our us-versus-them or me-above-you theologies, we have lost sight of the very tasks to which we have been called.

I doubt that the father trying to hold his child through the tangle of endless tubes and amidst beeps and alarms and the acrid smell of sanitation, will care whether I’m pre- or post-trib; so long as I’ll pray with and for them both. 

I can’t see the mother, racking her brain to think of how she’ll feed her kids their one meal for the day, caring about whether I’m Calvinist or Arminianist or Molinist; so long as I give her children food.

I have a hard time believing that the girl, who is trying to lance her pain out of her very skin, actually gives a rip about whether I’m complimentarian or egalitarian; so long as I walk with her on the road to her healing.

I don’t think the homeless person, who hasn’t showered in months and who hasn’t been called by his name in decades, cares if I’m Catholic or Reformed or Non-demoninational; so long as I look him in the eye, ask his name, and speak to him as though he were a human being.   

I can’t imagine that the boy, whose father has run off and who now lives with his mom’s abusive boyfriend, cares in the least whether I’m fundamentalist or liberal; so long as I can protect him from the hurt. 

In the darkest nights of our souls, these labels don’t matter.

Yes, a well-reasoned apologetic is necessary: to reach the lost and defend the truth.  Yes, sound doctrine is essential: to maintain the gospel and follow the Lord.  And, yes, appropriate theology is crucial: because we can’t love a God we don’t know.  Without these, works are meaningless and faith is dead.  But we have to stop slaying one another over the minutia of human systems and labels. 

Because Christ didn’t become human to give us labels.  He came to remove them.  Christ didn’t die on the cross to divide people.  He came to unite us in him.  Christ didn’t rise again to keep people out of his kingdom.  He rose from death to gather all those who call him Lord into his house, that he may call us friend and beloved. 

That, cherished friend, must be our ecclesiology.  Faith in the Truth and Love in our praxis. 

Who do you say I am?

Peter Rebuked

I’m going to be completely honest here.  I have a really, really hard time listening to people who have never read the Bible discussing it.  In general, these discussions [for the sake of charity, I will use this term extremely loosely] are not kind in tone or intent.  And are so ill-informed that I wonder if the participants have ever read even one sentence of the book they attack so viciously.     

These conversations [again, a charitable term] remind me of individuals who have never met someone, whom I’ll call Bob for the sake of this metaphor, consistently speaking ill of Bob.  Intimately.  As if the speaker, and s/he alone, possess special knowledge about Bob.  In spite of the fact that s/he has never spent a moment in the same room with Bob.  And the fact that s/he is basing this poor opinion on what they have heard from other people.

How can one have the audacity to claim knowledge about any subject without first familiarizing one’s self with the topic at hand?  And how can anyone assume to know anything without first examining their hypothesis against the very matter itself?  I must say that it boggles the mind, and speaks volumes about our culture’s intellectual slovenliness.    

But assumptions of knowledge aren’t limited to contemporary culture.  When Jesus asked his very disciples, the men with whom he’d spent the most amount of time during his incarnate ministry, “who do you say I am,” only one of them got it right.  And even then, Jesus said that the correct answer didn’t come from Peter’s heart or mind, but from the Father in Heaven; as if this knowledge was indeed too intimate a truth for even Jesus’ closest friends to comprehend (Matthew 16:13-17).  For Peter and the others walked, prayed, ate, laughed, even wept with Jesus on a consistent basis.  And even they did not really know him.  Not fully, at least. 

Thus, I can hardly expect those mired in darkness to know anything of which they speak. 

Yet, I can expect respect.  I can hold my fellow sojourners to decorum and civility in the public sphere.  I can request they educate themselves before forwarding their opinion on matters of such great import.  And I must treat them in an exponentially more grace-filled and winsome manner, that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ be made central to each of these conversations.   

Finally, I can be ready with an answer for their misinformed rhetoric.  I can prepare a defense, based in sound reasoning, against the slander to which my faith and its tenets are subjected.  I can reject lazy or false intellectualism in myself, pursue truth, and hone an apologetic that is well-informed, culturally appropriate, and engaging.  And I can start today. 

So can you.  For when you stand up against fallacious claims about Christianity, you are standing up on behalf of the bride of Christ.  And I have a feeling that is something with which her groom will be well-pleased.