[文摘] 美國最佳神學院校排名(2007)

[評:作者認為神學無法和哲學一樣靠學術實力進行有客觀標準的排名,因為信仰框架會非常大程度地影響學生的選校和畢業生的事奉方向。他列出了一個依據信仰光譜由右(保守)到左(自由)的排行方式供參考,範圍只包括基督新教的學校。]

A List (from fundamental to ultra-liberal) by myself

Dallas Theological Seminary

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Westminster Theological Seminary

Talbot Theological Seminary- [Biola University]

Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary- [Gordon College, London School of Theology/Boston University]

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School- [Trinity International University]

Wheaton Graduate School- [Wheaton College]

George W. Truett Theological Seminary- [Baylor University]

Regent College- [University of British Colombia]

Fuller Theological Seminary

Claremont Graduate School

Duke Divinity School

Candler School of Theology- [Emory University]

Toronto School of Theology- [University of Toronto]

Notre Dame University Department of Theology

Princeton Theological Seminary- [Princeton University]

Yale Divinity School

Virginia University Department of Religious Studies

Harvard Divinity School

University of Chicago Divinity School

Graduate Theological Union- [UC Berkeley]

Union Theological Seminary- [Columbia University]

Marquette University Department of Theology

Princeton University Department of Religion

Oversea alternatives (非美加的海外系統)

Oxford University

Cambridge University

Aberdeen University

Saint Andrews University

Edinburgh University

Tubingen University

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

[評:從發問的第一篇開始的前半部及包含了豐富的資訊,Union, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Harvard,還有幾所保守福音派神學院都榜上有名。]

Anyone with some idea about the better schools, say schools in the top 25 or so, please let me know. The only schools I could think of were Union Theological, Columbia’s school of theology, and Princeton’s.

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

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

If you want to study spiritual formation, Talbot’s Institute for Spiritual Formation is an amazing place to be (no doctoral program at the moment, however).

To pursue conservative Christian theology then, for what it is worth, here are a few more schools:

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

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

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

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

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

[評:作者認為神學無法和哲學一樣靠學術實力進行有客觀標準的排名,因為信仰框架會非常大程度地影響學生的選校和畢業生的事奉方向。他列出了一個依據信仰光譜由右(保守)到左(自由)的排行方式供參考,範圍只包括基督新教的學校。]

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

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

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

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

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

Fundamentalist:

Bob Jones University
Grace Theological Seminary
The Master’s Seminary

Fundamental-Evangelical:

[Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]
Dallas Theological Seminary

Westminster Theological Seminary
[Talbot School of Theology]

Evangelical:

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Neo-Evangelical (leaning to the right):

Fuller Theological Seminary

Neo-Evangelical (leaning to the left):

Princeton Theological Seminary

Liberal:

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

Emory University- Candler School of Theology

Very Liberal:

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

…One might also look into the religion program at University of North Carolina with Bart D. Ehrman (American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at UNC) and James Tabor.

[評:這篇和下一篇在爭論Fuller是否為正統福音派的問題。這是一個我非常廣泛聽到的爭論,故問題是存在的。供各位自行判斷。]

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

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

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

From my personal experience, there was not a lot of significant difference between the teaching I received at The Master’s College (an indisputably fundamentalist college), Fuller, and Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (certainly an Evangelical seminary).

[評:這篇的作者從Fuller和Yale畢業。資訊內行切實。他列出自己的綜合排名,他有說明排行是大約,每一個學校都可以和上下兩名互相更動位置。]

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

At the level of PhD programs, some may not know how to compare these across groups. So here’s my stab at it – PhDs in Theology, where the aim is to get a decent full-time, tenure-track teaching job:

Yale University
University of Chicago, Divinity School
Harvard Univ/HDS
University of Notre Dame [incredibly, I don’t think any previous posters mentioned ND!]
Duke University
Princeton Theological Seminary –
Emory
GTU (Berkeley) +
Wheaton Graduate School

Fuller Theological Seminary
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Dallas Theological Seminary

Union Theological Seminary? Vanderbilt? UCSB? Princeton U? West Virginia? Reformed? Asbury? Claremont? and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?

This ordering is approximate (and surely I’ve left out some great institution); any two next to each other could really be exchanged. And the ordering will vary a lot depending on the area of specialization… If you do NT, Yale and Duke, and maybe Emory, are at the top (and others, like Univ. North Carolina-Chapel Hill might come into play); if you want to do systematic theology and study Barth, PTS is at the top; if you want to do religious ethics, that will have to include, eg, Princeton University’s religious studies Dept program, and so on. And this list doesn’t even include UK schools, of which Oxford, Cambridge, Aberdeen, St. Andrews, Edinburgh, and Manchester are excellent.

But if you’re broadly evangelical, and/or somewhat moderate theologically, I think the two best seminaries in the country, in terms of orientation, total resources, faculty quality [incl. diversity of views], and academic excellence, are Fuller and Princeton.)

[評:想在福音派做神學研究的,可以參看此篇。下頭排行為本人整理,在較廣義福音派的定義下,論其學術研究實力。Wheaton為本人所加上,以其2010年時的實力為準。事實上,就我目前瞭解,Fuller的博士班入學標準至少較4, 5寬鬆不少,給獎能力和學生競爭力也大不如1, 2,並不值第三位。]

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

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

Evangelical seminaries

Princeton
Wheaton
Fuller
Trinity
[Gordon-Conwell]
Westminster
Reformed, FL
Talbot
Dallas
Southern Baptist
Reformed, MS

[評:終於使用了一種分等制度,主要是以博士畢業生在學界的影響力來做出對比。這樣Harvard、Yale、Chicago,三所極為自由多元、信仰框架薄弱的的老牌頂尖學府,便最容易得到青睞。這不是說排在第二等的Duke和Notre Dame在學術上有任何不及前者之處,只是因為兩者分別有極重的Wesleyan/Episcopal和Catholic的信仰框架,故畢業生的影響力擴散幅度不及前者。原作在下方的評等經過了本人的細微更動和補充。加上以上的說明,希望成為應用此表時的參照。此外,新教神學系統當中,推薦了Princeton和Fuller,主要是看上他們的研究廣博和自由風氣。同樣,這也不表示Fuller本身有比Trinity或Dallas更嚴謹的博班訓練或資質優的學生;但和教會界可能相反,在目前的神學教育界,「廣」就是一種優勢。]

I would have ranked GTU higher, PTS lower, and added Claremont and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary–since conservatives seem to have started favoring it over Dallas). Notre Dame is definitely an oversight.

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

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

Maybe a tiered approach is best for PhD programs:

Tier One:

Yale University (NT & OT)
University of Chicago Divinity School (OT)
Harvard University (OT)

Tier Two:

Graduate Theological Union/Berkeley (OT)

University of Notre Dame (NT)
Duke University (NT & OT)

Tier Three:

Claremont Graduate School (OT)

Princeton Theological Seminary (ST & NT)
Emory (NT & OT)

Vanderbilt University
Marquette (ST)

Wheaton Graduate School (NT)

Tier Four:

Fuller Theological Seminary
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (NT)
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dallas Theological Seminary

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

[評:這篇有較為中肯,內行且精準的資訊。指出Graduate Theological Union新約跟舊約研究水準落差很大的問題。舊約依靠UC Berkeley可以衝上頂尖學府。說明Fuller不是純福音派;Yale也不是自由派,而是後自由派。認為Harvard值得一念,而Talbot和Dallas則不適合真正要做神學學術的人。]

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

Marquette and Georgetown (both Jesuit schools) should definitely be mentioned as well…

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

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

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

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

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

[評:幫Yale University Divinity School說好話,指出Talbot School of Theology生師比失衡的大問題。認為福音派神學院的博士路線太窄,非常不推薦。]

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

You don’t need to be a fundamentalist to be a full inerrantist. Bob Jones University is fundamentalist. Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, Westminster, and several of the other top evangelical schools are full of inerrantists who are not fundamentalists.

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

For the record, I didn’t see any problem with the tiered structure explaining how broad someone’s acceptance would be at various places. I would never recommend anyone to get a Ph.D. at an evangelical institution unless they never wanted to teach in a mainstream department.

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

[評:舊生挑出來幫Talbot說好話]

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

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

Jon: You are right that the student-faculty ratio at Talbot (MA Phil) leaves something to be desired. But I would point out that the department is actively working on the issue. As a recent Talbot alum, I can say that I have spent quality, out-of-class time with faculty members more times than I can count – not to mention time spent with visiting scholars such as Richard Swinburne, Robert Audi, and Steve Wykstra. Not all of my peers have had the same level of contact with faculty, but the opportunities are there for those who seek them. I realize, Jon, that you were speaking about ‘norms’, but I would take exception with the claim (which seemed to be implied) that Talbot is a sub-par program, on the whole.

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

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

[評:這篇繼續說Talbot生師比誇張的問題]

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

[評:總算有人開始用研究領域來劃分不同學校的長處了]

He is talking about doctoral programs. As far as Duke, he must be talking about Duke University’s Ph.D. program. But [Gregory] Jones is not the dean of this. He is the dean of Duke Divinity School which just accepted their first crop of Th.D. (doctoral) students for this fall.

In Old Testament, I hear people talking about Harvard University, Yale University, Johns Hopkins, University of Chicago, Duke University, and Emory.

In New Testament, I hear people talking about Duke, Notre Dame, Princeton Theological Seminary, Emory, Cambridge (UK), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and Wheaton Graduate School.

Another mention in theology and philosophy might be: Baylor University

In practical theology, I am hearing about Princeton Theological Seminary, Duke Divinity School, Fuller Theological Seminary, Luther Seminary, Emory, and Vanderbilt.

Theologians might not be familiar with what has become an institution within the field of philosophy: Brian Leiter’s « Philosophical Gourmet Report » ( http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com )–a (global) ranking of graduate programs in philosophy. Leiter’s report is not without controversy, but it plays a huge role in how undergraduates think about applications to graduate programs in philosophy. Perhaps the time is ripe from something equivalent in theology & religion?

[評:把英國的一些學校拉進戰局,還有討論中被忽略的Toronto University School of Theology!]

Programs in the UK have the benefit of RAE rankings, which offer a quasi-objective ranking of the research quality of graduate programs in theology and religion, made possible by a more centralized organization of higher education in the UK (as most other countries). This would be impossible in the free-marketization of higher education in America.

Thinking about the UK also opens the question: do Americans consider doctoral programs in the UK? And if so, which? It seems to me that a lot of evangelicals–particularly in biblical studies–still make the trek to the UK. And the recent meteoric rise of theology in Scottish universities is sure to draw a number of American graduate students to St. Andrews, Edinburgh, and perhaps Glasgow (depending on whom they appoint to succeed Newlands), as well as the stand-by of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, and King’s College. More creative, pluralistic programs draw students to Manchester and Birmingham (which includes significant resources for work in Pentecostal theology).

Looking internationally also reminds us of the resources at the Toronto School of Theology at the University of Toronto. Some excellent discussions are going on there.

Another reason why this list is outdated is that there is no mention of Union Theological Seminary anywhere on the list. Sure we have some old farts, but Gary Dorrien (Niebuhr chair) is in the top five most important scholars of our time. He’s bringing back a social gospel movement that is really generating some major momentum. When Langdon Gilkey was asked to produce his life acheivments and goals in five pages or less, he called Dorrien and asked him to do it for him! Alongside Dorrien, we have several legends in their field: James Cone (Briggs chair), the founder of Black Liberation; Paul Knitter (Tillich chair), an international source concerning interfaith dialogue. Roger Haight, faced heresy trials from the Catholic Church while producing a definitive work on the Trinity, called « Jesus Symbol of God ». Christopher Morse is one of the major authorities on Barthian studies today (of course, besides Dorrien). Hal Taussig’s Bible department is one of the best liberal approaches towards scripture in the Ivy’s.

It is obvious that whoever this guy is that wrote this essay is a hard core evangelical. Placing Trinity on the same plain as Marquette and Princeton is absurd. Now granted, I did apply to Trinity. I am an evangelical. But Union is clearly a better pick. I agree that both theology and ethics program more or less revolve around one person. But Dorrien vs. Vanhoozer? Come on.

I would venture to say that Paul DeHart’s just published work _The Trial of the Witnesses: The Rise and Decline of Post-liberalism_ (Blackwell, 2006 — Paul is in his seventh year at Vanderbilt), as well as the work that will just now start coming out from his first round of graduate students (a dissertation just now being finished on « The Politics of Christian Mission in Barth, Hauerwas, and Yoder » by one student; another student writing on the « nature/grace » discussion in Barth, de Lubac, and Milbank), and some of the things that Vanderbilt graduate students in theology are now involved in (such as the putting together of the « Critical Responses to _Theology and the Political: The New Debate_ » panel at AAR this year with Milbank, Ward, Cunningham, responding to other younger scholars from programs like Duke and Vanderbilt; the organization of a forthcoming international conference on « Theology and Aesthetics »), will cause Vanderbilt to emerge as a place to engage the influential work of those who have been or are on the faculties of the schools Reno and others have mentioned (Duke, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Notre Dame), in a fresh and critical context — one that can no longer strictly be delimited as « Protestant liberal » or « post-liberal. »

Vanderbilt’s program is small, and in many respects still deserves the « