[文摘] 美國最佳神學院校排名(2006)

Reno: Best Schools for Theology

By R.R. Reno

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=447

譯/邱慕天

Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 9:14 AM

U.S. New & World Report has just published its annual rankings of higher education. In addition to calling the horse race for No. 1 university, the magazine also puts out rankings of graduate programs. By their reckoning, the best place to study political theory is Harvard. Harvard is tied with Cal-Berkeley for No. 1 in medieval and renaissance literature, and Michigan is tops in behavioral neuroscience.

美國New & World Report的年度高等教育排行剛出爐,除了最高學府之爭,該雜誌也就各領域的研究所做出了排行。哈佛是政治理論的翹楚;醫學和文藝復興文學等領域由加州柏克萊大學與哈佛大學各據山頭;密西根大學( 安那堡分校)則稱霸行為神經科學領域。

The ratings game got me thinking. The magazine has nothing to say about theology (or religious studies, as it is called at many universities). So I thought I might throw out some observations about the best places to pursue a doctoral degree in the sorts of fields I study—theology and ethics. I haven’t developed any objective method of analysis, but this is not the first time I have thought about graduate programs. Students often ask me for advice, so over the years I have formed some impressions about how the programs compare to one another. Here are the best schools, to my mind, followed by some comments about the also-rans.

這些評比活動給了我一些想法。該雜誌對神學領域(有些學校叫「宗教研究」)未曾提及隻字片語,這讓我打算就自己專攻的神學、倫理學領域發表一些觀察,比較各學校博士班的優劣。我手邊並沒有什麼客觀的評比標準,就是憑藉多年下來的學術經驗,對學校間特色強弱所累積的心得。由於這個問題我並非初次思考,也常有正在準備申請的學生來向我諮詢意見。因而接下來要提出的就是我心目中的頂尖神學院校,另外也會把遺珠之憾列出,並加上個人註解。

duke6 (Duke University)

At the top of my list is Duke. Richard Hays and Ellen Davis are leading a strong cohort of biblical scholars toward the recovery of a theological voice in biblical interpretation. Add to that the creative mind of Stanley Hauerwas, the rigorous mind of Reinhard Huetter, the learned mind of Geoffrey Wainwright, and the outspoken voice of David Steinmetz, as well as some excellent younger faculty (Amy Laura Hall, Warren Smith, Steve Chapman, and others), and you have a program firing on all cylinders. Three cheers for the Dean, Gregory Jones. He has done wonders in bucking the trends toward the banality and post-Christian distraction that afflict other mainline institutions. It isn’t perfect, but it’s as good as we have now in the United States.

在我排行榜裡領銜的是杜克大學。Richard Hays和Ellen Davis領銜一票精銳聖經學家,奪回神學在聖經詮釋中應有的一席之地。看看Stanley Hauerwas的新穎思維、Reinhard Huetter的嚴謹邏輯、Geoffrey Wainwright的學富五車、David Steinmetz的發聾振聵,外加一群頭角崢嶸的後起之秀(Amy Laura Hall、Warren Smith、Steve Chapman…等等),一同建立起了這個人才濟濟、頭角崢嶸的學術研究院。應該給院長Gregory Jones幾聲喝采!當其他主流神學機構不是愈形迂腐就是陷在「後基督化」的泥沼無法自拔時,他簡直展現了奇蹟。杜克神學院並非十全十美,但至少在美國要算是檯面上最出色的了。

82F6D011-0AA6-4EEF-8336-899B306ABF66 (Notre Dame University)

In the No. 2 spot, I put Notre Dame’s Department of Theology. It’s not firing on all cylinders. The biblical scholars pretty much follow the tired old distinction between “what it meant for them” and “what it means for us.” This guarantees their marginal relevance to the study of theology. Most of the systematic theologians are still living in the 1970s and 1980s. But this is a huge department with some great people. Notre Dame is the best place to study the Church Fathers (Brian Daley, John Cavadini, Robin Darling Young). Gary Anderson and Cyril O’Regan are first-rate Christian intellectuals capable of inspiring a wide range of doctoral students toward genuine vocations in theology rather than careers of expertise. Jean Porter and Jennifer Herdt have creative things to say in moral theology. It’s a strong program, and it is getting better every year.

