Pannenberg on Augustine

A while back I offered a brief prolegomena to Augustine's De Trinitate in which I suggested that the themes which have became so contentious in the Bishop's work represent components of a much larger project. Instead of seeing the "psychological analogy," the "love analogy," or interiority as the core of Augustine's trinitarian thought, I contended that these are actually methodological elaborations on the question which he asks in Confessions 10 ("what do I love when I love my God?").

With this in mind, I was pleasantly surprised to find that Wolfhart Pannenberg agreed with me:

Augustine did not try to derive the trinitarian distinctions from the divine unity. The psychological analogies that he suggested and developed in his work on the Trinity were simply meant to offer a very general way of linking the unity and trinity and thus creating some plausibility for trinitarian statements. The analogies do not depend on the common outward operations of God because the picture of God in the human soul reflects three persons not alone but in concert. The copy, of course, falls short of the original. Augustine could not develop a psychological doctrine of the Trinity in the sense of a derivation of the three divine persons from the unity of the divine Spirit. On the contrary, he stressed the inadequacy of all psychological analogies...Augustine's psychological analogies should not be used to derive the trinity from the unity but simply to illustrate the Trinity in whom one already believes. All the same, Augustine so strongly emphasized the unity of God that strictly no space was left for the trinity of persons. (Systematic Theology I; 284-285, 287)

The final sentence is crucial: yes, Augustine does seem to place more emphasis on the unity of God. But the analogies are not meant to be proofs for or a defense of this emphasis as the starting point for any and all Trinitarian relfection. Pannenberg's suggestion that the analogies are meant to be used to "illustrate the Trinity in whom one already believes" echoes much of what I was driving at earlier. Though, my point is that the process by which one comes to believe and reflect on that Trinity deserves much more attention regarding its place in the structure of Augustine's Trinitarian theology.

*****

On the Current Populist Rage: Won't You Be My Frankenstein?

In Thucydides, there is a wonderful passage where the author describes how "factional strife" among the Greek cities altered the very linguistic structure of the culture:

For in peacetime, and amid prosperous circumstances, both cities and individuals possess more noble dispositions, because they have not fallen into the overpowering constraints imposed by harsher times. But war, which destroys the easy routines of people's daily lives, is a violent schoolmaster, and assimilates the dispositions of most people to the prevailing circumstances. (3) So then, affairs in the cities were being torn apart by faction, and those struggles that occurred in the latter stages of the war - through news, I suppose, of what had occurred earlier in other cities - pushed to greater lengths the extravagance with which new plots were devised, both in the inventiveness of the various attempts at revolt and in the unheard-of nature of the subsequent acts of retaliation. (4) And people altered, at their pleasure, the customary significance of words to suit their deeds: irrational daring came to be considered the "manly courage of one loyal to his party"; prudent delay was thought a fair-seeming cowardice; a moderate attitude was deemed a mere shield for lack of virility, and a reasoned understanding with regard to all sides of an issue meant that one was indolent and of no use for anything. Rash enthusiasm for one's cause was deemed the part of a true man; to attempt to employ reason in plotting a safe course of action, a specious excuse for desertion. (5) One who displayed violent anger was "eternally faithful," whereas any who spoke against such a person was viewed with suspicion. One who laid a scheme and was successful was "wise," while anyone who suspected and ferreted out such a plot beforehand was considered still cleverer...The cause of all of these things was the pursuit of political power, motivated by greed and ambition. And out of these factors arose the fanatical enthusiasm of individuals now fully disposed to pursue political vendettas. (The Peloponnesian War, 3.82, emphasis added)

This perversion of language is not without its contemporary correlates. Over at the Broadsheet (my favorite place for feminist-y news commentary) there is an interesting post on the Conservative talk show host obsession with "rape metaphors."

Yep, wealthy middle-aged white men love using "rape" language to describe how they feel the government is treating them

Surely, the colloquial usage of sexual abuse terminology is (sadly) ubiquitous. And perhaps it should not always be looked upon with scorn. But spend just a moment and bask in the spectacle of how these commentators deploy their "rape rhetoric."



I will avoid arm-chair psychologizing for the time being. But this very well may be the nadir of political discourse in America. More than that, it is simply an offensive display of chauvinism which on the one hand downplays the serious and persistent scourge that is sexual abuse in our country while, on the other hand, suggesting that a perceived and metaphorical "rape" by a democratically elected official is somehow worse than the word's more literal usage.

Now, couple this with the past year of tea-partying, town-hall aggro-activism, and general populist rage incited by the very same talking heads and we have, indeed, created a monster. The problem, which even some conservative politicians have now rightly recognized, is that once this monster is vivified it will only bring about chaos and destruction (see this recent article on Palin and Populism which quotes even Rick Santorum suggesting that Populism without a positive agenda being bound for doom). The problem is, with the rhetorical foundation set in place by Limbaugh, Dobbs, Beck and Boortz I see no way for the current populist strand to be readjusted in a more constructive direction.

Populism today is destructive, not constructive. It is about uniting people - and, as a result, isolating them - under a common ire (no matter how ill-informed it may be), stoking the flames with inflammatory and abusive rhetoric (until reasoned and lively discourse becomes impossible), and then crying havoc to let loose the hounds of hell. Moderates beware, says Thucydides: "those citizens who chose the middle course of moderation perished at the hands of both factions, either for their failure to join in the struggle or due to envy at the fact that they were surviving amid the general chaos" (Thucydides, 3.82).

This Frankenstein, like Shelley's, will consume it's masters too. Because there is no agenda in today's populism. There is only fear and it's bedfellow, ignorant hatred. And by using the language of rape to further their political agendas (or vendettas, as Thucydides says), the talking heads have put the libido back into libido dominandi.


*****

Quote of the Day

"People who don't believe in evolution really shouldn't be allowed to get flu shots."

~ Twitter post by Rainn Wilson (@RainnWilson)

*****

Campaign Fail

For several weeks leading up to the November elections in Manhattan, I noticed that a certain Wanted poster was being hung from every available telephone pole in my neighborhood. It wasn't until I looked closer - after the election, mind you - that I realized it was not a Wanted poster, but instead was a campaign flyer.

Word to the wise: if your campaign flyer confuses you with a wanted criminal, it is time to hire a new strategist.

Needless to say, I don't think Mr Tajiddin won the election.

Two Books on Augustine and the Trinity (which I somehow missed)...and a third.

The Trinity and Creation in Augustine
An Ecological Analysis
(from the SUNY Series on Religion and the Environment)

by Scott A. Dunham

Interesting to see SUNY Press publishing a book on Augustine and the Trinity, but this looks to be at least an intriguing read. As the product description rightly notes, this is an area of Augustine's Trinitarian thought in serious need of further theological reflection from those working in the English language.

