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.

*****

The Trinitarian Tradition: Athanasius and the Orations against the Arians

In the first book of his Orations Against the Arians, Athanasius engages in a prolonged, polemical defense against those who would argue that “there was when the Son was not” (in fact, Athanasius's success and legacy is due in no small part to the fact that he was able to lump all his opponents together under that one banner). To rebut this claim, the Alexandrian must demonstrate not simply the eternality or immutability of the Son but also the ways in which this reflects the very being of God. To put the question “Why Trinity?” before Athanasius is to ask how it is that “those who have seen the Son have also seen the Father”? This is precisely the question which he attempts to answer in his Orations.

Athanasius’ defense of the eternal immutability of the Son is as much an exercise in rhetoric as it is a theological treatise. In order to defend the full divinity of Christ, Athanasius must demonstrate how inappropriate the Arians logic and deployment of language is. He argues that if the Father is to remain immutably and eternally Father then so too must the Son be immutably and eternally Son. For if the Arians are correct, and “there was when the Son was not,” then it must follow that there was when the Father was not father. Moreover, if the Son is mutable, then Scripture cannot be taken as truth when it says “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (98). How, if the Son is not fully divine, could the immutable Father have such a change in constitution as to now include a new component? This, for Athanasius, was incoherent blasphemy.

If the Son is not eternal, then all the words which Scripture use to describe the son must also be temporal. Therefore, it must also be concluded that there was when the Father was without Word or Wisdom since these are all predicated in Scripture upon the Son (79). But Athanasius could not tolerate the notion that there was a time when God was without Word or Wisdom. Rather, he considered any mutability or gradation of divinity attributed to the Son to be correlative and immediately transferable to the Father. Quite simply, Athanasius believed that a deficient understanding of the Son would lead to a deficient understanding of God which results in a deficient understanding of salvation (104). For how could the Son, if mutable and temporally constituted, affect any eternal work on our behalf as mediator to the Father?

Athanasius believed that the Arians were guilty of conflating language about God with particularly human frames of reference for that language. This was what made them so difficult to overcome. The Arians spoke an almost identical language to those who disagreed with them, but their deployment of the common language was pregnant with a very divergent message. For example, Athanasius uses the notion of “begotten” as a breaking point with the Arians. He accuses them of equating God’s begetting with human begetting. And thus, he demonstrates how they have come to believe that the Father begot the Son temporally and therefore the Son must be mutable. “God does not copy man,” the Alexandrian asserts (86). We cannot deploy language from human paradigms in order to elucidate Divine truth.

This is put in stark relief by his discussion of Father and Son as unoriginated . Athanasius asks how an originated thing can in any way be similar to an unoriginated thing. Therefore, how could Scripture be reliable if it tells us that those who have seen something originate (Son) have also seen the unoriginate (Father) (94)? Would this not simply imply that a creature was looking at another kind of creature to understand the Creator? The conclusion which Athanasius arrives at in making this point is that the Arians - in playing fast and loose with their rhetoric - have “reduced the Son into works” (94) and failed to reckon with the ontological issues of Divine unity and simplicity that both structure and inform those works.

To ask Athanasius’ “Why Trinity” is to ask him “How Salvation?” Both he and the Arians took Scripture seriously. But it was Athanasius’ deployment of theological rhetoric aimed at demonstrating how, if the Father is unoriginated and eternal, the Son must be unoriginated and eternal as well. Otherwise this would imply that the Image of God - represented in the Son - is mutable and that the Father was therefore incomplete and imperfect at some interval. And if the Father was imperfect and incomplete, how could the death and resurrection of the Son (being temporally construed) bring about eternal life and resurrection for those who believe in him (104)? These were the issues which resided at the heart of Athanasius trinitarian thought within the Orations Against the Arians. These were the concerns which led him to such a staunch commitment to the notion that the Son is “homoousious with the Father” and “is the image of the father’s hypostasis” (70). Only when understood strictly in this manner did Athanasius believe we could proclaim that “those who have seen the Son have seen the Father.”
_______________________________

All quotations from The Trinitarian Controversy (Sources of Christian Thought series, Fortress Press), by William Rusch.

*****

How to Get Accepted to a Theology/Religion PhD Program (Part 2.2: The Process)

We have now reached, for most of you readers out there, the most useful segment of this series. While the first section focused on the long-odds any prospective PhD applicant faces and the second paid attention to how a student might strategically prepare themselves for this process in advance; the current post is an examination of the actual application process in itself. This is not merely a step by step look at the nuts and bolts of the application as such, but also an appraisal of the varying activities which are often prescribed as "part of the game." As with the entire series, this post is first and foremost a reflection of my experience spanning 2 years of around 20 applications. I welcome insights from others who have also gone through the process and questions from those currently doing so.

Part 2: The Process

2. THE EXECUTION

Let me start off by saying there is no "right way" to apply for a doctoral program. There are strategies, tactics, and certain insights which will put you into a strong position as an applicant; but these are not foolproof and should not be considered canon. In what follows, I will highlight these various aspects or elements of the application process and consider the value, tactics, dos and donts of each.

a) The Application

While many other elements will require significant steeping time to get them "just so," the actual application itself should not be neglected or put off until the deadline. The majority of schools are running online systems (many of them on the same system), so be sure to familiarize yourself with that program early on and even begin filling out the apps well ahead of time just so as things change you can merely edit them and not be forced to scramble at the last minute. I suggest keeping a spreadsheet of all the schools you hope to apply for, their deadlines, their requirements, and other important information that should be readily available so that you don't confuse yourself (especially if you end up applying to a larger number, like 8-12 schools).

I am not suggesting you submit your application early. This does not improve your chances in any way. I am merely saying that the online apps should be a work-in-progress rather than the last thing you do the day they are to be submitted. Remember, this is the first thing that committees see and while it is not the most interesting part of your application, it is part of how you sell yourselves to these schools.

b) The Graduate Record Examination (GRE)

Depending on who you speak to (both Professors and other students), varying opinions of the GRE will inevitably be heard. One Professor suggested to me that the GRE is actually the most important component of your application because a) it is the only objective criteria with which to measure you against the other applicants and b) it gauges your capacity for analytical thought. He went so far as to suggest the Quantitative section is the most important section because it is an indicator of facility in a particular kind of abstract/analytic thinking.

