Where's the TGR

Think we could talk Leiter into doing one? ;)

Thanks for posting this Matt. As Matt notes, the question was put by a student of mine. Anyone with some idea about the better schools, say schools in the top 25 or so, please let me know. The only schools I could think of were Union Theological, Columbia's school of theology, and Princeton's.

My recommendation is to find a scholar that you want to study with, then go to wherever he or she is (assuming the overall quality of the program approximates others). Aside from that advice, here are some general thoughts.

Schools with prestigious names in the wider academic community: Princeton, Yale, Oxford. (Harvard would go here too, but frankly, if you want to do theology as an orthodox Christian, I think you might be wasting your time there.)

I hear consistently excellent things about the University of Aberdeen. The University of Edinburgh is worth considering as well (Oliver O'Donovan is there now). Oliver Crisp at Bristol is a philosophically minded theologian worth looking up.

If you want to study spiritual formation, Talbot's Institute for Spiritual Formation is an amazing place to be (no doctoral program at the moment, however). These are hurried thoughts, but I hope they help.

A TGR would be a great resources; I second that!

Depending on someone's particular reasons for wanting to pursue theology, and depending on their theological bend, if they wanted to pursue conservative Christian theology then, for what its worth, here are a few more schools:

Dallas Theological Seminary (non-denominational/evangelical, good on theology and languages but little to no philosophy)

Talbot Theological Seminary (non-denominational/evangelical, good balance of professors for theology and philosophy)

Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky (Methodist seminary, good balance of professors for theology and philosophy)

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago (non-denominational/evangelical, good on theology with some professors who try their hand at philosophy)

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in KY (obviously Southern Baptist theology--little philosophy)

I forwarded the question to a theology list-serve that I'm on. Another member of the same list-serve pointed me here:

http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/religion/priorities?

(Note: this seems to rank religion programs rather than

I'll post any other feedback I receive later.

A friend of mine has been asking advice for the same thing.

I don't know that a Leiter-type ranking system would work in theology.

Conservative Reformed Christians, for example, would not want to go to Dallas Theo Sem no matter what its ranking. A degree from DTS would not allow them to teach in the places they wanted to end up in.

Probably the best way to go about choosing a program would be to look at the schools at which one would love to teach and see where that faculty was educated (especially the newer hires).

Getting a PhD in theology usually means that one must first get an MDiv (or some kind of MA in theology) first. If one wants the broadest job possibilities after completing the program, it wouldn't hurt to go to a large seminary with a moderate-leaning theological bent. People can get away with a more "liberal" PhD program and still teach at conservative schools (its almost a "badge of honor" to come through those programs without being tainted).

Here's how I would rank prestigious programs by theological leanings:

Fundamentalist:

Bob Jones University
Grace Theological Seminary
The Master's Seminary
[Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]
[Dallas Theological Seminary]
[Talbot School of Theology]

Evangelical:

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Talbot School of Theology
[Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]
[Dallas Theological Seminary]
[Talbot School of Theology]

Neo-Evangelical (leaning to the right):

Fuller Theological Seminary

Neo-Evangelical (leaning to the left):

Princeton Theological Seminary

Liberal:

University of Chicago
Yale Divinity School (although the PhD program is offered through Yale University and is probably more "liberal")
Claremont Graduate School

Very Liberal:

Graduate Theological Union (Berkeley)
Harvard University/Divinity School (the university offers a PhD; the divinity school offers a ThD)
Union Theological Seminary

One might also look into the religion program at University of North Carolina with Bart Ehrman and James Tabor.

I should have put Marquette University and Emory on the list as well. Probably under the general "liberal" category.

For evangelical seminaries, I'd put Gordon-Conwell up with Trinity well ahead of Talbot. Talbot is one of the best seminaries with a philosophy program. The only ones that come close are Denver Seminary and Trinity. But if we're talking theology or biblical studies, Talbot isn't in the same league as Trinity, Gordon-Conwell, Westminister Theological Seminary, or Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando). Those four are the easy leaders in my mind.