第二名的席次我給了聖母大學神學系。它的缺點就很明顯。聖經學者食古不化,墨守解經和釋經的二分法。他們的東西跟真正的神學研究難說能沾上什麼邊。這裡的系統神學家大概都還活在70、80年代。但話說回來以這個學系的龐大規模,是少不了大師級人物的。聖母大學是研究早期教父的聖地(Brian Daley、John Cavadini、Robin Darling Young坐陣)。Gary Anderson和Cyril O’Regan是一流的基督教知識份子,能夠給予博士生廣泛的啟發,使其走出象牙塔內的學術、迎向神學真正的呼召。Jean Porter和Jennifer Herdt研究道德神學亦頗有創見。這是個優秀的學院,且每年還在蒸蒸日上。

Duke and Notre Dame are clearly top choices. I’m less sure as I move down the list. Other choices involve compromises and limitations. At No. 3 and No. 4, and in something of a tie between two very different options, I put Princeton and Boston College.

杜克和聖母作為首選是肯定的。再往下我就不太敢打包票了。無論怎麼選都不免有妥協和限制。第三名和第四名不同特色且各擅勝場–嗯,我選了普林斯頓大學和波士頓學院。

puuvoi (Princeton University)

If you are interested in “the problem of faith in the modern world,” then Princeton University’s Department of Religion is a good place to be. Eric Gregory and Jeffrey Stout are occupied with the role of Christian faith and Christian churches in a liberal democratic society, and Leora Batnitzky has interesting things to say about Judaism’s engagement with modernity. Another positive is the fact that the department has a stellar reputation of supporting and forming graduate students. The negatives are two-fold. First, this is not a place with strong resources for study of theology in either its historical or systematic forms. Second, the historians of ancient Christianity, which includes New Testament studies, are pretty antagonistic to the idea that what the Church has taught over the centuries is, in some important and legitimate way, to be found in the Scriptures. Overall, then, Princeton has nothing like the depth of Christian scholarship that you can find at Duke and Notre Dame.

如果你對信仰與當代性的議題感興趣,普林斯頓大學宗教系會是個絕佳的去處。Eric Gregory和Jeffrey Stout致力於基督信仰與教會在當代自由民主社會的議題。Leora Batnitzky對猶太教與現代性互動有獨到的見解。此外一個優點是:這個系所大力栽培與支持研究生是出了名的。缺憾則是雙重的:一是這個學校欠缺足夠資源可讓你揮灑歷史神學和系統神學的研究計畫。二來這裡研究早期基督教(當然包括新約研究)的史學家對於教會傳統的敵意很重,不管就重要性或合理性而論,他們認為教會歷來的教導是錯讀聖經。總之,像杜克和聖母大學那樣深厚的基督教學術,普林斯頓看不到。

bcyel (Boston College)

Boston College has depth. Like so many Catholic schools, required theology courses for the undergraduates guarantees a big faculty. Moreover, Boston College has money, and they support their graduate students well. The problem is that the faculty is solid but not stellar. BC is a good place to study, and certainly a graduate student will learn the Christian theological tradition well. But unlike Duke and Notre Dame (and Princeton in its own, more limited way), I don’t think Boston College is pushing theological questions forward in interesting ways.

波士頓學院有深度。一如大多的天主教學校,他們大學部規定了一些必修神學課,這讓他們必須維持龐大的神學師資。此外,波士頓學院有的是錢,自然少不了對研究生的「照顧」。遺憾就是他們師資陣容雖整齊但並不突出。波士頓學院是個好學校,研究生可以將基督教神學正統一字不漏地習得。但是不像杜克和聖母(以及普林斯頓–附帶但書),波士頓學院的神學走向就欠缺了開創性。

catholic (Catholic University)

pts2 (Princeton Theological Seminary)

TIU_6 (Trinity International University)

I’m going to cheat and put three schools in the No. 5 spot: Catholic University, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. These are radically different places. Catholic University has lots of problems, but it’s not a place where the liberal-revisionist Jesuits have hired an anti-magisterial majority. PTS and Trinity Evangelical are primarily places for training ministers, but both offer doctoral programs as well. PTS has living and breathing Protestant dogmatic theologians who know the Reformed tradition thoroughly—and Karl Barth especially. Trinity Evangelical has Kevin Vanhoozer, a creative mind committed to thinking through an ecumenically minded and biblically sophisticated evangelical theology. I’m not sure I would want to be a Presbyterian at Catholic University, or a Catholic at Princeton Seminary, and I think Trinity Evangelical is probably best for someone whose theological vocation is in the evangelical movement. But all three have the advantage of being very engaged in the reality of the Church.

我準備要耍賴了,我把三所學校並列第五:天主教大學普林斯頓神學院三一福音神學院(照起首字母排列)。它們是風格相差十萬八千里的學校。天主教大學自己問題一堆,但至少沒有自由派修正主義耶穌會搞來的一票反威權人士(譯註:第二次梵諦岡會議天主教回應自由派的批判,決定發起內部改革以修正不合時宜的傳統。這股運動卅餘年的今天仍由教廷外部組織及耶穌會旗下的眾多學術機構持續推動)。普神和三一主要是訓練教牧人員,但是都有不俗的博士班。普神一幫活躍的教義神學家,對改革宗傳統(特別是卡爾巴特)鑽研透徹。三一神學院則有Kevin Vanhoozer這個具開創性的思想家,致力於合一導向和在聖經基礎上縱深的福音神學。

但是長老會人應該不會想去天主教大學,天主教徒也大概不會來念普林斯頓神學院(譯註:普神為長老會創辦的神學院)。神學志向在於福音運動的人,三一應該是最適合了。至於三者的共同優點是都具有務實面向,關注教會現實面的需要。

You may have noticed that I’ve left some of the famous schools off the list. In doctoral study, it’s the professors and fellow grad students who make the program, not the general reputation of the university. Take Harvard, for example. If you want to study theology at Harvard, then you need to do a Th.D. at Harvard Divinity School. There are some good minds there who are interested in thinking about the living form of faith in our time (Ron Thiemann, Sarah Coakley, and Jon Levinson), but the overall atmosphere of HDS is aggressively post-Christian. I’m all for challenging intellectual environments, but its just foolish to try to swim upstream all the time.

你大概已經發現我的名單上刻意遺漏了某些名校。以博士研究而言,教授和研究同儕就是一切,大學整體的名望應該放到一邊去。例如,你若想在哈佛念神學,就必須在哈佛神學院讀神學博士。那兒的確有幾位了不起的思想家(Ron Thiemann,Sarah Coakley,以及 Jon Levinson),企圖在我們當代演繹出信仰的鮮活形式;但是哈佛神學院整體呈現的氛圍是一種後基督化的侵略性。當然我絕不是反對充滿智性挑戰的[學術]環境,但沒事刻意逆流而上還滿自討苦吃的。

Harvard_U_Shield Vanderbilt_logo emory

Most of the old-line, mainline divinity schools suffer from this problem. Vanderbilt, Emory, and Yale have seen a decline in serious intellectual life brought on by the intensely ideological agendas of Christian feminism, gay and lesbian liberation, as well as recycled versions of liberal Protestantism. Again, some great folks teach at these places. Lewis Ayers at Emory is one of the most exciting scholars working in patristic theology. I cannot say enough good things about Gene Outka, my mentor, who teaches ethics at Yale, and Miroslav Volf has a fine mind. But, again, the larger currents of these schools are flowing in the direction of post-Christian “theology.”