Hardback - $65, Paper Back - $24 (Both can be purchased at the SUNY Press site)

(From the description) The first English-language book on Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine of creation, The Trinity and Creation in Augustine explores Augustine’s relevance for contemporary environmental issues. Modern, environmentally conscious thinkers often see Augustine’s doctrines in a negative light, feeling they have been used to justify humankind’s domination of nature. Considering Augustine’s thought in his own time and in ours, Scott A. Dunham offers a more nuanced view. He begins with a consideration of the major themes that have characterized ecologically sensitive theologies and Augustine’s place in those discussions. The primary examination considers how Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity informed his interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis, especially his conceptions of divine creation, providence, and dominion. This analysis of Augustine’s Trinitarian interpretation of Genesis stands in contrast to recent characterizations of classical conceptions of creation. The book concludes with a discussion of Augustine’s relevance for modern theological thought by appraising Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine of creation in relation to ecological themes in theological ethics.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Ecological Problem of Dominion and the Doctrine of God
Ecologically Informed Theological Ethics: Interrelatedness in Ecology
The Problem of Hierarchy in Modern Theology

Part I

1. The Contemporary Critique of Augustine

The Forms of Eastern and Western Trinitarian Thought
Augustine’s Western Form of the Trinity: Modalism
The Trinity and the Doctrine of Creation: Cause and Effect
The Scriptural Basis of Augustine’s Trinitarian Doctrine

2. Augustine’s Doctrine of the Trinity
Subordinationism and the Divine Missions
Monarchy, Simplicity, and Relations of Origin: Augustine’s
Trinitarian Logic
Modalism

3. Augustine and Hierarchy in the Trinity
Hierarchy and the Trinitarian Relations
Hierarchy and the Divine Substance

Part II

4. The Trinitarian Founding of Creation

The Structure of The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Naming the Trinity in Genesis 1
How the Trinity Founds the Creation 68 How the Trinity Converts and Perfects Creatures

5. Trinitarian Governance and Creaturely

Participation in God
Participation in Augustine’s Theology
God’s Providential Governance and Creaturely Motion
Participation in the Trinity through Measure, Number and Weight
Formless Matter and the Question of Passivity

6. Resting in God, the Image of God, and Dominion

Resting in God
Use and Enjoyment
The Work of Human Dominion and the Image of God
Dominion and Power
Conclusion


The Theological Epistemology of Augustine's De Trinitate
by Luigi Gioia OSB

This book looks to be a bold and energetic attempt to provide modern readers with an approach to the structure of and background to Augustine's most robust work on the doctrine of the Trinity. Just a brief glance at the table of contents demonstrates the volumes ambitiously exhaustive scope. I will be curious to see how Gioia's presentation of Augustine's thought takes shape given that, frankly, I have never heard of him before. Perhaps this was Oxford UP's attempt to answer Cambridge's much anticipated volume on the same topic?

Either way, the hardcover is (as expected) accessibly priced at $130.


(from the description) Luigi Gioia provides a fresh description and analysis of Augustine's monumental treatise, De Trinitate, working on a supposition of its unity and its coherence from structural, rhetorical, and theological points of view. The main arguments of the treatise are reviewed first: Scripture and the mystery of the Trinity; discussion of 'Arian' logical and ontological categories; a comparison between the process of knowledge and formal aspects of the confession of the mystery of the Trinity; an account of the so called 'psychological analogies'. These topics hold a predominantly instructive or polemical function. The unity and the coherence of the treatise become apparent especially when its description focuses on a truly theological understanding of knowledge of God: Augustine aims at leading the reader to the vision and enjoyment of God the Trinity, in whose image we are created. This mystagogical aspect of the rhetoric of De Trinitate is unfolded through Christology, soteriology, doctrine of the Holy Spirit and doctrine of revelation. At the same time, from the vantage point of love, Augustine detects and powerfully depicts the epistemological consequences of human sinfulness, thus unmasking the fundamental deficiency of received theories of knowledge. Only love restores knowledge and enables philosophers to yield to the injunction which resumes philosophical enterprise as a whole, namely 'know thyself'.

And, since I mentioned it earlier, here is the Cambridge volume due out some time next year.

Augustine and the Trinity
by Lewis Ayres

With plenty of hints and gestures towards a larger project within the articles of Ayres and Michel Barnes, we now have the first substantial consideration of De Trinitate from one of the leading voices in what has been called "the new canon" school of thought. Having only read a chapter that didn't actually make the final cut, I am unable to suggest anything other than that this volume promises to become required reading for students of Augustine. Due out sometime next Spring, you should be able to pick up a copy for a little light summer reading (check on the publication and purchasing here).

(from the description) Augustine of Hippo (354–430) strongly influenced western theology, but he has often been accused of over-emphasizing the unity of God to the detriment of the Trinity. In this book Lewis Ayres demonstrates how Augustine’s writings actually offer one of the most sophisticated and persuasive of Nicene Trinitarian theologies. Culminating recent research by scholars in Europe and the US, Ayres argues that Augustine's earliest Trinitarian writings drew on a variety of earlier Latin traditions which stressed the irreducibility of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as well as on the Neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus. Ayres then demonstrates how Augustine's mature writings offer an elaborate and unexpected account of the Trinity as defined by the inter-personal life of Father, Son and Spirit. Ayres also shows that Augustine shaped an account of Christian ascent toward understanding of and participation in the divine life which begins in faith and models itself on Christ’s humility.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Part I. Origins:
1. Giving wings to Nicaea;
2. Through Him, with Him and in Him;
3. Faith of our fathers: De fide et symbolo;

Part II. Ascent:
4. The unadorned Trinity;

Excursus 1: The dating of the De trinitate;

5. Per corporalia … ad incorporalia;
6. A Christological epistemology;

Excursus 2: Polemical targets in the De trinitate;

Part III. Into the Mystery:
7. Recommending the source;
8. Essence from essence;
9. Showing, seeing and loving;
10. Loving and being;

Part IV. Memory, Intelligence and Will:
11. 'But it's not fur eatin'…';
12. '… It's just fur lookin' through';

Epilogue: catching all three

Quote of the Day

My experience of Catholicism is very much how Dan Brown describes it. When I was a monk, my monastery had a whole separate wing of albino monks.

~Luke Timothy Johnson (who, if you don't know, is a quotable-quote machine and one of the biggest reasons I miss Emory)

HT: Sitz Im Leben for putting me on to the Dear Candler blog which, ostensibly, is a gathering of funny and embarrassing quotes from around Emory's campus.

*****

A Friendly Reminder...

...to all you students/scholars of Patristics, Early Church History, and Historical Theology: the NAPS (North American Patristic Society) call for papers is open and accepting submissions until December 15. Also, they have miraculously redesigned their website, making it far more navigable as well as aesthetically pleasing (any website devoted to the Fathers should be Good, True, and Beautiful).

I really enjoyed NAPS two years ago, and it is a great time for people with particular interests in the Patristic period to connect. It is almost like a Patristics retreat, since everyone generally stays in the same hotel and gets drinks in the lounge at happy hour. Even for those of you who have only secondary interests in this area, I highly recommend making the trip to Chicago. I am encouraging most of my colleagues from Fordham to attend and hope that many of you will as well.

The student rate for membership is set at a very reasonable $26 (which includes a subscription to the Journal of Early Christian Studies!!!).

How to Get Accepted to a Theology/Religion PhD Program : The Series

The whole series (I have also added a link to this series on my sidebar at the bottom):

Part 1 - The Odds
Part 2 - The Process
- 2.1, Preparation
- 2.2, Execution
- 2.3, Community
Part 3 - The Agony
Part 4 - The Ecstasy
Part 5 - Conclusion
Appendix A - Walking the Tightrope? On Pursuing a Career in the Humanities
Appendix B - Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)

Feel free to drop comments, questions, or criticisms. As I mentioned in the last post, applying to a doctoral program is an inherently dialogical process.

Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)

For those keeping score:

Part 1 - The Odds
Part 2 - The Process
- 2.1, Preparation
- 2.2, Execution
- 2.3, Community
Part 3 - The Agony
Part 4 - The Ecstasy
Part 5 - Conclusion
Appendix A - Walking the Tightrope? On Pursuing a Career in the Humanities
Appendix B - Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)

On Wheres and Wherefores

Judging by the Google hits that my blog has been receiving, this final post may address the major issue for which most web-surfers come seeking an answer. Let me begin by way of an unequivocal caveat: I cannot tell you where to get a PhD. I cannot adequately rank them for your situation. To provide some general listing of programs in an arbitrary order would not only be counter-productive, it would be mendacious (I was, at one point, very guilty of doing just this). But the current post will attempt nothing of the sort. What I do hope to accomplish, however, is a kind of road-map towards deciding which programs might suit your particular interests and concerns the best.