In the next rank I'd place Talbot, Dallas, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson, MS) and maybe one or two others that I can't think of right now. I start to lose my sense of things with the second tier and the third tier with some schools.

I would say that Fuller is barely evangelical, since some of their faculty do hold to views that would qualify them as being on the leftward fringes of evangelicalism. It's much more moderate than Princeton, which I have trouble seeing as evangelical even in a very loose sense. I doubt very many of their faculty could sign the ETS statement of faith. More of Fuller's could, but I'm not sure it's even a majority there.

Jeremy,

I was trying to limit my list to programs that offer PhD's or ThD's. Gordon-Conwell does, now, have a joint program with BU for missiology, but they have no other PhD's. I guess, though, the same is true of Talbot (which only has a PhD in Christian Education), so if it is on the list, G-C also belongs there.

Speaking as an alum of Fuller, though, I think you are way off base when you say "Fuller is barely evangelical," and from my experience with current students and grads of Princeton Theological, I would say that they are much closer to evangelical than you suggest.

For example (concerning Fuller), the vast majority of alum, in as much as I can trust my newsletter, go on to minister at Evangelical churches. Furthermore, in their statement "What We Believe and Teach," they write:

The Bible is absolutely crucial to our evangelical stance, and so is our participation in Christ's worldwide mission. As evangelicals, we believe men and women are lost without Jesus Christ; we believe that terrible judgment awaits all who reject Jesus as Lord and Savior. . . We stand in full fellowship with the apostles, the reformers, and the evangelical missioners of the centuries. None of us denies the infallibility of the Bible; none of us claims the infallibility of our faculty. We are not perfect. We do not have to be. We have God's sure Word to guide and correct our steps; we have Christ's sure grace to forgive our errors; we have the churches' continued goodwill as, to the glory of God, we fulfill our mission and theirs.

From my personal experience, there was not a lot of significant difference between the teaching I received at The Master's College (an indisputably fundamentalist college), Fuller, and Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (certainly an Evangelical seminary). Though, as an atheist, I might be said to be painting with too broad a brush, but I felt the same as a Christian student as well.

But this is probably way off topic . . .

Best

I thought I'd weigh in as a Fuller grad and a Yale Divinity grad.

An aside: it's striking to me that the comments very quickly veered toward which programs are "evangelical" or "conservative," when that wasn't what was asked.

I appreciate Wes's July 20 comments. In particular, his groupings by theological leanings seems roughly right to me. But at the level of PhD programs, some may not know how to compare these across groups. So here's my stab at it - PhDs in Theology, where the aim is to get a decent full-time, tenure-track teaching job:

Yale University
Univ of Chicago, Divinity School
Harvard Univ/HDS
Univ of Notre Dame [incredibly, I don't think any previous posters mentioned ND!]
Duke University
Princeton Theological Seminary
Emory
GTU
Fuller
Trinity Evangelical Div School
Dallas Theological Seminary
Wheaton Graduate School ?

This ordering is approximate (and surely I've left out some great institution); any two next to each other could really be exchanged. And the ordering will vary a lot depending on the area of specialization... If you do NT, Yale and Duke, and maybe Emory, are at the top (and others, like UNC-Chapel Hill might come into play); if you want to do systematic theology and study Barth, PTS is at the top; if you want to do religious ethics, that will have to include, eg, Princeton University's religious studies dept program in rel ethics near the top, and so on. And this list doesn't even include UK schools, of which Oxford, Cambridge, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Manchester are excellent. (Wheaton gets a "?" because I think most of their PhD programs are relatively new...)

(If the original question was geared toward MDiv/master's programs only, then the theological climate arguably is more significant for choosing a school, particularly if you're ministry- and ordination-bound with a certain denomination. And then it brings into play all these others seminaries that only have master's level programs, so it's gets much more complicated. But if you're broadly evangelical, and/or somewhat moderate theologically, I think the two best seminaries in the country, in terms of orientation, total resources, faculty quality [incl. diversity of views], and academic excellence, are Fuller and Princeton.)