大多主流傳統神學院校都在面臨同樣的問題。范德堡大學艾墨瑞大學耶魯大學這些學校成天光開庭審理一堆意識型態議題就沒完沒了,包括基督教女性主義、同性戀解放運動,還有一些新教自由神學的冷飯。當然,這些地方還是有不少大咖。艾墨瑞的Lewis Ayers就是研究教父神學最令人驚豔的學者之一。耶魯開授倫理學的Gene Outka是我的屬靈長輩,我再怎樣也道不盡他的好;何況還有Miroslav Volf這位傑出思想家。但無論如何,這些學校的大趨勢是朝向後基督化「神學」靠攏的。

Yale_04_1024 full-color-sm (University of Chicago)

The Divinity School at the University of Chicago has problems as well. It has some famous names on staff, but some recent graduate students have told me that the professors are never around. Choosing the right program is very important. Doctoral study is all about intellectual formation, and that cannot be done by faculty who live hundreds of miles away or who are always out lecturing elsewhere.

芝加哥大學神學院也有問題。教職員名單上是有些響叮噹的大名,但近年他們研究生告訴我那些教授從來不見人影。選對學校是很重要的。博士學習最重要就是智性塑造,但如果你的老師要不一年到頭四處演講、就是處在他那幾百哩開外的老家,這只能是緣木求魚。

The Catholic world has it own set of difficulties. Historically, the Jesuits have dominated graduate study in the United States, and I don’t think I am revealing any secrets when I tell you that the Society of Jesus has committed itself and its institutions to a liberal-revisionist agenda. In the 1970s and 1980s, this may have seemed cutting-edge, but these days it’s pretty tired, and tiresome.

天主教界本身可說是遭遇一系列困境。回顧歷史,耶穌會的確是一度掌握美國高等教育半邊天。但現在無論組織本身還是旗下的學術機構,他們倒向修正主義早已是公開的事實,我不覺得這有啥天機不可洩漏。話說自由修正主義在70和80年代可以稱上前衛創舉,但時至今日實在是沒完沒了、甚至窮極無聊了。

This complacent liberalism has hurt Jesuit graduate programs even at Boston College, and it has badly injured places like Marquette, Fordham, and St. Louis University. Rahnerians, feminists, liberationists—these places carry some serious ballast. In my experience, intellectual life is too easily perverted into postures of protest and a quixotic quest against the long dead Catholic ghetto. Again, some excellent faculty teach at these places: Ralph Del Colle, Michel Barnes, and Susan Wood, for example, are at Marquette. But because it is a Jesuit program, the 1970s is still going strong.

這種自爽的自由主義對耶穌會研究所造成了傷害,還累及波士頓學院。馬奎特大學福特翰大學聖路易大學則是遭到重創。這些地方現在要算是拉赫納[教義]派、女性主義者、解放主義者的重鎮(譯註:拉赫納可謂天主教自由修正主義的神學先驅)。我的經驗是,學術生命是禁不起這樣的扭曲的:一群人挾帶虛幻的理想、犬儒作態地糾著天主教廢墟死纏爛打,殊不知後者早已是過去式。

讓我重申:這些地方不乏傑出的教授。Ralph Del Colle、Michel Barnes、Susan Wood,都在馬奎特。但就因為是個耶穌會學校,70年代思想氛圍還是濃烈瀰漫。

I have painted some negative pictures, and I may not be winning popularity contests anytime soon. I’m not saying that a person cannot obtain a serious theological education at Harvard, Yale, Emory, and Chicago, or, for that matter, Marquette and Fordham. But prospective students should know they will have a harder row to hoe.

如此繪聲繪影地道人是非,看來我一時半載是別想拿人氣王了。我並不是說在哈佛、耶魯、艾墨瑞、芝大等地方無法獲得嚴謹的神學教育,馬奎特和福特翰同理;只是有志就讀的學生最好能預期遭受更艱辛困苦的耕耘過程。

As I thought about this casual assessment of programs and the quick drop-off from the top two programs to a list of less-than-ideal choices, I was struck by the fact that three individuals whom I would very much like to send my best students to study with are largely out of the picture.

當我發現這個非正式評比在前兩名之後產生了急遽的斷層時,腦海就立時湧現了三個名字,三個我很想推薦自己最優秀的學生去跟隨的名師,而且是沒有涵蓋在前面的圖像之中的。

smu

When Bruce Marshall published Trinity and Truth, I wrote a positive review. After teaching and rereading the closely argued book a couple of times, I have come to see that his analysis of theology and truth is as fundamental and revolutionary as Karl Barth’s strange and difficult discussion of Anselm, published in the 1930s. Unfortunately, Marshall teaches at Perkins School of Theology (at Southern Methodist University), a school apparently locked in a liberal Protestant death-spiral. You can’t take all your classes with Marshall, and most of the rest of the program will leave you swimming upstream against a hard current.

Bruce Marshall出版《三一與真理》時,我寫了個書評回應讚賞。在教學使用和反覆閱讀這本論證繁瑣的書之後,我發現這本書真理和神學分析跟卡爾巴特是同樣地基要且帶有革命性,尤其是卡爾巴特上世紀30年代的作品中討論安瑟倫時呈現的那種詭譎深奧。不幸地是,Marshall任教的珀金斯神學院(屬於南衛理公會大學)完全就是困在新教自由派的死亡漩渦裡。你總沒有辦法除了Marshall的課以外誰都不修吧?而整個學院除了Marshall以外的一切都會讓你人感到處在急湍逆流。

Ephraim Radner’s extraordinary book The End of the Church is the most creative, erudite, and important book of historical theology since Henri de Lubac’s Surnaturel. David Hart’s The Beauty of the Infinite is a bold (and to my mind brilliantly successful) theological campaign that carries the fight for truth into the deepest reaches of our sad, failing, postmodern academic culture.

Ephraim Radner的鉅著《教會的盡頭》,可說是Henri de Lubac的《超自然》之後最博學、有創造力,且不同凡響的歷史神學著作了。David Hart的《無窮之美》則是膽識不凡(在我看來是成就輝煌)的神學宣言,為真理而戰、直搗黃龍進入那可悲墮落的後現代學術文化核心。

These two remarkable theological minds are not just in less-than-ideal places for an aspiring, adventuresome graduate student interested in serious theology in the service of the Church, as is the case with Marshall. Radner and Hart are totally inaccessible. Radner is a parish priest in an Episcopal church in Pueblo, Colorado. Hart has a temporary, one-year appointment at Providence College. For all intents and purposes, both have been excluded from academia. It is a sign of the times. The United States, a wealthy country with vibrant churches, has only two graduate programs in theology that get even a relatively strong thumbs up.

這兩位了不起的神學思想家所處的崗位不像Marshall,後者的學校對一個胸懷大志且有心以嚴謹神學事奉教會的研究生來說僅是較不理想,但Radner和Hart是根本遙不可及。Radner是科羅拉多州「普部落」(譯註:為印第安人村莊且地處沙漠)的教區牧師。Hart在攝理大學只有一年的短期教職。總之他們兩位不啻與學術界絕緣。這是時代的記號。美國,一個富裕且教會如此活躍的國家,竟然只有兩所神學研究院能讓人堅定地豎起拇指叫好。

(About the author: Dr. Russell R. Reno [PH.D Yale University] is a professor of Christian Ethics at Creighton University who recently joined the Roman Catholic Church.

相關資料:[英國衛報]英國神學院與宗教研究大學部排名1-36

Publicités

7 réflexions sur « [文摘] 美國最佳神學院校排名(2006) »

  1. 對這樣分析與排名,有什麼感觸?應該是很肯定這篇報導吧?
    如果可以無憂無慮的淌樣在求知求學的領域裡,多好?
    只是,那至少必須成為校園裡友收入的一員,否則當個付費的學生,實在是辛苦的。
    希望有機會可以讓你暢遊學海。加油。

  2. 如果想學習教父學,從基礎開始,您覺得應該如何開始?pppan777@hotmail.com。期待您的分享。

Poster un commentaire 我有話說

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s