For some, taking this exam will be little more than a nuisance which one sitting will alleviate by producing a strong score. For others, this will represent the bane of your existence and haunt you all the way through the application process. Perhaps most people will fall somewhere between these two. I was squarely in the "bane of my existence" category. Here is what I know about the GRE:

1. A high score - even a perfect score - will NOT get you accepted.
2. A low score - and we will discuss what this means later - WILL get you rejected from some schools...if not most.
3. No school will admit to a "hard and fast" cut-off score (either cumulative or each section individually), so it does little help to ask a professor if you are OK with a particular score.
4. That being said, most of the perennially popular schools (i.e. Duke, Yale, Chicago) are rumored to cast aside applications below 1400 without ever reading beyond the GRE scores simply to pare down the sheer number of applicants in one fell swoop.
5. All this points to the fact that the GRE is merely one criteria by which you can eliminate yourself; it will not really increase the possibility of acceptance.

Let's talk about scoring for a moment. At the time in which I sat the exam, the two sections were each graded on an 800 point scale and the writing section was out of 6 points. When it comes to the Verbal, most doctoral applicants will be scoring at or above 700. If you hit a 680 or 670, I would not despair. But if you are sitting on a 620 or 630 I would highly recommend trying to boost it up a little higher. By and large, a 700 seems to be the benchmark for Verbal scoring. As for the Quantitative, the point is simply to not bomb it. somewhere in the 600's will usually suffice. This is the part where I ran into problems. I have never been good at math, and this was exacerbated by the fact that I am awful at standardized testing. During my first attempt at applications, I took the exam 3 times. Each time my Verbal improved (finally landing at the 700) while my Quantitative hung around an abysmal 500 (480, to be exact). I can say with confidence that this is probably a major reason why I received no letters acceptance. When it comes to the Essay, shoot for a 5 and above. The committees will read your writing later in the application anyway, so don't stress if you didnt hit the 6 on the head...

I decided to get some tutoring my second time around, determined not to be prevented from a PhD in Theology due to incompetence in math. Going to a company like Princeton Review or Kaplan is both expensive and frustrating. In getting tutored by Kaplan I realized that the GRE is simply a game. You must learn to play the game: jump through the hoops the way the test wants you to and you will score better. In the end, thankfully, I raised my Quant. score by just over 100 points. The fact that I could do so, and that I had to pay an exorbitant amount of money to learn how to do so, should really indicate just how much of a charade this exam is.

Whether we like it or not, it is required. Though I doubt there is any significant evidence that higher scores result in higher success or retention at the doctoral level, it remains an important component of the application. If your scores are mediocre, find a friend or a colleague who did well and see if they might tutor you. If you are desperate and can afford it, take a Prep Course. If you really want to do a PhD, don't let this exam be the reason you don't get in. Given all these concerns, take the GRE early enough that you leave yourself time for further test prep and another chance to sit for it before applications are due.

c) The Personal Statement

Remember, this is not an autobiographical statement. It should not be filled with personal anecdotes about your life and experiences. It should be considered more of a personal intellectual history in which you map the contours and trajectories of your interests. Sure, feel free to use a little personality to show who you are as an individual. But if you find yourself writing something that sounds more like personal testimony or is driven primarily be life narrative, I would suggest a rewrite. This document is perhaps one of the most important parts of the application because it is the only place where you get to make a case for yourself. Why do you belong at that school? Why do the faculty members interests fit with your own? How does your previous work connect to your current interests?

These statements take quite a while to construct. Start a draft early on in the process and get some colleagues and professors to read through them...be sure to ask friends who have already gone through the application process (preferably with successful results!) to read yours and to provide a copy of their own. Remember that each school's identity is different. You cannot submit identical statements from one program to the next. Also, avoid name-dropping. Many applicants will tack on a paragraph simply recounting the scholars at a school, what their focus is, and why that is relevant to you. The department knows who does what. At most, zero-in on two or three people and rather then repeating what the website says, try to integrate the projects of those scholars into your own project in a more organic way. It will seem less contrived otherwise.

Like I said, this is your one shot to make a case for yourself. 9 times out of 10, programs will use the nebulous notion of "fit" as the determining factor in their decision process. Really think about how you fit at a program. The fact of the matter is that many of us can sell ourselves to a variety of different programs (I was accepted by two schools where my fit was tenuous at best). But don't lose the forest for the trees: who do you want to be as a scholar? What type of work do you want to do? How does your previous work inform your current interests? And why is a particular program the best match?

I suggest asking around. Get as much advice on this component as you can. Use your reference writers as editors. Assemble a team of editors: your spouse/significant other, your friends, and current doctoral students as well. The care and craft with which you approach the Personal Statement is vital. There is no right way to write a personal statement...but there are wrong ways. You need a cohort of honest readers to tell you when you've gone astray.

d) Recommendations

As I mentioned in the last post, developing rapport with members of the faculty in your Masters work is vital. I do not mean this to sound utilitarian, but you need professors who will not merely write for you but who will write well of you. There are a variety of things to keep in mind here: how well known are the professors? Are they junior or senior faculty members? Do they know people at programs you are applying to? How has your work in their class been received? Are they known for being supportive and helpful to students who use them as reference-writers? Do they like you?

As with nearly every other step, be sure to ask them early on if they would mind writing for you. Ideally, these will be people who you can have candid conversations with about your strengths and weaknesses and schools which might suit your interests best. Give them plenty of time to write the letter: therefore, you should start your online apps early so as to send them the email which will give them access to your online file for each school.

e) Writing Sample

This should be an exemplary work; something you are proud of and feel demonstrates your facility in the area to which you are applying. Ideally, it would be written in a class taught by one of your reference-writers. You should have this professor, or another, read through it again to help you make it as strong as possible. Again, be sure that the topic of the paper is commensurate with the area of concentration to which you are applying. This is yet another way to make the case that you do in fact "fit" at a particular school.

If it is a really good paper - a paper which received accolades from your professor and you feel very confident in - I would suggest submitting it for publication prior to September of the year you are applying. While it is a long-shot, getting your writing sample published would be a major coup on your CV. This is by no means necessary, but every little bit helps! All in all, I think that this may actually be the most straight forward part of you application. If your paper was mediocre, don't use it. If it is good but needs revising, revise it. Be honest with yourself and seek counsel regarding any work you are thinking of using. It is the only example that they will have of your scholarly skills.

f) Contacting Professors

Early in your application efforts, it would be wise to touch base with faculty members at schools you are interested in. They can help you determine whether your interests align with their department. You may also want to arrange a campus visit to meet with some of these faculty members. Contacting a professor does not give you an "in" at a given school. I had many collegial and informative conversations (both via email and in person) with professors at schools I was rejected from twice. Use this more as a fact-finding mission. Do not assume that this is giving you a leg up on your competition. Truth be told, hundreds of other applicants are emailing and visiting these same professors as well. If you stop for just a moment and look at the big picture, this aspect of the application process will surely look like nothing more than a rat race.

In fact, if you should venture to AAR or SBL in the Fall of your application year, you will come to realize that the popular professors are trailed by aspiring doctoral students from one panel to the next throughout the weekend...each hoping to get one extra minute of face time in an attempt to impress the professor just enough to increase admission chances. While I was at AAR and SBL last year, I found myself giving up on the prospect of meeting with faculty in an ad hoc manner. If I had planned meetings ahead of time, this worked out well. But approaching a professor un-announced was rarely productive...and you will likely find yourself in a gaggle of sycophantic applicants vying for attention. If you go to a conference, schedule as many individual meetings as you can ahead of time so that you don't find yourself in those awkward moments at a reception where you are standing in a line of a dozen other prospective students.

All this is to say, use your meetings with professors less as "interviews" and more as your own fact finding mission. You are not only telling them about yourself, but more importantly you are getting information about the professor and the department. They will judge you more off of your application than they will off of a meeting, so come prepared with questions that will actually help you to make a more informed decision should the opportunity arise. This is your one chance to turn the tables around and judge whether the professor or the school will suit you.

g) The Schools

I will refrain for the moment at extended commentary regarding which schools you should apply to. First, it would be presumptuous of me to tell you where to apply. Second, I have already typed a lot. In a later post in this series - perhaps in what will be part of the appendices - I will respond to Theology Program Rankings; especially those recently proffered by R.R. Reno of Creighton. The discernment process of selecting which schools you apply to is incredibly important, and I think it deserves further reflection.

*

I have decided to add one more section to section 2 of the series. In the next post (section 2.3) I will briefly discuss the role of community in the application process. I think that there are various ways in which community provides a structure of support to those applying, and it is helpful for the applicant to be aware of the social dimension of being in this process.

I hope that this post covered the major areas of concern which an applicant faces. Please feel free to let me know if there are any areas I have failed to consider. Additionally, if you have any questions about issues raised here, feel free to chime in.

How to Get Accepted to a Theology/Religion PhD Program (Part 2: The Process)

In Part 1, we introduced the topic of applying to doctoral programs in religious studies and theology. By way of introduction, we examined the odds which each applicant must come to grips with: i.e. the paucity of spots, the scarcity of funding, the developing-nation-sized-population that makes up your competition. All of this was meant to paint the following picture: The process of applying to a Masters degree is in no way similar to it's PhD sibling. Sure, the nuts and bolts may feel similar (personal statements, writing samples, reference letters) but the way in which those items "cash out" in a PhD admissions committee - the level of scrutiny with which they are assessed - is a beast of a completely different sort.

In order to trace the contours of this picture in a more tangible - and hopefully applicable! - manner, Part 2 will examine the process of applying in and of itself. This segment will be examined from two particular angles: preparation and execution. I have done this because, in many ways, preparing to apply is almost more important than the application itself and should be attended to well before paying your $60-90 fees. It should be fairly obvious that if you have taken no courses in the History of Christianity during Masters work then you should not think your chances very high at getting accepted to Yale's Early Christianity concentration. Though this - and factors like it - are quite rudimentary, they are critical in giving yourself the "best shot possible."

Without further ado:

Part 2: The Process

1. PREPARATION (Before you begin)

Many a PhD applicant - in the midst of applying - will look back on their academic career and begin to think "woulda, coulda, shoulda." For me, it was the thought: "If I only could have taken more Classics courses!" For others, concerns regarding a low GPA from either a BA or a Masters becomes the "black-eye" on your application that you hope to somehow conceal.

Whether you had a clear strategy from college regarding your plans for a PhD or fell "ass-backwards" into the application process, there are certain guidelines for applying which I think will help maximize your strengths and overcome any weaknesses. In what follows, I will skip over the retrospect of how certain changes in undergrad coursework might have helped. My advice in this segment is directed to those starting or currently engaged in Masters work. To those finished, these comments may be unhelpful. Feel free to skip ahead to 2.2: the Execution section.

a) Begin honing-in on an area of interest early...

Though you probably don't need to be reminded of this, a Master's degree can last anywhere from 1-3 years... in theology/religion 2 years is the typical length. This is not very much time at all to "feel out" different areas of interest. If you were like me and came from a liberal arts background, having an eclectic set of interests will both hurt you and help you. You will have (hopefully) gained the tools for critical inquiry across several different disciplines, whilst being exposed to a diversity of literature. However, you will have lacked the in-depth introduction and grounding in a particular field that others may have received. (While studying abroad at St. Andrews in Scotland I was surprised to discover that Divinity majors focused almost exclusively on that department and ended up with - in some cases - Masters level training before finishing their BA).

The typical divisions within Theological/Religious studies are Bible, History, Ethics, Theology (this is clearly not an exhaustive list, as Comparative Religion, Asian Religions, Islam, etc are all important foci within this broad field. However, I cannot speak much to their requirements, though some of this advice may overlap). It is important to start honing in on a general set of problems, questions or concerns early in your masters work. This is not to say that you should avoid inter-disciplinary work. In fact, you should actively seek it. But remember, you will have to convince an admissions committee that you have been adequately prepped in a particular conversation (i.e. Biblical Studies) even if your interests stretch beyond that one focus (i.e. into Theology). There are, of course, many leading voices in the academy today decrying the narrowly construed discipline boundaries within Religion/Theology (see the last chapter of Lewis Ayres's Nicaea and It's Legacy). I am prone to agree with this position but, alas, we must work within the structures of the system before us. A clear intellectual/scholarly identity is critical for the strength of your application.