I think Matt's list is mostly right (I think I would have ranked GTU higher, PTS lower, and added Claremont and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary--since conservatives seem to have started favoring it over Dallas).

Notre Dame is definitely an oversight (my only excuse is that, when I was a Christian, I was a Protestant, so I didn't have much experience with ND).

Some, of a more conservative bent, might argue against Matt's order, but I think it is right when it comes to finding tenure-track positions for those at all points of the theological spectrum.

Someone graduating from Dallas Theological Seminary with a PhD has very limited options when it comes to finding a teaching position. She (does Dallas allow women in their PhD program?) will not be considered for positions at places like Yale, University of Chicago, Claremont, etc. Someone graduating from Yale, however, would be considered at any of the schools listed--of course, the applicant would need to demonstrate that she fell within the guidelines of a more conservative school's doctrinal statement, but as long as she served in a conservative church and demonstrated a true belief in that school's particular dogma, her degree from a more "liberal" institution would probably be valued (i.e. she made it through a "liberal" education without being "tainted").

I also agree that Fuller and Princeton are good programs for MDiv or MA work if one does not want to pigeonhole herself into a specific theological tradition. Fuller, in particular, is very large, so one will always be able to connect with other graduates.

Maybe a tiered approach is best for PhD programs:

Tier One:

Yale University
Univ of Chicago, Divinity School
Harvard Univ/HDS
GTU/Berkeley
[Univ of Notre Dame]
[Duke University]

Tier Two:

[Univ of Notre Dame]
[Duke University]
Claremont Graduate School
[Princeton Theological Seminary]

Tier Three:

[Princeton Theological Seminary]
Emory
Marquette

Tier Four:

Fuller Theological Seminary
Trinity Evangelical Div School
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dallas Theological Seminary

These tiers, of course, are different than law school tiers. They should be thought of as tiers of more or less restricted opportunity. The top tiers provide graduates the most options, whereas the bottom tiers dramatically restrict options.

Nice tiers, Wes. Your other points seem right on, too.

I think that tiers 1 and 2 tend to blend together as being all around the top, but that distinct tiers will become clear depending on the subfield. I put GTU lower (and wouldn't have it up in tier 1), because it's variable how much one gets to utilize UC Berkeley a block away; and in the end, they're separate institutions. GTU students can use their libraries and take some courses, but this will more relevant if you're in certain subfields. Eg, if you specialize in Hebrew Bible or Ancient Near Eastern studies, you'll gain a lot from drawing on Berkeley's resources, since they have a lot of offerings in that area (I think Berkeley offers a joint PhD in Jewish Studies in connection with GTU; and that's a different program from their dept in Near Eastern studies). But if you do NT or systematic theology, the presence of UC Berkeley doesn't matter as much (and the "prestige" (for whatever it's worth) of UC Berkeley doesn't attach in the same way to your degree)...

I forgot Claremont; and also Marquette and Georgetown (both Jesuit schools) should definitely be mentioned as well...

What Fuller means by infallibility is a very limited form of inerrancy/infallibility about matters of faith and practice (as opposed to inerrancy/infallibility about everything the Bible might say). I don't see how someone who holds such a view could in good conscience sign the ETS statement of faith.

I also know that at least one former faculty member (Paul K. Jewett) taught there for years without accepting even inerrancy/infallibility on matters of faith and practice (at least when it comes to matters of faith and practice that have to do with men's and women's roles).

Matt, the comments didn't quickly veer to which programs are evangelical. They quickly veered toward a recognition that different people might want rankings among different theological perspectives, and one proposal listed them according, which led to my taking issue with some of the labels in that proposal. That still does serve toward answering the larger question in focusing programs into categories having to do with what perspective can be found there. In theology that's much more important than in philosophy, and I can't see how the question that was asked could be answered properly without some attention to that.