This whole issue has been brought into stark relief by R.R. Reno's unabashedly biased ranking of graduate programs in theology. I will not spend time responding to his article(s) because Evan has already done an excellent job of parsing out the issues there. A few things, however, which Reno fails to even consider will become major factors in my advice below: these include 1) Financial Aid, 2) Pedagogical Training, 3) Job Placement, 4) Quality of Attention from Faculty, 5) have these professors published anything of substance in the past 5 years, 6) Quality of Classes offered, and 7) Years-to-degree...among others. But before we explore these issues, let me address one major question first-off.


Considering A PhD Program Abroad

During my first pass at PhD applications, I applied to the University of Durham. As a Patristics scholar with interests in contemporary theological discourse, this was a no-brainer. Carol Harrison and Andrew Louth are Early Church Historians of the first order. Durham had just hired Mark McIntosh as well. I exchanged many emails with Harrison and was very encouraged by her receptivity. Durham offered me acceptance well before any of my other responses came back. But, of course, financial aid was a whole different issue. It became very clear that there were scant-few resources for Americans seeking some form of scholarship. The administration suggested that I might be more successful in procuring funds upon my arrival. Had I been single and had I been convinced that Durham was the perfect location for me to do this degree, I would have spent much longer considering the option. But, as I will explain, too many factors seemed to indicate that this decision would be unsustainable.

There are many phenomenal programs in theology in the UK: St Andrews, Edinburgh, Durham, Cambridge and Nottingham to name a few. In choosing to go there, you may have the opportunity to work intimately with some of the brightest theological minds working today. But there is a trade-off for an American going abroad.

The UK Bachelors degree often functions like our American Masters. When I studied abroad at St Andrews during my senior year, I was struck by the intensive nature of the undergraduate Divinity program. I took a class on Bonhoeffer which, with only 7-8 students, was by far the most rigorous course I had ever taken in theology to that point. Student's from the UK who move from a Bachelors in Divinity/Theology into an MPhil, MA, or MLitt will have done a fair amount of graduate level work heading into their Masters degree. Thus, the UK PhD program remains a brief, research-based degree without coursework and without comprehensive examinations. An American who has one Masters degree in theology will (for the most part) be at a disadvantage compared to those UK students who have moved through their system in the traditional manner.

If you chose to pursue the UK PhD route, you will have to come to grips with a few major issues: 1) You will most likely pay for the degree in its entirety. Remember, the British Pound is not necessarily a kind conversion to the US Dollar. 2) You will not have traditional coursework, nor will you have comprehensive examinations. In the US, these two elements not only broaden your knowledge base of the field, but also help you to sell yourself to potential employers regarding the possibility of teaching a diverse set of courses. 3) It is likely that you will miss out on the formal, pedagogical training which takes place in most American doctoral programs and thus will have to hone your craft as a teacher on your own. 4) For these reasons and others, much of the advice I received from faculty suggested that I would face difficulty in pursuing jobs in the States once I finished. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, but indicates that you will most likely have to work harder to prove yourself upon your return.

This is not to say that UK PhD programs should be out of the question for all American students. It is merely meant to point out the hurdles you will face. Many students will find the brevity of the degree and the types of faculty available very enticing. I, for one, wish that I had at least considered UK programs for my Masters work. Really, the decision an American student must face when looking abroad will be a deeply personal one: can you uproot? can you afford it? can you accept the challenges that it may present in the future?

On Ranking American Programs for Yourself

I am not against ranking PhD programs in theology. In fact, I think it is necessary. But, it is also necessarily subjective. You, as the applicant, should constantly be revising your own list of schools based on the factors that are important to you and to your particular concentration. Just because the school has a "good name" doesn't mean it belongs high on your list. If you want to work in 20th Century Catholic Theology/History, Princeton probably isn't going to make it onto your top 10 list. If you want to do work in Karl Barth, Boston College may be a bit of a stretch. Each program has its own unique identity, strengths, and weaknesses. In an ideal world, you would get into a school that is strong in your concentration, provides solid funding, trains you as an educator, gets you to walk the stage in a reasonable amount of time, and places you in a job relatively quickly.

But of course, we rarely choose from ideal scenarios. Therefore, I suggest making a list of schools based on the criteria that are important to you: faculty, funding, pedagogy/teaching opportunity, job placement, location, etc. (I did not apply to Fordham the first time around because neither my wife nor I were prepared to consider life in NYC. This was very short-sighted on our part, because the program has turned out to be a great fit for my interests and the location has been less of an issue than we ever anticipated). So, when looking at programs where I might do doctoral work in Patristics, my primary list looked something like this (not a ranking, just a list):

Notre Dame
Fordham
Boston College
Marquette
Yale
Duke
Indiana
Brown

Each of the programs above have strengths in Early Christianity as well as resources in Theology, Philosophy, and/or Critical Theory. These factors were important for me, as I wanted not merely to be a historian but also to be someone who could constructively engage the ideas and issues which my study of the Early Church brought forth. It is for this reason that schools like Brown or Indiana (and to a lesser extent, UVA) remained interesting to me. State schools are not known as hubs of Patristic scholarship. But a David Brakke and a Susan Ashbrook Harvey provide solid footing in the Ancient tradition and could be paired in fruitful ways with faculty doing critical/constructive work from more a contemporary focus.

A list for other concentrations (Bible, Ethics, Systematics) will inevitably look different than the one above. For instance if you want to work in Modern Protestant Theology, the Catholic programs and the State Universities will most likely be bumped off (or at least lowered: Fordham, I have found, actually does Protestant stuff fairly well for a Catholic school - but applying to work solely in that area might be a tough sell). You should work out a criteria for selecting which programs to apply for in conversation with your academic adviser and (if needed) your family. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, do not assume that there is such a thing as a "Safety School" in the PhD process. Your list should be narrow enough so as not to include schools that could not support your project. But it should also be broad enough that you are not simply applying to Duke, Yale, and Chicago and hoping to win the lottery.

Some things to consider: How many faculty members are actually working in something related to your interests? What kind of work will the department require of you as a first/second year graduate student (do they expect you to teach undergrads from the get-go? Work 30 hours/wk in administrative functions)? What kind of personal attention can you anticipate from the faculty and is the department collegial or divisive? Does that matter to you? Can you relocate across the country? What is the structure of the examinations at the school? Is being in an environment where theological study and faith commitments are explicitly related something that is important to you?

The picture I am trying to paint makes the discernment process about where to apply more difficult. It requires more investigation than perhaps most applicants are able to do. But these are the only real criteria by which you could make an accurate ranking for your purposes. R.R. Reno failed to account for nearly all of these issues, choosing instead to use a school's commitment to less liberal/progressive agendas as the primary hallmark of a "good school." But that is all a bunch of hogwash, really. You could be an evangelical with strong confessional stances and still come out of Emory's GDR with top-notch training in theological studies...and it's not like this training would happen in some atheistic or spiritually-antagonistic vacuum. It just won't feel like Notre Dame or Fuller.

All that being said: before you rank schools, rank the criteria. What are your non-negotiables? What factors can be compromised or flexed? What schools match-up with these factors the best? Only you can determine the best programs for your interests and your personality.