My first year of Masters work I was waffling between Systematic and Historical Theology. This division is a little murky when it comes to PhD apps, since it is possible to sell oneself either way. And while I took far more courses in Systematics than Historical, it was important for me to recognize that the sources I wanted to be in conversation with were primarily from the late ancient and early medieval periods. Any constructive/contemporary work that I engage in would be secondary to this. So, take coursework that appeals to the concerns and questions you are most preoccupied with (regardless of concentration), but make sure you are using your time wisely. Begin thinking about what areas you are most drawn to from the minute you begin Masters work and this will save you the identity crisis many experience during applications when they are forced to describe "who they hope to be as a scholar."

*One professor at a prospective school once suggested that I should consider whether I want to be published by Modern Theology or Journal of Early Christian Studies - and that my answer to this would help me determine the kind of scholar I wanted to be. Of course, my answer was "both!" and thus the question did not help at all.

b) Be intentional about your Masters coursework...

Many a first year Masters student will treat course registration a lot like undergraduate course registration: namely, "this course sounds interesting, I suppose I will take that." This is far too lasseiz-faire of an approach. I have 3 courses which I simply should have never taken during my MTS career. That may not sound like a lot, but it is nearly a full semester worth of coursework! As you continue honing in on your interest, really try to focus on the classes and the professors who will challenge you and make you a better student/scholar.

If no courses are being offered in a particular subject you would like covered (say, Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics or 4th Century Trinitarian Theology), ask a professor to do a directed study with you. Also, if you know that a certain professor has a reputation for teaching really easy classes with little substance or intellectual rigor, don't take those classes! Do your homework about the program/professors before you arrive and adjust your strategy while you are there. Remember, every course you take is part of the constellation of factors which an admissions committee will consider.

A Note on Thesis Writing
At Emory, one legitimate concern each MTS student had to think about was whether or not to write a thesis. Some programs require a thesis, some make it optional, some don't even have the option. I chose to write a thesis. A colleague of mine chose not to. We both eventually got accepted to a PhD program. Therefore, I don't think writing a thesis is a litmus test for admittance...however, for me, writing a thesis was a litmus test for gauging my own capacities as a scholar. But - and this is crucial - in a two year degree, you have to begin thinking about your thesis topic at least by the end of your second semester. This takes serious foresight. My suggestion is that, whether or not you are writing a thesis, approach your entire Masters degree in like manner: it is such a brief time (16 classes would be the high mark) that you really can't afford to waffle. Even if you are still deciding between overlapping areas of interest, be strategic.

c) Languages

This is the crucial issue for most students going into Bible or History. This is not to say that Ethicists or Theologians are exempt. Remember, nearly every concentration will require at least 2 modern languages. Those in areas like Bible and History will require more (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc). It typically takes 3 semesters of coursework to move from beginner to intermediate in an Ancient language and 1 semester to acquire the necessary tools for reading the typical modern languages (French/German). Start working on languages as early as possible. Those in Bible and History will be at a decisive disadvantage if they lack the research languages. Admissions committees assume that it will take such a candidate longer to get through the program, and usually opt for those who have done some - if not most - language work already.

This is, no doubt, a very frustrating prospect for a Masters student. Let's say you were to do Greek and Latin: unless you did a summer intensive course, you would be looking at around 6-8 courses out of a 2 year degree devoted to language. And while this will chew into your other coursework significantly, it is equally as important. Find ways to fit the language work into your schedule before applying. Just getting that line on your CV will make a huge difference.

d) Develop rapport with Faculty members...

This fits in with parts a) and b) above. A professor cannot - and perhaps will not - write a letter of reference for you if they do not know who you are. A good (and somewhat obvious) rule of thumb is that you should have taken at least one course with this Professor. Provided that you did well in the course, or received really positive feedback on a major paper, I would suggest setting up a meeting to discuss the application process. Be candid with them and hopefully they will be candid with you. This is difficult because, well, academics are incredibly socially awkward. But if you ask them, "Am I wasting my time applying?" they will hopefully not lead you astray.

Also, it is usually important to avoid junior faculty as your primary source of reference letters. They are not well established and admissions committees may not regard their opinions to the same degree as more senior members. At the same time, do some homework about whether your prospective reference writer has a history of shirking this responsibility. Some senior faculty members may have a reputation for not writing thorough letters (which demonstrate a lack of care towards the student) and others may not necessarily write positive things. I tried to make a point about discussing the application process with each letter-writer and gauging their opinion of me as a scholar as well as their thoughts on which programs might fit best for me. Doing the legwork on the front-end in deciding who will recommend you will save you a major headache come January when they are due.

e) Now is not the time to be ashamed of your research...

If you really see yourself as engaging in a broader conversation within the field of Religion/Theology, then it is time to stop acting like every paper you write is simply for the Professor who assigns it. Sure, as Masters (much less Doctoral!) students we are still going through what Helmut Thielicke describes as "theological puberty." It would be presumptuous at this phase to assume you have arrived at some amazing thesis that has never been contemplated before. However, this does not mean that you are precluded from the conversation. Submit your papers or current projects to conferences. My experience as a Masters student presenting at AAR and NAPS was invaluable. If your feedback is positive, try to submit a polished draft to a journal. These are really strong indications of your engagement within - and commitment to - the academy. Just don't wait until the Fall of the year you are applying to do these things. It will be far too late.

The upshot, of course, is that in doing these things you may have preemptively created a strong writing sample for the application. Conferencing and Publishing are in no way required to get accepted. But if a life in the academy is where you hope to end up, why not begin engaging in it now?

f) Familiarize yourself with important voices in your field of study...

This may seem unnecessary, but a broad familiarity with the scholars in your general concentration will help you not only to gauge where the field is pointing but also what programs might be viable options for you to submit an application. For instance, if you are in Systematic Theology and have only considered working with Miroslav Volf or Kathryn Tanner because those are two of the biggest names in the field, I would suggest spending some time broadening your engagement. The same is true for my concentration where Notre Dame remains the biggest draw for Early Christianity year after year whilst many other programs with excellent (and younger!) scholars get less attention.

You should get in the habit of perusing the popular journals in your field. Whether it is JECS, Modern Theology, Augustinian Studies, IJST, or Journal of AAR, all of these will help you discern who is working in areas that most closely resemble your own...and where they teach! Remember, working with one of the luminaries in Theology is rarer than getting into a PhD program itself; and there are a host of concerns about working with someone whose reputation precedes them. It is important that you make yourself aware of all those contributing to your conversation of interest and keep a working list of scholars/programs that would support your project. This will also keep you "in-the-know" about the current debates and trends in your field which is something we should all be doing anyway!

g) Make good grades...

I'm not trying to tell you that you have to walk away with a 4.0 from your Masters degree. Really, the actual number is irrelevant. What's important is that you don't walk away having to explain a C or a spate of B's received during a two-year degree to an admissions committee. There is no hard-and-fast rule to what GPA will get you eliminated, so don't ask that question (we will touch on this theme again in the GRE section). And while some may find that making good grades contradicts with my insistence on taking the more challenging courses from Professors who do not "grade-inflate" - I promise you, it is better to have a B+ from a really difficult professor than a host of A's from courses which did not stimulate or push you at all. I made a few B's during my Masters work, and ended up with a 3.75. Students with GPA's both higher and lower than mine are accepted to doctoral work...just don't make it any harder for yourself by bombing a couple classes.

*

For those of you still in the process of getting your Masters, I hope that these rough guidelines provide some basic, commonsense strategies to help prepare you for doctoral applications. For those of you who are finished or nearly finished, I hope that the next post in this series will prove more useful. If I have neglected any aspect of the preparation process that you find critical, please drop a note in the comments.

Spoil of Riches...

Over the past few weeks I have been the lucky recipient of a few free, recent titles in theology & religion. The reason for this is that my wife's organization shares an office with CrossCurrents in a building known as "The God Box" (a 20 story office structure devoted almost entirely to faith-based non-profits) just off of Union Seminary's campus. Much to the wife's chagrin, there is an abundance of books which are "free for the taking."

Here are a few that I have snatched up recently with their descriptions from the back cover:

Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (Yale University Press).

"The question of Christianity's reaction to the other religions of the world is more pertitnent and difficult today than ever before. While Christianity's historical failure to appreciate or actively engage Judaism is notorious, Christianity's even more shoddy record with respect to "pagan" religions is less understood. Christians have inherited a virtually unanimous theological tradition that thinks of paganism in terms of demonic possession, and of Christian missions as a rescue operation that saves pagans from inherently evil practices.

In undertaking this fresh inquiry into early Christianity and Greco-Roman paganism, Luke Timothy Johnson begins with a broad definition of religion as a way of life organized around convictions and experiences concerning ultimate power. In the tradition of William James's Variety of Religious Experience, he identifies four distinct ways of being religious: religion as participation in benefits, as moral transformation, as transcending the world, and as stabilizing the world. Using these criteria as the basis for his exploration of Christianity and paganism, Johnson finds multiple points of similarity in religious sensibility.

Christianity's failure to adequately come to grips with its first pagan neighbors, Johnson asserts, inhibits any effort to engage positively with adherents to various world religions. This thoughtful and passionate study should help break down the walls between Christianity and other religious traditions."

Bruce Gordon, Calvin (Yale University Press).

"During the glory days of the French Renaissance, young John Calvin (1509-64) experienced a profound conversion to the faith of the Reformation. For the rest of his days he lived out the implications of that transformation - as exile, inspired reformer, and ultimately the dominant figure of the Protestant Reformation. Calvin's vision of the Christian religion has inspired many volumes of analysis, but this engaging biography examines a remarkable life. Bruce Gordon presents Calvin as a human being, a man at once brilliant, arrogant, charismatic, unforgiving, generous, and shrewd.

The book explores with particular insight Calvin's self-conscious view of himself as prophet and apostle for his age, and his struggle to tame a sens of his own superiority, perceived by others as arrogance. Gordon looks at Calvin's character, his maturing vision of God and humanity, his personal tragedies and failures, his extensive relationships with others, and the context within which he wrote and taught. What emerges is a man who devoted himself to the Church, inspiring and transforming the lives of others, especially those who suffered persecution for their religious beliefs."

Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death and Literature in Secret (2nd ed., University of Chicago Press).

"The Gift of Death, Jacques Derrida's most sustained consideration of religion, explores questions first introduced in his book Given Time about the limits of the rational and responsible that one reaches in granting or accepting death, whether by sacrifice, murder, execution, or suicide. Derrida analyzes Czech philosopher Jan Patocka's Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History and develops and compares his ideas to the works of Heidegger, Levinas, and Kierkegaard. One of Derrida's major works, The Gift of Death resonates with much of his earlier writing, and this highly anticipated second edition is greatly enhanced by David Wills's updated translation.

This new edition also features the first-ever English translation of Derrida's Literature in Secret. In it, Derrida continues his discusion of the sacrifice of Isaac, which leads to bracing meditations on secrecy, forgiveness, literature, and democracy. He also offers a reading of Kafka's Letter to His Father and uses the story of the flood in Genesis as an embarkation point for a consideration of divine sovereignty."

D. Stephen Long, Speaking of God: Theology, Language, and Truth (Eerdmans Press).

"In this theological tour de force D. Stephen Long addresses a key question in current theological debate: the conditions of the possibility of God-talk, along with attending questions about natural theology, fideism, and theological truth-claims. He engages not only the most significant contemporary theologians and philosophers on this score (Denys Turner, Bruce Marshall, Charles Taylor, Fergus Kerr) but also the legacy of twentieth-century theology (Barth, von Balthasar) and the analytic philosophical tradition from Wittgenstein to Davidson. Throughout, Long sustains a careful exegetical engagement with Aquinas, showing that what's at stake in contemporary theology is just how we inherit St. Thomas.

Central to Long's project is averting the charge of fideism so often laid at the feet of postliberal approaches. To that end Long argues for a (chastened) natural theology, while challenging any asimple distinction between "natural" and confessional" theology."

Garrison Keillor, Life Among the Lutherans (Fortress Press).

"Based on Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon monologues, Life Among the Lutherans is a collection of stories about the struggles of ordinary people in an imperfect world, the life and work of the pastor who leads them, and the church to whose high standards they aspire in the small town they call home.

The stories in Life Among the Lutherans reflect everything Keillor fans have come to expect of him. Some are familiar, including the quintessentially Lutheran "95 Theses" from Lake Wobegon Days. Others are more recent. Laugh out loud about the church directory filled with photos that are just plain awful. Share the moment when Pastor Ingqvist receives a leather-bound copy of his sermons. Keillor's telling of every little detail of life in Lake Wobegon is bound to entertain, surprise, and make readers - even those who aren't Lutheran - feel right at home..."

A Critical Decision...

I have, at long last, made that perennially important decision:

AAR or SBL?