Jeremy,

Fine, contrary to their own statements, Fuller is not a True® Evangelical seminary. Instead of believing that the Bible is inerrant in all things it says, they only believe that the Bible is "God's sure Word" and that "God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory" (part 2 of ETS statement of faith). [This sounds like a distinction about which only a fundamentalist would be concerned.]

What do you think about the tiers I've suggested listed according to the opportunities afforded for tenure-track positions? Do you think this is approximately right?

I attended Fuller and earned an M.A. there in theology before I went to grad school in philosophy. If the ETS represents "evangelical" theology, then Fuller is not an evangelical institution. Not being an evangelical myself, this doesn't bother me. However, it is only the most narrow characterization of evangelicalism that would exclude Fuller from being evangelical. It represents the evangelical left, but in my denomination (the Episcopal Church), Fuller is regarded as conservative.

As for schools like Dallas, Talbot, etc. don't go those schools if you want a career in academe outside of the most narrowly evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges. Talbot has a fine M.A. in philosophy of religion program, however.

Harvard is a good place to go if you want to do a PhD or ThD. If you want to do philosophical theology, Sarah Coakely is there and she is quite good. A friend of mine (Todd Billings) who now teaches at Western Seminary worked under her.

Finally, to characterize Yale Divinity School as liberal betrays a lack of understanding of how terms like "liberal", etc., get used in theological circles. YDS is actually quite conservative when compared to Chicago or Harvard. It is best characterized as a "post-liberal" institution. Granted, "post" language is annoying. But theological post-liberalism is very different from theological liberalism. The late Hans Frei and George Lindbeck have more in common with theologians like Barth and philosophers like Norman Malcolm (i.e., neo-orthodox theologians and Wittgensteinian fideists, respectively). In terms of philosophers at YDS, Marilyn McCord Adams and Nicholas Wolterstorff were both on the faculty there, and John Hare is now there. I don't think any of them are theological liberals (even if they are not evangelicals). In any case, I think one is better off going to places like YDS, Princeton, Fuller, and other schools where they will be exposed to a wide range of different perspectives in their courses.

Jeremy: yes, you are right that differing theological perspectives matter much when it comes to where to receive one's seminary training; and I tried to be sensitive to that in the last paragraph of my first post.

Now, I'm not sure why you raise the ETS statement of faith as some kind of significant standard. It's a simple statement, but in my view it's not a good litmus test, because plenty of people (theologians and philosophers) I count as evangelicals can't sign it, and lots of those who can, in good conscience, don't want to sign it.

The relevant sentence of the ETS statement is usually this: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs." I myself don't think the "therefore" clause is a good inference; why think that the written text would, or must, be inerrant, if by "inerrant" we mean "without any factual error" and if by "written" we mean written down by human hands? (One might think that fallible human involvement, to do the writing, is enough to warrant some suspicion about whether the autographs came out "inerrant.")

Moreover, even if I accept the inference, what difference does it make if the inerrancy is restriced to the autographs, which everyone will agree we don't possess any more? I might maintain the autographs were inerrant; you might deny this; but we're all in the same boat, since the oldest texts we have access to still have some inconsistencies.

In short: how is an evangelical who might have such reasonable reservations as these (and so not sign it), any less worthy to be in the ETS? Why is THAT a litmus test?

Regarding your mention of Jewett: your comment makes it sound like his view of gender roles is obviously not respectful of the "inerrancy/infallibility" of Scripture. But this isn't obvious to me; Jewett's view in *Man as Male and Female* and in *Who We Are: Our Dignity as Human* can be viewed as more faithful to the Biblical message than any complementarian view, while giving due consideration to the historical and cultural context in which the texts were transmitted. At any rate, such difficult interpretive issues are rarely aided, or solved, by appeal to "inerrancy" or "infallibility".

Andrei,

I think you are probably right about YDS. Miroslav Volf is also there, and he was one of my profs (and probably one of yours) at Fuller. I was thinking more in terms of the PhD program that is offered through the Religious Studies department of the University, not the divinity school.

Perhaps, the theological labeling is less helpful than I originally thought. It seems to me that Matt's list and my tier system (probably with Matt's suggested amendments) are better ways to think of ranking than along theological perspectives (at least, when considering PhD programs).

I'm just going to interrupt for a second to thank everyone for their contributions. It's been extremely helpful. Ok, that's it for me.

You don't need to be a fundamentalist to be a full inerrantist. Bob Jones University is fundamentalist. Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, Westminster, and several of the other top evangelical schools are full of inerrantists who are not fundamentalists, and many of them would consider inerrancy an important issue. Roman Catholicism is as fully on board with inerrancy, as Alex has pointed out in discussions here in the past. I don't see how they can be lumped in with Bob Jones.

I do think the Jewett issue could distract us even more than we already are, but my sense is there are people who hold to a hermeneutic like the one you suggest, and maybe he's one, but it seems to me to be contrary to inerrancy on matters of faith and practice.

For the record, I didn't see any problem with the tiered structure explaining how broad someone's acceptance would be at various places. I would never recommend anyone to get a Ph.D. at an evangelical institution unless they never wanted to teach in a mainstream department. I don't have any particularly insightful thoughts on it, and I can't speak for all the levels, but that does seem right about the evangelical schools.

R.R. Reno gives his opinion on the top theology programs here.

Discussion on Reno's rankings can be found here.

Andrei and all, just a word of caution about Talbott's MA program in philosophy or philosophy of religion. Their student/faculty ratios are so ridiculous that it is a mistake to classify the program as a strong one. Several of the students who went through the program early on are outstanding, but given the lack of individual attention, the norm for more recent students seems to be drifting back toward what one sees from a decent undergraduate program. When I talk to representatives at other graduate programs in philosophy at APA meetings, this assessment is quite widely shared.

"Instead of believing that the Bible is inerrant in all things it says, they only believe that the Bible is 'God's sure Word'":

Well, that the Bible is God's Word entails that the Bible is inerrant, no? After all, the word of x can only be wrong if x lies, is mistaken, or misspeaks. But God cannot lie, be mistake or misspeak.

Well, that the Bible is God's Word entails that the Bible is inerrant, no?

No. I could have a "sure" map to a friend's house that is a little off on some things (e.g. it could mislabel some inconsequential streets, etc.), but still gets me to her house. This is an errant, but sure map.

The infallibilist, then (unlike the inerrantist), could say something like, "The gospel writer, Mark, sure didn't know much about the geography of Palestine, but his narrative gives us the important details of Jesus' ministry," or, "The Bible gets some details about science wrong, but even so, it faithfully leads us to Jesus."

Regarding Jon's comment, I agree about Talbot. I didn't want 'fine' to be read as 'strong'. There are some good people at Biola that one would have access to if one is a student at Talbot (especially Tom Crisp). But I would advise students interested in the philosophy of religion to go to a school with a strong M.A. program with faculty who work in the philosophy of religion (e.g., Western Michigan, Texas A&M, Baylor, and NIU).

I apologize in advance; this post is not about theology programs.

Jon and Andrei,

I can't speak to the overall perception of Talbot or compare it to other MA programs, but I do know this: there may be a lack of individual attention at Talbot in the classroom, but certainly not outside it. The professors know the classes are too large and because of that they are readily accessible for discussion outside of it and make plenty of time for students who want to go further than the classroom allows. I have experienced that often.

Since the topic has been broached...

Jon: You are right that the student-faculty ratio at Talbot (MA Phil) leaves something to be desired. But I would point out that the department is actively working on the issue. They have reduced the number of students they will admit per year, and they will be adding a full-time faculty member this Fall (and would have sooner had not some complications arisen). Furthermore, the faculty go out of their way to make themselves available to students (although, of course, they are finite and have limitations). As a recent Talbot alum, I can say that I have spent quality, out-of-class time with faculty members more times than I can count - not to mention time spent with visiting scholars such as Richard Swinburne, Robert Audi, and Steve Wykstra. Not all of my peers have had the same level of contact with faculty, but the opportunities are there for those who seek them. I realize, Jon, that you were speaking about 'norms', but I would take exception with the claim (which seemed to be implied) that Talbot is a sub-par program, on the whole.

Talbot is still graduating excellent, well-trained philosophers. Were that not the case, the University of Rochester would not have admitted Talbot alum the past two years in a row. That is but one example.

Great topic! But I think that all of this discussion probably indicates that a Leiter Report of theology would probably be more contentious than the actual PGR is now.

Also, I just wanted to weigh in on the subject of Talbot philosophy graduates. My philosophy Phd program (Ohio State) has two Talbot alumni right now, one who just graduated last year from Talbot. I can testify that both of these guys are very sharp and impressive thinkers, theologically and philosophically. But on a sour note, I also knew someone in my last graduate program who attended one year at Talbot and left because of the overcrowding problem.

It's good to hear that this is being addressed since many good people have come out of this program.

I'm also looking forward to seeing what quality of thinkers starts coming out of Baylor's program as well!

Let me be clear about my criticism of the Talbott program. To say that a respectable program cannot have the teacher/student ratio that they have is not to say any of the following: that they don't have some good faculty (Crisp, for example, is outstanding); that the students don't do well; that some of the students are not excellent. The fact that these latter claims are false is an indication of the strong interest in and preparation for abstract thought in the conservative Christian community. Quality graduate programs have a ratio in the 2/1 or perhaps 3/1 range, and the ratios count only permanent department members, not affiliates or visitors of various sorts. Good students often find ways to excel despite weaknesses in the institutions they attend, but that fact shouldn't be interpreted in a way that somehow shows that the weaknesses aren't present.

"The infallibilist, then (unlike the inerrantist), could say something like, 'The gospel writer, Mark, sure didn't know much about the geography of Palestine, but his narrative gives us the important details of Jesus' ministry,' or, 'The Bible gets some details about science wrong, but even so, it faithfully leads us to Jesus.'"

But the claim was that the Bible is the sure Word of God. It seems to me that by definition "the Word of God" is asserted by God. Moreover, it seems to clearly follow from God's omniscient and honest that whatever God asserts is true.

Now of course one could (and probably should) respond that some of the wrong "details" are not actually asserted by the text. But if they're not asserted, then inerrance does not extend to them. It is what is asserted that is inerrant on any inerrance theory that has any leg to stand on.

Alexander,

I'm not sure I understand. Are you criticizing the infallibilist for saying that the Bible is the sure Word of God while believing it contains error? In other words, are you attempting to point out an inconsistency in saying that the Bible is the sure Word of God if one also says that the Bible is not inerrant?

I'm not sure the infallibilist would use the term "Word of God" to say that God asserts what is written therein. "Word of God" is simply an idiom for "Bible." By saying that they have the sure "Word of God," I'm not sure they mean anything more than that they have a sure Bible.

One might say they have a "sure map" without it being inerrant because it gets them where they want to go. One might also have an inerrant map that not only gets them where they want to go, but also gives them true information about incidental details.

I think this is the important distinction between the inerrantist and the infallibilist.

The discussion of infallibilism and inerrantism is interesting, but a bit off the topic of the original post. I'd ask those interested in the discussion to either take up the topic in a new post or via email. Thanks.

I'm a Gordon-Conwell and Free University of Amsterdam alum. May I highly recommend the Free University, especially if you want to do Christian philosophy? Since the demise of many Reformed denominations in the Netherlands, the Free University has had to re-invent itself by welcoming a Pentecostal seminary into its faculty, as well as starting an institute for studying Evangelical theology in Europe, thereby attracting all the evangelical students. I would say its going through a kind of revival. Anyways, its definetly worth looking into. I thought the philosophy faculty was edifiying and challenging, especially if you like Plantinga/Dooyeweerdian philosophy.