Today, I had a meeting with a faculty member of Cedarville University’s Bible and Theology department, to discuss my own desire for higher education in biblical studies. This meeting was incredibly helpful for me personally and professionally, as I seek to exercise those gifts which I believe God has given me. It also brought to my attention some important things which I must consider now so that, in the future, I will be focused in my studies and prepared for what I want to do.
Big-name Schools and Cut-throat Academics
A dream of mine is to do my studies at one of the US’s Ivy Leagues, or a UK equivalent, because I know that these institutions offer the most rigorous programs and I’ll learn the most from them, even if from someone I disagree with. Now, it’s an obvious fact that these programs are highly competitive.
I interviewed the specific faculty member I did because he had done his work in theology at one of these big, established institutions. He told a story where he, with his 3.99 GPA and great test scores, was passed over for admission. Why?
In his case, it was simply the fact that those with whom he was competing had better networking; although he was the better on-paper choice, off-paper other candidates had made an impression with the faculty, whereas he did not know previously the specific faculty member whom he was trying to study under.
A lesson he drew from this sticks with me: these institutions do not need you. They have a hundred other applicants who would do their research just as well as you would. And that is the reality no matter how much you want it to be otherwise. So getting into these programs, making them want you (because they’ll never need you), takes strategy. There is no surefire process, but the best grades are critical, and networking is key – to know someone is half the battle. But knowing someone alone won’t get you in; you need to be the cream of the crop along with knowing someone.
This reality significantly plays into my planning, because if I want to get into a PhD program at some school, the best way to get in is going to be already knowing someone under whom I want to study. The professor did this via a transfer degree: first, he did an MDiv at the Master’s Seminary, and then did another master’s degree at Yale prior to moving on to his PhD program.
For me, depending on what makes the most sense for me when I start executing my plan to further my studies (a few years from now), I have a few options. I could do it very similar to the way he did: MDiv at some Evangelical institution, and then doing a transfer degree at this or that school leading up to my PhD. Or, I could do all my studies at one school: if at Yale, say, I could do my MDiv there, and then I’d have a better chance at getting into a PhD program, making sure to take classes with the professors I want to study under.
Narrowing Interests
One thing that was immediately apparent was that my interests need to be narrowed over the next couple of years. PhDs, of course, are very narrow. You can do a PhD on Jonathan Edwards at Yale. Not something broad, like “Church History” or even “American Church History,” but a specific person. The faculty member I was interviewing did his PhD work on Karl Barth.
And I, being naive, came in saying I would like to study “New Testament or Theology.” New Testament is probably sufficiently narrow, but what kind of Theology? Systematic Theology? If so, with a focus on what topic? Historical Theology? If so, what period or person?
Now, it’s okay to some extent to still not know where I want to do my studies. One thing that he suggested was that, if I were to do an MDiv at Yale, I take a few electives to determine where my interests really lie. But this hypothetical scenario is conditioned on me desiring to do my PhD work at Yale.
Ultimately, the choice of an institution for PhD work is conditioned on what I want to study. For example, for New Testament studies, my sights should probably be across the Atlantic: some European university like Oxford or Cambridge would probably be the best choice. But Yale would not be a bad choice for systematic theology, if the specific emphasis I wanted to place on my theology research was less exegetical and more philosophical.
So the major crossroads I am left with is between New Testament studies and theology of some kind; the choice between these two will condition what I end up doing leading up to that PhD.
Evangelicalism and Institutions
There is an obvious variance between what conservative Protestant Christianity teaches and what is normally taught by these big institutions. My undergraduate university was Cedarville, so if my sights are set to do biblical studies of some sort in these environments, it will be like stepping into a different world, I’m sure.
After my chat with the professor, however, I’m confident that this is something that can be done: I am not abandoning confessional principles by suffering to be taught by those who do not share such convictions. Certainly, he did it, so it’s not as if this situation is unworkable.