This year, for reasons mostly practical, I have decided to attend AAR and not SBL (though I had hoped to do both). Given that I am closer to Montreal and have more colleagues with whom I can defray costs of travel and lodging, it seemed like a natural choice.

On intellectual grounds, I am somewhat ambivalent. SBL probably has more sessions that would be closer to my areas of interest - and there are rumors of a Patristics Program Unit being created for next year. But there are still plenty of sessions to keep me busy at AAR and a wider array of friends and colleagues from around the country.

All this is to say, should you be making the trip to Montreal I would love to meet you.

How to Get Accepted to a Theology/Religion PhD Program (Part 1: The Odds)

*Disclaimer: This series is merely a guidebook, charting the landscape of PhD applications within the field of Theology and Religion. I am no expert. I put out 20+ applications over 2 years and received 2 viable offers of acceptance. I hope that this series serves as a resource for others. Those who take my series title too seriously will be sorely disappointed*

Presumptuous title aside, this is the first Fall in 3 years that I haven't - in some capacity - been preoccupied with the thought of applying to doctoral programs in theology/religion. Having made my way to the other side of the looking-glass, it seemed worthwhile to post a few reflections on the long hard slog that is the application process...especially since I have heard from a few fellow sojourners asking for advice.

As anyone who has undertaken this endeavor will tell you, there are no hard-and-fast rules; there are no "get accepted quick" schemes. Getting into any program, much less the program of your choice, involves 2 parts preparation and 1 part luck (or perhaps the other way 'round). This post will examine the application process by the numbers, beginning with the notion that "not every masters student can go forth to doctoral work."

(Some may wonder why I have excluded those who come directly from a bachelors: for the most part, fields of study - particularly in Bible and History, but increasingly in Theology - are assuming more expertise. It is not uncommon to see people with 2 masters degrees nowadays. Those who go into these PhD programs directly from undergraduate work are in an extremely small minority. Also, this series is biased towards the process typical of programs in the USA. I will, in a future post, consider the prospect of going abroad for doctoral work as an American student.).

1. The Odds

a. Not Every Masters Student Can Go Forth to Doctoral Work

Few people fully realize the competitive nature of doctoral applications until they are already deeply invested. Upon completing my Masters at Emory, I recall sitting on a panel for the next incoming class of MTS students. Inevitably, when asked how many anticipated moving on to doctoral work, roughly 20 of the 25 first-year students raised their hand. I assume this picture is similar from one school to the next. In my year, only 6 or 7 actually ended up applying within the first few years out of Masters work...and of those I can only think of 2 (including myself) that have begun doctoral work. Just looking at the sheer numbers, not every Masters student from a given program will be able to move on to doctoral work.

b. Not Every Masters Student Can Go Forth to Doctoral Work

Regardless of how many students apply from a Masters degree, the paucity of slots to which they are applying tells us that not every student can move on. Let us take two of the premier schools as a test-case: in the past 3 years of applications, Duke University's Religion program has received nearly 700 applications and offered a scant 28 letters of admission (view the statistics page here). Mind you, this means that Duke is, on average, accepting 1 person per concentration each year (i.e. it is safe to assume that Duke will take only 1 theologian per year, and sometimes they may take none). The picture looks very similar for Yale, where 250 people applied last year and only 8 were accepted into 10 sub-fields.

You may be saying: "Well, sure, everyone applies to Duke and Yale in the off-chance that they get accepted. And while I want to be in a strong program, it need not be one of the perennial favorites." A word of caution: even before the fiscal crisis of last year, one of the greatest fallacies in doctoral applications is that some schools are just easier to get in. By and large, there is no such thing as a "safety" school in PhD applications - provided that you are applying to the spectrum of schools that offer at least a tuition remission of some sort...and even then there are no sure-shots in this process. Here are some things that I learned along the way: Boston College has no wait-list (I do hope this policy changes soon). UVA has as many applicants per year as Duke (and UVA has a huge department covering many sub-fields). Nearly every school I applied to over a two-year period accepted roughly the same amount of students - somewhere between 6-10 (12 at most, but sometimes as few as 4 or 5 across all disciplines). At my current program (Fordham) we had 7 traditional PhD students matriculate this fall.

There are no safety schools. I was wait-listed by programs that were lower on my rankings, accepted without promised funding at others, and rejected by many. There are hundreds (maybe thousands?) of people seeking about 6 slots at a handful of schools equipped to train them in a particular field. The numbers do not compute. If we take 8 of of the most well known Masters programs in Theology - Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Emory, Chicago, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame - and assume that each will have roughly 5 students applying for PhD programs in some sub-field of theology, this means that those 8 schools will have 40 people applying for somewhere between 1-3 slots. But we are not even considering the dozens of other Masters programs around the country that contribute applicants.

I say this not to discourage, but merely to remind those considering applying that the mathematics of the situation is cold, hard, and not favorable.

c. Not Every Masters Student Can Go Forth to Doctoral Work

We must, therefore, consider the crucial question: if there are only a couple of slots available for several hundred applicants in a given concentration, what about all those who are not offered admission? It is important at the outset of this process to have double vision: at the same time that you are pouring yourself into your personal statement, GRE prep, and writing samples you should also be investigating a "Plan B." This was, perhaps, the most discouraging part of the process for me. But if you trust my advice in 1.b, you will recognize why it is important to have something in mind should the whole scenario go "pear-shaped."

Entering the application process, I had a BA in Religious Studies and a Masters in Theological Studies. I was not ordained (or even ordainable) in a denomination. I had no substantive professional background. When people told me to look into alternative career paths, I couldn't help but scoff: "What the hell else am I going to do?" After failing to receive a single acceptance letter during my first attempt, one faculty member suggested (rather patronizingly) that professional theologians were a modern invention. In the past, they often had other vocations and did scholarship on their own time. He noted that some theology graduates went on to successful careers for banks or FedEx.

While I would hope to not sound like this professor, it is crucial to consider from the very beginning the possibility that an acceptance letter may not come. Sure, this may mean pursuing a second MA in order to shore-up weaknesses in your application. (I know several people who did this and it can work out well in certain circumstances). But often this is time/cost prohibitive. At some point, one has to stop getting Mastered. So, double vision. While working diligently on applications, don't forget to actively look at alternatives. This way, should the proverbial poo hit the proverbial fan, you will not get caught in late April feeling utterly decimated.

