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.

Theology, closing thoughts

Before we begin a new series, I wanted to offer some clarifications on the Theology series we began in October. 

Transendence:

First, a friend and colleague [Jason, from School of Fish] reminded me that when speaking of God’s transcendence, it is not enough to say that God is separate, because of His holiness, from His creation.  Nor is it enough to hold this superiority in conjunction with his immanence to creation.  We must also assert that God is sovereign over creation.  As Creator and Sustainer, God is at once superior over, near to, and exercising supreme authority over creation at all times.   This is a more fully orbed approach to God’s transcendence.  

Jesus and Theology:

Second, I mentioned in the introduction that I would return to the claim that Jesus didn’t spend that much time on Theology, so we shouldn’t either.  It can be reasonably argued that everything Jesus did was a lesson in theology, for He came to be the visible image of the invisible God.  Jesus didn’t merely teach theology, He was theology.  His sermon on the mount reveals the nature of the kingdom of God, and defines what characterizes the lives of citizens of this kingdom.  These statements have great implications regarding the nature and character of the King.  Jesus spent a considerable amount of time correcting the errant theology of the first century Palestinian religious leaders; as well as commending that of the Gentiles of that time (to include, but not limited to: a Roman soldier, a Syro-Phoenician woman, a woman at Jacob’s well).   The gospels are filled with Jesus teaching His disciples who God was/is; and so He taught theology throughout His ministry here on earth.    

So What?:

Finally, some closing thoughts on why theology is important.  If you recall (if you don’t, go here), I challenged you to examine the statement of faith of the church you attend.  And I gave the following as an example:

“Consider for a moment a church that in their statement of faith says:

We believe that the gifts of evangelist, pastor and teacher are for the perfecting of the saints today to prepare God’s people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up. God supernaturally and graciously grants spiritual gifts to every believer for the purpose of serving the body of Christ.[1]

Sounds good.  Lines up with scripture.  Gives each member of the church a view of communal service and a hope that he or she may be used by God for His works.  Now, what if that church does not allow women to teach, nor to administer communion or collect offering or pray in public?  Does this practice align with their stated belief?  Or, are they contradicting themselves with the subtle belief that the gifts God gives to women are not for the full body of Christ?”         

Unfortunately, this particular church, which the Officer and I attended for a few weeks during our “church shopping” excursions in the weeks after moving to the mountains, lived out the latter.  Though their statement of faith says that “God supernaturally and graciously grants spiritual gifts to every believer for the purpose of serving the body of Christ,” their practice of this statement showed they believe only men to be worthy of the communal expression of this gifting.  Further, the surrounding lines of this tenet states,

 We believe that the gifts of evangelist, pastor and teacher are for the perfecting of the saints today to prepare God’s people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up.  God supernaturally and graciously grants spiritual gifts to every believer for the purpose of serving the body of Christ. The miraculous gifts of healing, signs and wonders, tongues and interpretation of tongues, during the apostolic era, were for the purpose of authenticating the apostle’s message. (These miraculous gifts gradually diminished as the New Testament Scriptures were completed and the authority of the scriptures became established. **) In accord with His will, we believe that God does hear and answer the prayer of faith for the sick and afflicted. [emphasis mine]

Thus, not only do they eliminate women from the expression of God-given spiritual gifts for the edification of the body, they have in effect placed the Holy Spirit in a box – telling Him what gifts He may or may not bestow (and of course, upon whom He may bestow them).  Granted, the double asterisk indicates that this particular church leadership does not see this tenet as “essential to the faith,” though every person interested in membership must “must respect and teach the entire doctrinal statement.”[2]   So even if you don’t agree with it, you’d better tow the party line.   

 Except that, I can’t find anywhere in scripture that even alludes to a diminishing and then disappearance of the miraculous gifts.  Or that these gifts were given only to authenticate apostolic messages.  Further, if these gifts were intended (and may we reflect just a moment on the audacious assumption that we can fully know God’s intention?) to authenticate the Gospel, would they not be needed even more today when 2,000 years have passed and cultures have changed?  What do we do with this statement in light of stories of the miraculous coming from our fellow believers in different contexts?  Do we, as the Pharisees did, claim that these miracles are being performed by the power of Satan and His minions?  What does that say about the rest of the scriptures penned during the formative years of the Church?  Does this mean that we can twist and selectively pull out the uncomfortable parts of scripture to better suit our cultural experiences? 

            Or do we have to deal with the entirety of Scripture? 