I have surely disappointed some in not giving more concrete advice about this or that department and why you should or should not apply there. However, I hope you see why such a project is counter-productive and rarely anything more than a reflection of personal bias. A decision as large as selecting PhD programs should not be parsed out by someone who knows nothing of your interests, background, or commitments. That being said, it is important to tap into the institutional knowledge of the broader academic community in your attempts to gauge your fit from one program to the next. Don't hesitate to ask those who have gone before you for their opinions of certain doctoral programs...just don't forget take it with a grain of salt.

I hope that this series has been, in some small way, helpful for those of you discerning whether to pursue a PhD in Theology/Religion. I have surely left many questions unanswered, and perhaps elicited a few more. But this discernment process should take the shape of an ongoing discussion. It is my hope that these posts help to further that conversation.

Quote of the Day

"Minoring in Religious Studies and thinking you know about religion is like watching porn, reading gynecology textbooks, and thinking you know something about pussy."

~Mary Karr (a recent Catholic convert and cantankerous author; quoted from New York Magazine's article on her new memoir, Lit).

Amazon's Product review describes the memoir like this: "Not since Saint Augustine cried, 'Give me chastity, Lord - but not yet!' has a conversion story rung with such dark hilarity."


*****

Aristotle and the Ascetic Life

One of the more humorous and enjoyable moments of reading through Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics this semester has been the realization that he has almost no conception of the ascetic life. With the focal point of this work being eudaimonia, Aristotle fails to even put words to the type of life that does not seek pleasure at all:

With regard to pleasures and pains - not all of them, and not so much with regard to the pains - the mean is temperance, the excess self-indulgence. Persons deficient with regard to pleasures are not often found; hence such persons also have received no name. But let us call them 'insensible'. (NE II.7, Ross).

*****

Where The Wild Things Are: Some (Brief) Reflections...

A week ago, my wife and I ventured over to the cinema to watch Spike Jonze's adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are. Surprisingly, the film was only showing in IMAX - which turned out to be a nice added bonus (despite the few extra bucks). I will refrain from writing a full-on review here, but there were a few things that really jumped out at me.

First, the film is an unflinching depiction of the internal life of children (particularly young boys). Much discussion has been made regarding whether or not children should be taken to see this movie. I am on the fence. What I do know is that it would be extremely difficult for a boy of 6, 7, or 8 years old to process the emotional content of the film. In many ways, Where the Wild Things Are puts on display the disparate, conflicting, and often incomprehensible affections which erupt in the pre-adolescent psyche. To some extent, each of the "Wild Things" represents an incarnation of the main character's unrestrained emotional life. Max ultimately realizes that a life lived with disorder in its very core cannot be sustained - and thus he leaves the Wild Things.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of the children were able to process or make sense of this crucial element. Keep in mind, this is no PIXAR film in which the adult themes can be missed without losing entertainment value. From the heart-rending opening scene, Max is presented as a tumultuous and raging child struggling to cope with the life before him. After the first 30 minutes there were few parents with dry eyes sitting around us...but the kids mostly seemed confused. And this confusion continued through the latter parts in which the Wild Things threatened to eat the young Max (one child asked his mother, "that's not supposed to happen, right?").

Second, and related to this, is the overarching theme that life itself is dangerous, full of risk. Max, indeed, is not safe amongst the Wild Things. Nor are the Wild Things safe from Max. The world we find in this film is a world of intense vulnerability. It is a world neither safe for us or safe from us. Max is deeply hurt by his mother's lack of attention whom he then hurts with his carelessness. This pain is then transferred to his running away and finding the Wild Things whom he hopes to rule. But the order he attempts to achieve is no less painful for him or others.

These two themes make Where the Wild Things Are an incredibly compelling film about the inner lives of children (and to a great extent, all of us). I am just not sure it makes it a great movie for children.

Walking the Tightrope? On Pursuing a Career in the Humanities

For those keeping score at home, here's where we've come so far:

Part 1 - The Odds
Part 2 - The Process
- 2.1, Preparation
- 2.2, Execution
- 2.3, Community
Part 3 - The Agony
Part 4 - The Ecstasy
Part 5 - Conclusion
Appendix A - Walking the Tightrope? On Pursuing a Career in the Humanities
Appendix B - Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)


I learned at an early age that a career in academia does not mean an escape from the bureaucratic nightmares of corporate/governmental America. In fact, the bureaucracy of academic institutions can be just as impenetrable, just as incoherent, and just as repressive as any corporate or government organization. I witnessed this in the experiences of my father who left a successful career in management (having worked at places like AT&T/Bell Labs during the late 80's) to pursue the life of a teacher and administrator. But his experience at two large, state-run institutions showed me that choosing a career in academia is not always (and for some, rarely) a stable and healthy environment to make a living.

Those of us looking at careers in academia must come to grips with the dark underbelly of it's nature and structure. But even more than this, those of us pursuing careers in the Humanities must be doubly prepared. We are - more than ever - being asked to give an account for ourselves and for the very usefulness of our work. In the past 12 months, there have been numerous articles foretelling the dangers and futility of getting a PhD in the Humanities. We Theology/Religion scholars need to pay closer attention: in the totem pole of academic disciplines, our field is often relegated to the lowest of ranks (even within the Humanities field itself).

In what follows, I will survey a handful of the recent articles addressing this issue and conclude with some remarks as to why we should take the warnings seriously while at the same time ignoring the sensationalized rhetoric. I apologize for the length, but I think the topic deserved a detailed analysis.

1. On Being Called to the Question

The current "crisis" (if we may call it that) in the Humanities was put in stark relief for me last Spring - just in time for application season. In March of 2009 an op-ed article appeared in the Emory student newspaper (The Wheel) titled "Emory's Conflicting Missions." It's opening paragraph read as follows:

If I told you that I had just returned from Alchemy 143: Challenges in Transmutation during a Sesqui-Quadrate Jupiter (cross-listed with Astrology 154), would that sound particularly odd? A bit off the 21st-century mark? So why is it that we no longer teach alchemy or astrology but continue in our medieval attachment to a School of Theology?

While the rest of the article contains countless factual errors and inaccuracies, the sentiments are crucial and relevant: the discipline of theology has, by and large, been called into question or (perhaps worse) ignored into obscurity. When the article was published, the School of Theology at Emory was much abuzz about how to respond. I was of the opinion that the response should be brief, rigorous in it's dismissal of the author's poorly constructed argument, and open to engaging any further critiques from anyone willing to put together a more thoughtful dialogue. Unfortunately, a cohort of students chose instead to write a long, effusively charitable reply which accepted the original author's challenge for the school to "account for itself." I found this reply to be nothing short of a capitulation to the very premise of the criticism: i.e. in trying to account for themselves, the students at Candler accepted the notion that theologians are children begging for a seat at the academic "grown ups table" (luckily, the Vice President at Emory - who holds a PhD in Religion from the school - offered a more incisive and robust defense).

I do not blame the students for their reply, however. This little exchange represents a microcosm of what I think is going on around the country in the field of Humanities in general, but especially for those of us doing Theology and Religion. We have become increasingly isolated from the broader intellectual community. This is, on the one hand, our own fault: we specialize in issues so myopic that our only possible audience are the readers of of a few, relatively obscure journals. On the other hand, there has also been a seismic shift in the administrative priorities at most universities in the past 50 years which has turned academic departments into competing centers for revenue (and, thus, competing centers for funding).

When it comes to evaluating programs based upon endowment contribution, the Humanities don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

My own undergraduate alma mater, when developing it's capital campaign, decided that the most effective way to ensure its growth would be to create a Law school and a Business school. What once started as small college for training teachers and preachers is now realigning its core intellectual focus away from liberal arts and focusing instead on the "corporate arts." This shift is not hard to understand: alums like myself, who majored in religion and philosophy, are not going to help the university compete financially with its rivals. Only by creating programs which will produce wealthier alums from which to draw large donations can a small school hope to remain viable in the current academic climate.

The school's tuition has also increased by over 10 grand since I matriculated. Not many who want to be teachers or preachers trained in the liberal arts would consider this an affordable option.

2. On The Decline and Fall of the Humanities

This seismic shift is nothing short of the transformation of American academic institutions from intellectual training grounds into corporations. University Presidents are, to a great extent, full-time fund-raisers. And in this shift, the number of students graduating with a major in the Humanities has declined to 8 percent (or 110,000 students a year). More telling, the most popular major for years in America was education. But, since 1970, education has been replaced by business as the most popular major, dropping from 21% of graduates down to an astonishing 8% while business graduates increased from 13% to 22% (see Frank Donoghue, The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities).

Chris Hedges (Pulitzer prize winning author of War is a Force that Gives us Meaning) has recently suggested that,

The bankruptcy of our economic and political systems can be traced directly to the assault against the humanities. The neglect of the humanities has allowed elites to organize education and society around predetermined answers to predetermined questions. Students are taught structures designed to produce these answers even as these structures have collapsed...These elites are not capable of asking the broad, universal questions, the staples of an education in the humanities, which challenge the deepest assumptions of a culture and examine the harsh realities of political and economic power. They have forgotten, because they have not been taught, that human nature is a mixture of good and evil. They do not have the capacity for critical reflection. They do not understand that for every answer there arises another question. (Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of the Spectacle, 103)

While some of his rhetoric is certainly overstated, it is hard not to be persuaded by his assessment of the situation. He rightly notes that even our most elite academic institutions are becoming nothing less than "glorified vocational schools for corporations" (110) and that the "flight from the humanities has become a flight from conscience" (111). Notice the persistence and prevalence now of online education - what future does theological/religious studies have on the digital campus? The Humanities, as a general field, is now full of endangered disciplines. And we graduate students are the remnants of its dwindling species.

3. On Becoming an Endangered Species

If one were to read only the article from Emory's Student paper and the chapter cited from Hedge's book, it might be tempting to feel motivated all the more to pursue a career as a professional scholar in the Humanities from some lofty sense of the nobility of the vocation. However, a survey of recent articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education as well as the New York Times presents an even bleaker and more depressing image.

William Pannapacker, a professor of English at Hope College and editor at the Chronicle, wrote a controversial article in January of 2009 titled "Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go." The title tells the whole story. Here are a few of his lines from the opening paragraphs:

"The reality is that less than half of all doctorate holders — after nearly a decade of preparation, on average — will ever find tenure-track positions."

"It can be painful, but it is better that [students] considering graduate school in the humanities should know the truth now, instead of when they are 30 and unemployed, or worse, working as adjuncts at less than the minimum wage under the misguided belief that more teaching experience and more glowing recommendations will somehow open the door to a real position."

"They [the prospective students] seem to think becoming a humanities professor is a reliable prospect — a more responsible and secure choice than, say, attempting to make it as a freelance writer, or an actor, or a professional athlete — and, as a result, they don't make any fallback plans until it is too late."

Pannapacker is blunt to the point of callousness in his assessment of the prospect of pursuing a graduate degree in the humanities. He notes that graduate students have been telling themselves for two decades that a horde of baby-boomer professors will be retiring imminently. Even if this mass exodus of professors were to occur (he doesn't seem to think it will), Pannapacker suggests their tenure track positions will most likely not be retained. By this assessment, the future of humanities professors seems to be one without tenure and increasingly located in adjunct-type positions.

Among the many pitfalls which he notes, Pannapacker concludes that a student should only pursue doctoral work in the humanities under these circumstances:

• You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else.
• You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere.
• You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household.
• You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold — such as a high-school teacher — and your employer is paying for it.

And finally, with one swift kick to the gut, he describes the grim fate of those who tread where they ought not:

It's hard to tell young people that universities recognize that their idealism and energy — and lack of information — are an exploitable resource. For universities, the impact of graduate programs on the lives of those students is an acceptable externality, like dumping toxins into a river. If you cannot find a tenure-track position, your university will no longer court you; it will pretend you do not exist and will act as if your unemployability is entirely your fault. It will make you feel ashamed, and you will probably just disappear, convinced it's right rather than that the game was rigged from the beginning.

The article understandably touched a nerve with many across the country. Their impassioned responses prompted Pannapacker to pen a second, follow-up article. His response is summed up by one simple question: "What good is professional training for a job that you are not likely to get, after a decade of discipline, debt, and deferred opportunity?" This question was echoed by a New York Times article in March of 2009 which cited how the National Endowment for the Humanities funding has been slashed by over 30% since its highest point in 1979. A second op-ed in the Times came out in July by a PhD student in Art History about the psychological anguish she has experienced at the prospect of being completely irrelevant and un-hire-able.

All of this doom-and-gloom leads one to wonder if we aspiring scholars of Theology/Religion/Bible are merely picking up instruments that can only be played aboard the Titanic. How are we to assess the bleak outlook presented by nearly every voice on the subject of becoming a scholar in the Humanities? Do we happily ignore their warnings and go about our way? Do we take their advice and seek more fertile fields elsewhere? Do we abandon all hope and yet still take the plunge into the risky waters of the academic job market?

4. On Not Being De-Humanized

Mark Slouka, in the September 2009 issue of Harper's Magazine, provides one of the most sustained polemics against the dissolution of the Humanities. In his essay Dehumanized: When Math and Science Rule the School, Slouka (like all the others) points to the grave situation facing Humanities study in America:

[The essential drama of American education today is] a play I've been following for some time now. It's about the increasing dominance - scratch that, the unqualified triumph - of a certain way of seeing, of reckoning value. It's about the victory of whatever can be quantified over everything that can't. It's about the quiet retooling of American education into an adjunct of business, an instrument of production. The play's almost over. I don't think it's a comedy.

Slouka suggests that we scholars of the humanities have fallen out of favor because our subject is, essentially, the unseen. We study the human condition; those incorporeal and often intangible forces which turn a baby into a torturer as an adult, a revolutionary into a despot once the power shifts, and a religion that dies for its faith into one that kills. And as Slouka rightly notes; neither the theologian, the poet, nor the historian can argue for a place amongst the corporate ranks. Because it is the Humanities which complicates and problematizes the safe assumptions of a"business as usual" society. Slouka contends, "By downsizing what is most dangerous (and most essential) about our education, namely the deep civic function of the Arts and the Humanities, we're well on the way to producing a nation of employees, not citizens. Thus is the world made safe for commerce, but not safe. We're pounding swords into cogs. They work in Pyonyang too."

I could spend a few more paragraphs simply quoting Slouka. His article is erudite, restless, and convincing. But it is his understanding of the "deep civic function of the Humanities" which I think holds the most promise for all of us considering careers in this field. Ours is the discipline of risk, of trouble-making, and of failure. But, as Slouka notes, we have opted instead for an intellectual "flea circus" in which we marvel at our own inane constructions while the outside world simply passes by in dismissive derision.

To pursue a career in the Humanities, therefore, is to reject this trajectory. It seems to me that those of us truly passionate about Biblical, Systematic, Comparative, Historical, Ethical studies in the field of Religion/Theology must also feel this burden of responsibility. Our work must be scholarly and focused. But we must not lose sight of the civic function of our research and teaching. My creative writing professor in college said his goal in teaching sophomore poetry was to help shape citizens with the habits and tools of critical thought. Our work should aim similarly. And though it may feel like we are endangered species, walking the tightrope of academic survival, I cannot help but think that work in the Humanities is all the more necessary in times like these.

I think it is crucial that anyone considering an academic career in the Humanities pay close attention to the warnings above. Sure, they are overly alarmist and in some cases not entirely accurate. But there are legitimate concerns about jobs and job security. However, I do not agree with the assumption that work in the Humanities has become a luxury. There is too damn much at stake.

*****

True or False?

In short, except for a descriptive expression of the Holy Spirit's equi-divinity, we do not have a dogma of the Holy Spirit in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed. We can go further and say that there is no dogma of the Holy Spirit anywhere. All the ecumenical councils, from the first to the last, concerned themselves with questions of Christology and thus with the theology of the Second hypostasis. not one of them occupied itself with the Third hypostasis. All the heresies and disputes of the fifth to eighth centuries refer to the domain of Christology, and there is not a single pneumatological one among them, if we do not count the pneumatomachians. the dogmatic creativity of the epoch of the ecumenical councils was never applied to developing a doctrine of the Holy Spirit. His mystery was surrounded by a holy silence.

- (Sergius Bulgakov, The Comforter, 40; emphasis added)

It strikes me as somewhat odd to make the claim that there was "not a single pneumatological" heresy or dispute under the caveat: "if we do not count the pneumatomachians." That seems to me a rather large omission, no?

*****

The Internet as Hell...

In our time, bereft of epic dreams - which we've replaced with dreams of pillage - the illusion of immortality is created by technology. The Web, and its promise of a voice and a site for all, is our equivalent of the mare incognitum, the unknown sea that lured ancient travelers with the temptation of discovery. Immaterial as water, too vast for any mortal apprehension, the Web's outstanding qualities allow us to confuse the ungraspable with the eternal. Like the sea, the Web is volatile: 70 percent of its communications last less than four months. Its virtue (or virtuality) entails a constant present - which for medieval scholars was one of the definitions of hell. Alexandria and its scholars, by contrast, never mistook the true nature of the past; they knew it to be the source of an ever-shifting present in which new readers engaged with old books which became new in the reading process. Every reader exists to ensure for a certain book a modest immortality. Reading is, in this sense, a ritual of rebirth.

-Alberto Manguel, The Library at Night (Yale University Press: 2006).

How to Get Accepted to a Theology/Religion PhD Program (Part 5: Conclusion)

Here is the Series so far:

Part 1 - The Odds
Part 2 - The Process
- 2.1, Preparation
- 2.2, Execution
- 2.3, Community
Part 3 - The Agony
Part 4 - The Ecstasy
Part 5 - Conclusion
Appendix A - Walking the Tightrope? On Pursuing a Career in the Humanities
Appendix B - Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)

Part 5: Conclusion

It is difficult to make any sufficient concluding remarks on the process of applying to and deciding upon PhD programs in Theology/Religion. As the last two posts should reveal, this is a very subjective endeavor. What works for one applicant may not be a viable strategy for another. The decisions which one applicant has to make at the end of the process will perhaps feel unique and distinct from those of others.

That being said, it is my hope that the rough sketch of a strategy I have provided here will at least give you a head-start in thinking through the details that all applicants should be aware of. Being prepared for the challenges which accompany PhD applications can help you to cope with - though not eliminate - some of its more troublesome aspects. My goal here was to help remove some of the mystery and therefore also some of the painful realizations that inevitably occur along the way.

But my goal is not to discourage you from applying. I hope that this will merely give you the tools to make a more informed decision when the time does come for you to apply.

In lieu of a more substantial conclusion, I have decided to write two final posts on "big-picture" issues surrounding a life in the academy of Religion/Theology.

In the first, I will examine the recent spate of doom-and-gloom articles coming from places like the New York Times, Harper's Magazine, and The Chronicle for Higher Education on the decline of the Humanities in America. Some commentators have even suggested that, unless you are independently wealthy, getting a PhD in the humanities is a fruitless and absurd endeavor. These conversations are vitally important for us Religion/Theology/Bible scholars since we are, ostensibly, at the bottom of the Humanities totem pole to begin with. I will explore the claims made and overall picture painted by these recent articles and offer my own response to their assessment of the current climate. In many ways, exploring these critiques is an attempt to further the conversation on our discipline's viability and vitality as an enduring discourse within the academy at large.

In the second, I will address the notion of ranking PhD programs in religion and theology. Many students in the process of applying will seek some kind of rubric through which to assess prospective schools. No such rubric exists. And those who offer you one without a serious disclaimer regarding their own biases are merely leading you astray. Our disciplines do not have much objective criteria by which to rank them. Nonetheless, I will attempt to provide a general guide for ranking programs suited to your particular interests. That is to say, someone applying in Hebrew Bible will have concerns and priorities that will be fairly distinct from someone applying in Ethics. Rarely do rankings take into consideration the diversity of programs from one concentration to the next (much less sub-fields within concentrations: like if you are applying in Systematics but interested in a PhD in Feminist Theology as opposed to Reformed Theology). I will also address the prospect of a PhD done in the United Kingdom - its strengths and its drawbacks.

I hope for those of you reading that the bulk of these posts have been illuminating in some capacity. If I have failed to address any concerns, don't hesitate to email or post a comment.

*****

Augustine: A Medieval Reception History

This coming Spring, I will be doing a directed study on the reception of Augustinian theology through the Medieval period. For me, this is less about Augustine and more about filling in the gaps of my own knowledge on major (and some minor) theological players up to Aquinas. I really have not done enough work in the Medieval period. This directed study is an attempt to remedy that.

With this in mind, I was hoping that any of you kind readers might be able to suggest some thinkers and their works who you would consider "required reading" for such a course. At the moment, I am only certain about the Victorines (Hugh and Richard) and Bonaventure. There are countless others who could be considered. I have thought about the Carolingians (Alcuin), Bede, Lombard, Abelard, William of St. Thierry, Bernard, or perhaps even Anselm. There are clearly a lot of options, but adequate translations will be necessary (not enough time to do this study from the original texts in one semester). Also, not having as much familiarity with these figures I would appreciate any suggestions on which ones might be the most fruitful to engage with....or perhaps others I have missed?

Let me know what you think. Advice and insight is greatly appreciated!

How to Get Accepted to a Theology/Religion PhD Program (Part 4: The Ecstasy)

If you are just joining us, here is the series so far:

Part 1 - The Odds
Part 2 - The Process
- 2.1, Preparation
- 2.2, Execution
- 2.3, Community
Part 3 - The Agony
Part 4 - The Ecstasy
Part 5 - Conclusion
Appendix A - Walking the Tightrope? On Pursuing a Career in the Humanities
Appendix B - Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)

Part 4: The Ecstasy

This section - as well as the previous one - will have a bit more "testimonial" feel to them as they deal with the various emotions/experiences that accompany certain aspects of the end of the application period. I hope that this does not diminish their value for any prospective students out there. In Part 3, we discussed the agony of waiting to hear back from schools as well as the dreaded rejection letters. Often, the emotional toll which waiting takes on the applicant is something unanticipated: by the time any letter arrives (much less the wrong kind of letter) there is not so much relief but in fact a crescendo of the pent up anxiety.

There is, however, another dimension to this final phase...the acceptance letter. And while I have titled this section "The Ecstasy," I am by no means trying to indicate that the mere receiving of an acceptance letter will produce some kind of rapturous delight. In fact, acceptance to a program includes its own set of challenges and frustrations which will force you to "stand outside" (ekstasis) yourself as you try to discern what is best. In what follows, we will examine the various aspects involved in the acceptance process.

(This post is not meant to make it sound as though getting accepted is a bad thing. Obviously it is more desirable than the alternative. I am merely trying to point out that an acceptance letter does not necessarily result in smooth sailing).

First and foremost, most schools do not hold on-campus interviews. The few that do (Emory, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, etc) will do so rather early in February. This means that the wide majority of programs are under no major time constraints to contact you earlier as opposed to later. However, it seems that most schools with competitive funding packages want to get offers in early so as to have a fighting chance. Some will make phone calls, some send emails, and eventually a letter will arrive from all of them. But since these responses roll in over the course of several months, there is a countless array of scenarios which can complicate the decision process.

Having not participated in the on-campus interview side of this process, I am not able to speak extensively on how best to approach that scenario. What I do know from second-hand experience is that most programs use this as an opportunity to "feel out" your personality based upon what you have written in your application. You can certainly hurt your chances by a bad interview, but it is more likely that the faculty have a clear sense of who they are most interested and are merely trying to gain some further assurance. One friend of mine, after a bad interview, decided that he was going to get the most out of his visit by taking advantage of the open bar tab which the department paid for at a dinner the final night. He ordered a steak and several rounds of drinks. Later, he was accepted to that same program.

My mantra while waiting for responses was, "just one option." My hope was not so much to get into this or that school. By my second attempt, I merely wanted to get in somewhere. Many people find themselves accepted to but one program, and therefore the decision consists solely of "Do I want to go to this school." This deliberation entails a variety of other considerations including funding, geography, spousal commitments, program fit, etc. But, by and large, the decision is strictly focused on whether a particular school will be suitable for your doctoral work.

Others find themselves in the position of having multiple offers on the table. While those who face this scenario are certainly fortunate, it can also be a nerve-wracking experience to compare and contrast various programs with a deadline looming. Often, this decision will come down to a confluence of factors like funding, or geography, and (as previously mentioned) spousal commitments - among others. There is no tangible way to prepare for the decision until there are actual offers on the table. My only suggestion, particularly for those of you with families, is to spend some time determining what the non-negotiables are...decide what factors are a priority and which ones can be compromised.

There is a third scenario which may present itself to you in this process: the wait-list. Whether you are wait-listed for admission or wait-listed for funding, this is rarely a desirable position. Sure, it leaves a little bit more hope than a flat-out rejection, but it also means that you could be waiting well beyond the April 15 deadline before getting final word on your status. My suggestion should you find yourself wait-listed is to contact someone at that school early and often. When dealing with a wait-list for admission, try to determine where you are on the wait-list (how close to the top, etc), how the wait-list functions (is it strictly by concentration or are all concentrations within the department lumped together on one large list?), and what the time frame is for hearing a final decision. When wait-listed for funding, try to gather as much info as you can about the possibility of obtaining funding in the near-future or whether the package is negotiable. See if you can get in touch with current students about how they solved this issue.

Remember, five years of Stafford loans for a PhD in theology or religion is simply a horrible scenario. If this is the only way to make an offer of acceptance work, I would seriously consider whether the time is right.

When it comes to getting accepted and choosing whether/where to attend, there is no real strategy that can be applied universally. You have been lucky enough to be offered one of the few spaces at these programs...it is now an entirely subjective decision on your part. To thine own self be true.

How to Get Accepted to a Theology/Religion PhD Program (Part 3: The Agony)

We have been examining the constellation of issues which comprise the doctoral application process in Religion/Theology programs. This is what the series looks like so far and where I hope to take it:

Part 1 - The Odds
Part 2 - The Process
- 2.1, Preparation
- 2.2, Execution
- 2.3, Community
Part 3 - The Agony
Part 4 - The Ecstasy
Part 5 - Conclusion
Appendix A - Walking the Tightrope? On Pursuing a Career in the Humanities
Appendix B - Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)

In the following two sections (3 & 4), we will explore what you can expect after the January deadline - i.e. after you have submitted all your applications. Thus, what follows will discuss the waiting for and receiving of replies from each school...for many people this is the most troubling time because, well, everything is out of your hands. I hope that these sections will give you some strategies to cope with the highs and lows (because there are unexpected challenges in both). So, first, we will look at the Agony: that is, the hardships of waiting and that unfortunate experience of receiving a rejection letter.

Part 3: The Agony

I believe it was Tom Petty who once sang that "the waiting is the hardest part." I don't think he ever applied to doctoral programs, but the sentiment certainly fits. Hitting the "submit" button on your application is one of the more exhilarating and yet paralyzing feelings: you have (presumably) done everything you could possibly do. Your locus of control has been exhausted. It is now utterly out of your hands. What's more, the criteria by which you will be accepted or rejected are so nebulous that it is nearly impossible to anticipate what your fate will be from one school to the next.

This, as the section heading suggests, is an agonizing space to occupy.

Truth be told, from January until early February I was relatively calm. But once mid February rolled around I knew that certain schools would already be making phone calls to set up interviews. Learning the time-line at each school can be incredibly helpful. That way, if the school does on-campus interview in mid-February you will not be holding your breath come early March if you haven't heard. I suggest emailing an administrator or staff worker at the departments in question to get a sense of when letters or phone calls typically go out. This is drastically different from one school to the next.

For instance, some schools will send rejection letters out first and then spend longer determining their short-list for offers. Others will do the opposite: contacting those to whom an offer is being made first and leaving the rejection letters until the end of the process. Remember, April 15 is not only Tax Day...it is also D-Day for doctoral programs. Nearly all departments will have their incoming crop sorted out by that date.

During the interim between submission and letters it is important to attempt some level of detachment. Your anxiety, impatience, and stress will do little to help you cope or make a clear decision when the time arrives. As I mentioned in the last post, cultivate regular activities that help you to let off steam: these should include exercise and socializing. Again, this may seem patronizing for me to say, but you would be surprised how many applicants lapse into stressed-out recluses from February until May.

If the waiting weren't hard enough, there is also the inevitable first rejection letter. Both years I applied, my first letter was always from Duke and always a rejection. They send a nice email with a PDF letter attached (no waiting for their snail-mail!), and it usually arrived at the beginning of February. However, I had the distinct honor during my first attempt of going 0-7. I found myself in late-March awaiting one or two more letters not realizing that the very fact I was still waiting was the answer! By the time I got the last letter, the whole thing began to feel tragically comedic. (Typically, when you are accepted, a department will contact you via email or telephone before a letter ever arrives).

A word on wait-lists: I had the additional joy of being wait-listed through most of April at one program my first go-round. This is a form of cruel and unusual punishment that I don't wish upon anyone. It is almost better to be rejected than stuck on a wait-list, especially if there is really no clear indication of where you fall on said list. That being said, there are a rare few schools that don't have wait-lists at all...which simply boggles the mind. To me, a program that has no wait-list suggests a program with the potential for stagnation. It is possible that a school's first picks will turn them down several years running, leaving the department and it's students without fresh minds and new conversation partners. Therefore, I would say that wait-lists are a necessary evil: you want them around, you just don't want to be stuck on one as if your were floating in limbo.

So, the obvious: getting rejected from a school sucks. Getting rejected from schools you felt really strongly about sucks even worse. Getting rejected from every school you applied to is - well - I don't have a word for it. In any event, you will likely get no detailed answer regarding why you were not selected: if you do, it will probably be so vague you will wish you hadn't asked. Only you can assess the weaknesses in your application and try to figure out what happened. Sometimes it may be obvious: the department wasn't a great fit, your language work was not sufficient, your previous scholarship was not strong enough etc etc. Other times, it may have almost nothing to do with you. Who knows what internal politicking is taking place within the admissions committee? Maybe the person you wanted to work with got their pick of a student the previous year and so it is no longer their "turn." Really, who knows?

As I have mentioned several times, not everyone can go forth to doctoral work. Whether by the sheer statistical odds or by the quality of the competition, not all will make it through to the other side. This, too, is an agonizing prospect. This is not necessarily a reflection of your capacities as a scholar or student. If you are convinced that this is what you should be doing with your life, regroup and try again next year. Perhaps the whole experience has shown you that you actually don't want a life in academia; if so, the experience has not been a wash. But, above all, to thine own self be true. Or, more accurately, be honest with yourself. What are your strengths and weaknesses? Are your areas of weakness such that you have a reasonable hope of improving them in a second try? Do you have the energy or patience to put another year into the process? What feedback are you getting from your advisers?

My hope is that those of you who read this section will not be discouraged but, rather, prepared. I have gone through a lot of rejection letters myself. The agony of waiting for letters and then receiving the wrong kind can be difficult to process. Preparing yourself so that rather than feeling a debilitating sense of failure you instead feel motivated - whether to try again or to pursue alternative career paths - is the most helpful suggestion I can offer. You have not failed at life. You have not been called stupid. All your previous work is not worthless. You merely did not get in...often for reasons which will remain unknown.

Remember, the application process is excruciatingly impersonal. The more personally you take its negative aspects, the more difficult it will be to cope. I suggest using The Grad Cafe if you need to find further advice on how to deal with the various agonies of applying. Between its discussion boards and your own community you will no doubt find people willing to give further advice and counsel in this regard. What's more, you will find that you are not alone in this often unpleasant journey.

How to Get Accepted to a Theology/Religion PhD Program (Part 2.3: The Process)

Part 2: The Process

3. COMMUNITY

We have now reached the final section of Part 2. To this point, this section has aimed at giving the reader an overall sense of the application process and a few insights and strategies that might be helpful along the way. In this closing chapter, I would like to talk briefly about the role of community during the process. This is by no means meant to be prescriptive. Rather, I am merely trying to gesture at the fact that you should not feel as though you are going through this arduous ordeal alone. At the same time, the fact that this is such a sensitive and (unfortunately) deeply personal endeavor can also make community a difficult thing to come by. In what follows we will consider the ways in which community can be good, bad, and down right ugly.

a) The Good

Once, when giving a public lecture on Bonhoeffer and truth-telling, Stanley Hauerwas was asked by an audience member (who was not, I assure you, Pontius Pilate): "What is Truth?" Hauerwas stared at the student blankly for a moment and then answered succinctly: "Having really good friends."

This simple reply has always stuck with me. At first I considered it a cop-out. But as time goes on, and as I attempt to mature in my life as a student, theologian and person of faith; I have come to realize just how accurate Hauerwas's answer was. This realization was never more evident to me than during the years I was finishing my Masters and attempting to move on towards doctoral work.

Good friends are an indispensable resource for the doctoral applicant. These are people who will help you discern what is best for you, speak honestly about your work and where you might fit best, provide a second set of eyes to read personal statements, and get a beer when you need to forget about the whole thing for a few hours. They are the ones who will help you talk through the process and - Deo volente - any decisions that result. It would be easy to hermetically seal yourself off for about 10 months as you slave over every detail and fret over what your fate will be. I found many applicants reluctant to speak candidly about how things were going during the process. Maybe it is superstition, maybe it is modesty, maybe insecurity; truth be told, this is a vulnerable time. But I assure you, having a core group of people who are your support, editors, cheerleaders, and sounding boards all rolled into one is vital for your own emotional health.

Commit to spending regular time each week with friends and loved ones who will help you to decompress. Commit to spending regular time each week not talking about the applications. Commit to being candid and honest with these friends and family about how you are doing, where you need help, and how they might provide it. If they are truly your friends, you won't be asking them to do anything they wouldn't already want to do.

It is worth mentioning virtual community as well. The advent of blogs, discussion groups, and other such sites on the internet has provided a myriad of new outlets for those who are applying. Perhaps the most popular one I found was The Grad Cafe. There, you will not only find discussion boards specific to each discipline; you will also notice that students post when they receive letters of admission/rejection from which schools. The discussion board can be very helpful. The results listing can be a source of anxiety. Use at your own caution.

The fact that you are reading this blog post demonstrates that an online community which provides access to some "institutional knowledge" is of value. I hope that you will not, however, replace those people who are in your immediate community with the less personal and often less helpful virtual one. Nothing is worse than finding yourself immersed in the application process and, as a result, isolated and overwhelmed. Be proactive in unplugging yourself to engage with friends and family regularly throughout the application period. You may find that - to the extent which you are able to decompress through relationships - the whole situation becomes a little less daunting.

b) The Bad

As I mentioned in the previous post, there are many ways in which applying will come to feel like a rat-race. It is inevitable that a certain level of competition will find its way into the community in which you find yourself. And here, I am not so much speaking of the immediate community comprised of friends and family but rather your collegial community. Whether at your current program or among those around the country, you will come into contact with many people who are working towards the same goal: an offer of admission. The law of supply and demand will reveal that not all of this population will make it to that goal.

This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. However, with such a large group of people striving for the same thing, there will no doubt be insecurity, vulnerability, and also varying degrees of competitiveness. To the extent that you are self-aware, and able to set aside your own anxieties of what may come, you will find this aspect of community less frustrating. We cannot change the system. Competition is built into the process. (Even after doctoral work, we will once again find ourselves competing for scarce job slots). But we can change how we relate to and treat one another along the way. That we are forced to pit ourselves against potential conversation partners and colleagues is unfortunate. That we engage in this competitiveness as if it were an intellectual "pissing contest" is our decision.

I tried, to the best of my ability, to treat those who were fellow applicants with respect and kindness...even though our very positions might have precluded a more substantial relationship during that time period. Follow the policy of "do no harm." In some ways, this will isolate you from the broader academic community that your peers represent...but only for a time. With a modicum of self-awareness you will hopefully gain future allies in your academic aspirations rather than creating foes and sparring partners before the programs have even accepted you.

c) The Ugly

The "ugly" that I refer to are those few, inevitable occasions when you find yourself - whether actively or passively - engaging in the rat race; whether by someone else's prompting or your own circumstances (again, I found this tendency particularly acute at the professional conferences of AAR and SBL). At risk of sounding too preachy, let me suggest a strategy:

Habituate yourself to the practice of charity. If you find yourself disrespected or discouraged by an encounter with a member of the broader academic community - be it a professor or a fellow applicant - do not allow this moment to dictate your emotional approach to the process as a whole. Academics are weird people; even those who have not yet become professionals. Many lack a certain social-awareness while others are too caught up in their own particular situation. Rather than taking it personally, show them as much charity as you can muster and move along.

Really, I know that this all may seem odd for me to be discussing...but as an applicant you will more than likely encounter scenarios which significantly test the limit of your nerve. Cultivate a charitable disposition early and often. And while it is easier said than done, take all that comes your way with a grain of salt. It is one of the great ironies of the application process - a process that is essentially the most impersonal which an academic professional faces - that we applicants take everything so personally.

-----

We have now concluded our second section on the process of applying to PhD programs in Religion and Theology. I hope that you have found it useful, instructive, and somewhat detailed as a strategy for how to move forward both in the actual activities as well as in your own disposition. I am not trying to be overly prescriptive here. Rather, as I have said, it is my aim to play the role of a cartographer who maps the contours, dangers, and challenges you will probably face.

In the next two sections I will discuss what it is like on the other end of the application process. I have used the rather dramatic terms of agony and ecstasy to highlight the significant lows and highs of getting letters back from schools and what you can expect therein.

As always, feel free to drop a not for questions, comments, or clarifications.

*****