In the next post, I will cover the types of preparation that will help to make your application as strong as possible.

The structure of this series will look something like the following:

Part 1 - The Odds
Part 2 - The Process
- 2.1, Preparation
- 2.2, Execution
Part 3 - The Agony
Part 4 - The Ecstasy
Part 5 - Conclusion

Whether you are thinking about applying, in the midst of applying, or already in a PhD program: I welcome your thoughts, questions, or comments.

*****

Reconsiderations III: A Brief Glimpse

Just a glance at the Reconsiderations III conference list of speakers displays a veritable who’s who in scholarship on Augustine/Augustinian scholarship. In fact, even those among the audience not delivering papers were themselves an accomplished group of Augustiniana scholars (Michel Barnes, James Wetzel, Philip Cary, Paul Kolbet, William Harmless, to name a few). With this talent pool, it is a given that whether or not the papers are good, the conversation will be.

That being said, due to time constraints and some travel delays (SEPTA has to be the worst mass-transit name in history) I was only able to see a handful of lectures during the Friday sessions. In what follows I hope to give a brief sketch of those papers I did get a chance to hear. I wish I could offer deeper analyses, but I arrived at 10am and left at 530pm, with little time to mingle and engage the speakers. Where possible, I will try to indicate how certain conversations which ensued after the papers illumined the topics covered.

(By the way, the previous Reconsiderations is available for download on iTunes via Villanova’s Lecture page. I assume they will do the same for this one, as well as turn it into a complete volume for publication).


John Cavadini, “Eucharistic Exegesis in Augustine’s Confessions”

Cavadini began his paper by noting the scant attention which liturgy receives throughout Augustine's Confessions; and yet such a paucity belies its prevalence within Ancient religious culture. To tease out where and how Augustine does develop his Liturgical sensibilities, we were pointed to the passages in Book IX where Monica tells Augustine to remember her "at the altar of the Lord." Cavadini emphasized this statement as an instructive insight into - what he calls - Augustine's "eucharistic exegesis." An Exegesis that focuses primarily on the interrelationship between memory and mercy.

It is in light of these thematic elements that Cavidini described the end of Book IX, after Monica has died, as a "festival of mercy." There, Augustine prays to God on behalf of his mother, asking for her to be shown mercy whilst evoking the memory of the mercy which she had shown throughout her life. And thereafter, as Augustine prays and begins his meditation on memory in Book X, we are left with the understanding that these are not solitary prayers ("as in the soliloquies") but represent a communal act of remembrance before the altar of the Lord; an act which enable truthful conversation amongst the communion of believers. This confession, this truth-telling at the altar, is the evocation of mercy brought to it's true telos in the table-fellowship of the Church.

Michael McCarthy, "The Psalms of Ascent as Word of God in Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos"

Michael McCarthy's paper was one of particular interest to me, since my Master's thesis was written on Augustine's interpretation of the Psalms of Ascent. He provided a really nice appraisal of these passages within the broader scope of both the Enarrationes themselves as well as Augustine's broader corpus; highlighting along the way how Christological readings serve both theological and pedagogical functions for the Bishop. Namely, treating the Psalms of Ascent as "Word of God," Augustine invites his congregation to "make the words of the psalmist their own" and those embody the words, emotions and life of which the songs speak. And yet, despite being called the "Song of Steps", Augustine provides little indication of the individual stages or gradation along the way. McCarthy rightly pointed to the Bishops resistance towards explicitly naming what each step should look like, opting instead for a more contextualized approach: i.e. this ascent will look and feel unique from one person to the next, but the common language found in the Psalms is applicable to all. It this recognizes our individuality while incorporating the spiritual journey into an ecclesial and socio-communal context in which preaching and sacraments can serve as intersections for all believers.

Brian Daley, "The Law, The Whole Christ, and the Spirit of Love: Grace as a Trinitarian Gift in Augustine's Theology"

This paper had perhaps the most provocative title of them all, covering a wide swath of troubling themes in the Augustinian corpus. Early in the paper, Daley gestured towards the question: "does Augustine's depiction of God's random grace create a God who is cruel?" Daley seemed to suggest in response that Augustine's apophaticism concerning God's selective redemption is embedded within the Bishop's apophaticism about the human capacity to describe the being of God as such. And thus, only when salvation is approached as a component of the Trinitarian mystery can we even begin to adequately contemplate it's nature. Given that Augustine never wrote a systematic treatise on the topic of "Salvation", Daley argued that it is important to bear in mind the Bishop's prolonged preoccupation with Christ's creative redeeming of Humanity (tout court) and that only in sparse references (under particular circumstances) do we get meditations on it's selectivity.

Robert Dodaro, "Augustine and the Role of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Sanctification of Believers"

Here, Dodaro began with the assumption that Augustine understood the role of the Spirit in sanctification to be that of "mediator of virtue." And thus, Christ - as head of the body of Christ - plays a crucial role in the ways in which this mediation takes place. In this sense, Dodaro suggested that while the body of Christ is being sanctified a Trinitarian dynamism is taking place. Namely, the Son cannot be united with the body of Christ and neither can the body be connected to the Father without the Spirit. This dynamic mediation of the three persons need not be broken down and worked out from "person" to "person" since Augustine speaks of them all as participants in the process. Dodaro illustrated this point by drawing upon the analogy of a gemstone: from any given angle, one can look into the gemstone at various angles and see different strands of light and varying dimensions which comprise its form. Likewise, looking at the Trinitarian mediation of sanctification, one can isolate (for a moment!) a christo-centric perspective and then (for a moment!) a pneumo-centric perspective. But it is Augustine's great concern for perichoresis which ultimate rules out our attempts to "work out" in any extensive manner the activity from person to person.

Lewis Ayres, "Augustine on the Spirit as the Soul of the Body; or Fragments of a Trinitarian Ecclesiology"

Ayres focused primarily on Augustine's reply to Paulinus - a reply which took more than a couple years - in his attempt to flesh out the Bishop's Trinitarian Ecclesiology. Paulinus, of course, lived a life not dissimilar to that of Augustine: coming from an aristocratic family and a top-notch education, Paulinus converted and soon became Bishop early in the 5th century. He wrote to Augustine, requesting a variety of responses to theological and ecclesiological questions. Ayres points out that Augustine's response to Paulinus is one which, despite having never met each other, the mutual affection and desire for God makes them as two eyes - spatially separated, and yet united in focus. Augustine's overarching concern in this letter, said Ayres, is to draw out the fact that spatial separation is no obstacle in the caritas and unity of the Church. Ayres then turns towards Tractates 26 and 27 on the Gospel of John and develops further Augustine's non-spatially restricted ecclesiology. He does so by noting how personal acts of faith in Christ lead us to eat the eucharistic bread as one body; and thus we are drawn together as Christ draws out of each of us the deepest desires of our souls and turns them into communal praise.