One thing he did caution me with, however, is that some universities are more tolerant, and some more strict, with evangelicals attending. Out of hand, he claimed that Harvard would probably be out of the picture for theology (though perhaps not for NT?) because of the strong hold of Marxism upon the institution.
Ultimately, to do research at any of these schools is not just to take a bunch of lectures, read a bunch of books, and then to write one. The professor helpfully reframed studying at one of these universities as joining into an academic conversation among colleagues. And the precise nature of that conversation is not the same at every institution. And ultimately this conversation is governed to some extent by the principles which that institution assumes.
A Marxist framework makes it difficult logistically for one committed to evangelical notions to join into that conversation. Although he did not elaborate much on why there is a correlation between Marxism and a lack of toleration for evangelicals, my guess is that the binarization of everything into power categories, between oppressor and oppressed, rewards the silencing of those deemed “oppressors,” or those who do not explicitly advocate for the “oppressed.” As a theologically conservative Christian, there are certain groups labeled as “oppressed” which I can not whole-heartedly support (although we must love them!), therefore I probably wouldn’t be effective (nor probably even get into) one of these schools. But this is just conjecture; I’m taking his word on this that these institutions would probably not be a good fit, if I were to study theology.
And it’s worth noting that, while the stereotype for Ivy-leagues is certainly ultra-liberal, this is not universally the case; Yale, for example, is diverse in its student body. The professor told me that, just five years ago, a chairman (or something?) spoke at ETS.
But, with any Ivy league, it’d probably be my best bet to “keep my head down.” Again, thinking about research as a conversation, an evangelical who is perceived to be disruptive to the academic discourse certainly wouldn’t get in to any of these universities.
So as a confessing evangelical I just need to be aware that not every school under the sun is going to accept me, regardless of my qualifications. And remember from above: they don’t need me either.
Sustaining Faith under Scrutiny
A warning he gave about considering these big institutions is that many who go in spiritually and doctrinally healthy and come out very sick. He told a grave story of one of his friends who was with him for both his Masters’ studies and his PhD: coming in, he had all the marks of bible-believing conservatism; in the end, he went off of the deep end theologically, and it ended in the entire implosion of his family, with his wife divorcing him over what she viewed as apostasy. So, pastorally, he encouraged me to make sure that I am sure on the basics of the faith; to clarify to myself what it is that I believe in very explicit terms.
One specific head of doctrine in which he encouraged me to study and ground myself is that of God’s revelation, since, of course, that will provide one of the most fundamental distinctions between a more conservative outlook, which views the Scriptures as God’s external and objective revelation of his will and Gospel to mankind, over and against outlooks which negatively devalue God’s definitive revelation and positively overvalue man’s insight. I agree with him that this is a really important doctrine which I need to hone in on, convince myself of, recourse to; really, the only other option is to be “blown about by every wind of doctrine,” having no standard by which to judge whatever comes out of a smart person’s mouth, holding on to the good while disposing of the bad.
And, ultimately, I believe that my faith, the Christian confession, can survive any good-faith critical critique; it’s not as if there’s one truth for the Academy, and one truth for the Church, and they’re mutually exclusive, and are of equal weight.1 No, there is but one Truth, and he revealed himself to us. But I do not perfectly grasp that truth, that is true: I can be swayed by fine-sounding arguments that while ultimately untrue are very persuasive, and come from smart people. Therefore, I need to buckle up and teach myself anew some of these fundamentals of the Faith, and never let go of them.
Summative Thoughts
I think the greatest takeaway from all of this is that I need to study more, and more rigorously. If I am, to God’s glory, to be a theologian worthy of him, then half-hearted insights are not going to cut it. “Take every thought captive to the word of Christ.” And not just in doctrine, although that certainly is important – but I need to think very intentionally about what it is that I was put on this earth to do, what my mission is, and then put everything into that.
- Whatever a Reformed presuppositionalist tries to tell you. (joking) ↩︎