            Even the parts we don’t like, or don’t have experience with? 

Thus, dear ones, I confess: the Officer and I didn’t find this church a “good fit.”  I realize this can sound so consumerist.  But I had to ask: do I want my children growing up thinking that God’s Holy Spirit will only do what we can understand, in ways that we expect? 

                Or do I want them to know the God who is untamable and surprising and miraculous, too? 

Do I want my daughter to lean over and ask me why only the men get to pray, or offer communion, or read; so that when I can offer no good reason, she eventually learns by rote that she is somehow less? 

                Or do I want her to know that women sat at Jesus’ feet, learning alongside the men; that women were the first to proclaim the risen Lord; that a woman was the first mortal to know that the Messiah was come? 

And, of course, do I not want my son to see women serving alongside the men so that he learns that the Kingdom of Heaven is made up of both sexes, that Christ came to redeem and restore all, even intra-sex relationships between men and women?  

Dearest reader, this is why theology is so important.  Because it affects the very air we breathe.  It inhabits our bones and sinew.  Our theology becomes us, defines us, motivates us.    

Thus we must agree that while Jesus came for the ultimate purpose of our salvation, He also came to be a living example of theology, to teach us what to think about God.  And so theology is something we must not neglect.  So I encourage you again, spend time looking over your church’s statement of faith.  Hold these tenets up to the Scriptures to ensure that they agree.  And then watch how these tenets are lived out, remembering that not a one of us is perfect and so require grace, to ensure that the theology you’re ingesting is the one that points you and all those to whom you are to minister to the One, True God.    

---

[1] http://www.chapelinthehills.org/?page_id=94 Accessed 1/27/14 at 16:44 MST

[2] http://www.chapelinthehills.org/?page_id=94 Accessed 1/27/14 at 16:44MST

Broken: the nature of sin

        I had, repeatedly, cautioned my firefly to be careful while hanging the heirloom ornament on one of the highest branches, so it wouldn’t be disturbed later by excitable and boundless puppy energy.  She hesitated, turning the treasure over in her hand, and assured me that she would be.  Stretching, she reached for a sturdy perch; but the desired branch proved too flimsy.  She pulled it back from the tree, ornament outstretched toward me, and humbly asked that I put it on in her stead.  I lauded her wisdom, smiling while grouping three branches together to support the weight of her prize.  When, without pretense, the ribbon unwound and my haughty hold was compromised.  The ornament fell; six feet, with the sickening, slow-motion plummet that foreshadows the loss to come.  And clattered on the wooden floor.  Pieces fled hither and yon, under the tree skirt and into the living room.  Mouth agape, I turned wide eyes to the firefly.  Hers, shimmering with disappointment, answered my disbelief. 

Broken.

        We had just discussed the inherent irreplaceability of particular things.  We had talked, this ornament nestled safely in its box, about how you can’t go back to certain times, can’t redo certain events, can’t relive certain memories.  The best we can do is try to fix them in the present, mending to the best of our abilities, and learning to muddle through with the cracks and dents our hands have caused.  Or to live without that which was formerly so precious. 

        The firefly’s tears in check, we comforted, and then we did the best we could.  The Officer went into town the next day to procure the right kind of glue.  I adhered flesh to flesh, skin to counter, and dermis to ornament in the process; but eventually the ornament held.  Nonetheless, it remains broken.  The cracks, not visible unless you know where to look, are there.  And they are fragile.  It will require extra care every year, in both packing away and hanging.  There will likely be times that it fractures again, so prone because of the fissures already there. 

For there is nothing I can do to make it all the way whole again.

        It is the condition of human being to live thus.  We are each broken.  Our cracks sometimes visible in the right light, other times, they remain hidden deep within.  We are especially fragile and prone to break in specific, familiar ways.   

        Yet, we were not created so.  Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis assert that the Imago Dei remains ontologically[1] “undestroyed” in “all persons, however dominated they may be by the works of the flesh…all humans in their being remain constitutionally image-bearers.”[2]  However, these two learned men assert that all people inherited depravity or hereditary corruption and guilt for Adam’s sin.[3]  They utilize Jesus’ statement in John 8:34 to accommodate their belief:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said, “everyone who sins is a slave to sin.”

And they affirm that Paul says in Romans 7:5 “in our fallen condition, [human being is] ‘controlled by the sinful nature.’”[4]  Thus, Demarest and Lewis articulate that all of humanity’s slavery to and control by sin illustrates that the sin nature is transmitted from Adam, generationally, to all of human as members of the same race.   

Ray Dunning, though agreeing that all of humanity is sinful, does not agree that in a fallen and sinful state, humanity can retain the Imago Dei.  He points out that the entire New Testament is devoted to the process of salvation, which is the restoration humanity, through Jesus Christ, to the image of God because “man is ‘essentially good but existentially estranged.’”[5]  If this restoration is necessary, then humanity is assumed to have fallen away from rightly bearing the image of God.[6]  Prior to the Fall, there existed between human being and God a filial relationship [a son or daughter relationship].  It is in this unbroken relationship that Adam could reflect the image of God.[7]  However, after the Fall, humanity became sinful, because “sin does not exist independently of human beings,” nor is it “to be regarded as some flawed or defective part of human nature.”[8]  Sin is the perversion of the natural drives within material creation; in action, it is the misuse of the created order, a moral condition of a personal being.[9]  Thus, while sin thwarts God’s purposes, it does not ontologically change the nature of human being. 

                In the end, Demarest, Lewis, and Dunning all agree that the sin nature inherent in each human being does not change his or her ontological composition.  This premise can be extremely important in the communication of the gospel, so that no matter what sin a person has engaged in, nothing makes him, or her, an inherently bad person.  This also translates into the realm of spiritual development; for many Christians continue to struggle with certain temptations or sins after conversion and would likely benefit from the knowledge that they are created “good.”  Finally, for our treatment of fellow human beings, we have to recognize that a person’s sin is not the sum of his/her identity.  Rather everyone should find their identity and worth in Christ; and those who call themselves His followers, ought to see the Imago Dei in the lost, even if the lost cannot.     

                We are all broken; we are all estranged.  But we can be mended.  We can be healed.  We can be made whole.  All by the finished work that started with an infant in a manger.  A Creator God, having made inherently good beings who chose evil and self over relationship, put aside the gravitas of heaven to be born into this fallen world, to live among sinners, to die to restore humanity and all of creation to what it was meant to be. 

This is the truth of Immanuel, God with us.       

Want to know where we've been in this series?  Click the links below for more. 

Why Theology? | How do we do this? | What are attributes? | What's Omnipresence? | What's Transcendence? | What's Revelation? | Is Scripture Inerrant? | Jesus as the Revelation of God | How do God and humans relate? | Made in God's image?

---

[1] Existentially

[2] Demarest, Bruce and Gordon Lewis.  Integrated Theology: Knowing the Ultimate Reality of the Living God. vols 1 & 2.  Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1987.  Volume 2, page 237.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Dunning, H. Ray.  Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology.  Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1988.  Page 160.

[6] Ibid., page 151.

[7] Ibid., page 157.

[8] Ibid., page 275

[9] Ibid., pages 246, 275.

Imago Dei ~ in the image of God

It is difficult even for professional theologians to quantify how God’s image is expressed in human being, particularly as separate from the rest of creation.  Ray Dunning, as an example, does not support to the idea that the imago dei is a collection of created characteristics that differentiate human being from the lower orders of creation; rather, Dunning suggests that the “ontic” qualities [real or factually existing] such as freedom, rationality, capacity for self-transcendence and immortality do not necessarily speak of an “essential orientation towards the Divine.”[1]  Instead, Dunning posits, that the imago is an irreducible quality or essence within the very substance of human being, in relation to standing with God.[2]  To explain this further, Dunning employs the metaphor of a mirror, with human being as the mirror to God’s glory.  When a mirror, human being, is properly oriented to its subject, God, the image is reflected within the mirror; when the mirror is improperly related to its subject, the image is not reflected.[3]  The mirror exists solely to reflect the image of its subject.  Through this metaphor, Dunning asserts that the primary function of human being is the reflection of the glory of God to the rest of creation.  This allegory also takes into account both the Fall and the subsequent sinfulness of human being.  A human being who is not properly oriented towards God will not reflect his image to creation; a human being who is in proper position before God will.  Thus the imago dei, according to Dunning, exists within every human but is not expressed by every human; it is an essence within human being that has been present since the beginning and is the result of divine purpose.       

Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis present the imago dei as the apex of the created order, the crescendo to God’s creative activity;[4] and they state that “the most important matter in Christian anthropology concerns the meaning of the proposition that God created the human person in his own image and likeness.”[5]  Those belonging to the human race are different and separate from the rest of creation because in making human being, God endowed each with “special dignity and honor.”[6]  This distinct standing comes by “by virtue of [the] ontological status as [bearing] God’s image,” because “the person is divinely entrusted with the special function of dominion-having.”[7]  Therefore, a primary facet of the imago, according to Demarest and Lewis, is the authority given to human being in relation to creation.  Demarest and Lewis suggest another key component of the imago dei is relationship; the premise for this is the fact that God created male and female because it was not good for man to be alone.  Demarest and Lewis refer to the Triune nature of God, through the Father, Son, and Spirit in continual, perfect relationship with each other, as the basis for this presumption.[8]  However, the most significant characteristic which evidences the imago dei, Demarest and Lewis propose, is not only that a human being resembles God in a metaphysical, intellectual, moral, emotional, volitional, and relational sense, but that human being is the only creature created as having a soul.[9]  Demarest and Lewis find the creation narrative in Genesis 2 to be most telling on this point.  Scripture speaks of God breathing life into Adam, which is assumed to represent the origin of the human soul.    

This assumption, however, leads to what theologians call “traducianism,” which refers to a quasi-Augustinian theory that only Adam was given a soul by God, and therefore every soul after is an offspring of the original, implanted only in male.  However, when examining the Hebrew text of Genesis 2, one finds that the adjective ḥay-yîm; [of life/living/alive] has 85 occurrences in the Old Testament.  Most often it carries with it the meaning of being alive or living; however, it is also used to refer to running or flowing water [which is highlights why Jesus refers to himself as the “living water” in the exchange with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well – harkening all the way back to the creation narrative!].[10]  These usages negate the possibility that this word speaks of the human soul, as in all other occurrences it refers to an existential state of being alive.  Thus we look at the word niš-maṯ [breath/spirit] which is definitively more specialized, occurring only four times total in the Old Testament.  Of the four times it is used specifically, once it refers to the breath of life in humans, once to the breath of God, once as the spirit of human, and once to the breath of life in every living thing.[11]  The extremely small number of times this particular word is used, with a different object each time, means that we cannot normalize it’s usage to reference the human soul, as each time it occurs, it refers to something different.  Thus we cannot prove with the text that the breath that God breathed into Adam’s nostrils is the originating soul from which all others were derived.  Which means that even in the creation narrative we cannot find reason to separate out male and female into hierarchical categories.  Because

God created mankind in his own image,

    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.[12]

This is why so many find the imago dei as one of the most redeeming qualities in scripture.  It gives women equal standing with men because they each carry within themselves the very image of the God who created them.  It is why Paul could assert to the Galatians that

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.[13]

In the imago dei, and through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, all men and women, all races, all humans are ontological and existentially equal.

 Summary          

With all the nuanced minutia of differences in the theologies of Lewis/Demarest and Dunning, the common theme is that the imago dei is the apex of creation, expressing itself in the human soul.  That humans are created in the image of God is paramount to understanding what it means to be human.  This theology, and one’s orientation thereto, directly influences many critical issues in the world today.  Abortion, the willful destruction of human life, marketed as the elimination of a cluster of microscopic cells becomes bearable, if human being is not ontologically different from virus-causing microbes.  Slavery, particularly sex slavery involving young children, is conceivable if human being is not separate from chattel.  When the truth that every human being is made in the image of Almighty God becomes obscured or is forgotten, these issues are tolerable, even palatable in pursuit of a nihilist utopia.  Thus the doctrine of imago dei is paramount for the care of people, the very created beings for whom God sent and sacrificed his only Son. 

Want to know where we've been in this series?  Click the links below for more. 

Why Theology? | How do we do this? | What are attributes? | What's Omnipresence? | What's Transcendence? | What's Revelation? | Is Scripture Inerrant? | Jesus as the Revelation of God | How do God and humans relate? 

 

---

[1] Dunning, H. Ray.  Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology.  Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1988. Page 154.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., page 155.

[4] Demarest, Bruce and Gordon Lewis.  Integrated Theology: Knowing the Ultimate Reality of the Living God. vols 1 & 2.  Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1987. Volume 2, page 123.

[5] Ibid., page 124.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., page 135.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., page 134.

[10] http://biblehub.com/hebrew/chaiyim_2416.htm  Accessed 12/11/13 at 09:30 MST

[11] Breath of life in humans: Genesis 2:7 | Breath of God: Isaiah 30:33 | Spirit of human: Proverbs 20:27 | Breath of life in every living thing: Genesis 7:22  -- Hebrew found at: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/nishmat_5397.htm Accessed on 12/11/13 at 09:48 MST

[12] Genesis 1:27

[13] Galations 3:28