Conversation

In the conversations which ensued following the papers, many themes were addressed: some large and some small. In response to Fr. Daley's paper there were some questions regarding the legacy of predestination in Augustine's thought. Most scholars were in agreement that the topic deserved a conference all its own(!) but Daley suggested that the ways in which strands of Augustinian thought became codified during medieval and particularly reformation eras should not read anachronistically into Augustine's writings. This is a fairly obvious statement, but one that Augustine scholars find themselves having to make time and again on nearly every major issue. The problem with selective salvation (or predestination, as we like to call it nowadays) in Augustine's work is that it is rarely discussed abstractly (i.e. in the manner of a philosophical treatise like De Trinitate). This means that it comes up either in letters (to Simplician) or polemical works (against Pelagianism). Following Lewis Ayres, I find Ad Simplicianus to be the most instructive text on the topic. In it, Augustine returns time and again to the refrain "But what about Esau." This repetition demonstrates Augustine's own struggle to come to grips with how the human mind could possibly come to understand God's inscrutable gift of grace.

There was some conversation about the mysticism of St Augustine, especially given that John Peter Kenney was in attendance and his book directly relates to the issue of how platonism influences Augustine's experience at Ostia (though kenney himself was not particularly engaged in the discussion). Some, as always, argued for the isolationist reading of Augustine's mysticism and there was a quick but lively debate about that (Philip Cary, whose books also deal with interiority in Augustine, was a participant here).

After this, my notes get rather cryptic and disjointed. I was somewhat disappointed to miss the Saturday sessions given that they were mostly centered around Augustine and Contemporary thought (i.e. contemporary theologians and ethicists like Charles Mathewes of UVA and Eric Gregory of Princeton). I look forward to getting the audio files of their papers. Keep on the lookout, as I am sure these papers will all be published in a single volume (either as a book or, more likely, in an edition of Augustinian Studies...which I think is how it has traditionally happened).

*****

Give me continence, BUT NOT YET!

There's something telling in this hilarious video - not just about human will power, but also about how we are psychologically constructed with desires which are, at times, far too overwhelming for us to sort out.

I'd like to think I would have been the kid to wait until the second marshmallow was brought out, but alas....



All humor aside, when St. Paul said "What I do I don't want to do" he was on to something more than just religious platitude. He was indicating a fundamental fracture in our capacity not merely to delay gratification, but to radically redirect our desires as they wash over us.

Call me cynical, but I say it starts with a marshmallow and ends in the tangled web of confused desires which seem to appear - ex nihilo - throughout adulthood.

(Hat Tip to AM for this clip)

*****

Resist not this temptation...

Evan recently pointed out what he modestly called "a significant sale" currently going on over at University of California Press. In fact, it is a full blown fire sale of their entire inventory with crazy discounts (particularly on $60-70 hardbacks) which will get you up to 70% off. For instance, I purchased $80 dollars worth of material which should have cost just under $300. Though, I could have spent $300 on $650 worth of books.

Perhaps I will make a second run at it next week.

All you need to do is enter the discount code which can be found at their blog. At the very least, I implore you to purchase Peter Brown's seminal Augustine of Hippo at a price that would make even the Doctor of Grace himself a little resentful.

*****

Maximus the Confessor on Reading Scripture

For my current class on Maximus the Confessor (taught by Fr. John Behr), I have found myself somewhat preoccupied with ways in which he depicts the role of Scripture in the Christian life. Here are three passages from the Second Century on Theology which I think perfectly illustrate Maximus' fundamental thought on the subject:

Those who abide solely by the letter of Holy Scripture and tie down the dignity of the soul to the external worship of the Law make the Logos flesh for themselves in a reprehensible manner. They think that God will be pleased with sacrifices of dumb animals. They pay much attention to the body with outward purifications but neglect the soul's beauty, stained as it is by the passions. But it was for the soul that every power of the visible world was brought forth and that every divine teaching and law was proclaimed. (Second Century on Theology, 42)

So long as we see the Logos of God as embodied multifariously in symbols in the letter of Holy Scripture, we have not yet achieved spiritual insights into the incorporeal, simple, single and unique Father as He exists in the incorporeal, simple, single and unique Son, according to the saying, 'He who has seen Me has seen the Father...and I am in the Father and the Father in me.' We need much knowledge so that, having first penetrated the veils of the sayings which cover the Logos, we may with a naked intellect see - in so far as men can - the pure Logos, as he exists in Himself, clearly showing us the Father in Himself. Hence a person who seeks God with true devotion should not be dominated by the literal text, lest he unwittingly receives not God but things appertaining to God; that is, lest he feel a dangerous affection for the words of Scripture instead of for the Logos. (Second Century on Theology, 73)

When our intellect has shaken off its many opinions about created things, then the inner principle of truth appears clearly to it, providing it with a foundation of real knowledge and removing its former preconceptions as though removing scales from the eyes, as happened int he case of St Paul. For an understanding of Scripture that does not go beyond the literal meaning, and a view of the sensible world that relies exclusively on sense-perception, are indeed scales, blinding the soul's visionary faculty and preventing access to the pure Logos of truth. (Second Century on Theology, 75)

These three texts - all from the same "Century"- explicitly demonstrate Maximus' Scriptural Hermeneutic. Namely, that in the Biblical texts we have both a revelation and a veil. And as we progress in our ascetic discipline from physical things to spiritual contemplation, so too must we progress in reading of scripture from literal words to the spiritual or eternal truth of the Logos.

Though it may come as no surprise, I am struck by the similarity between Maximus' discussion of the role of Scripture in the Christian life and Augustine's portrayal of the "outer"/"inner" man and how Christ must lead us from the former to the latter, from "science" to "wisdom" (see my post from yesterday for some initial thoughts on these passages in De Trinitate).

I hope to write a full length essay on this topic by the end of the semester, so I welcome any insights from other blogging theologians.

*****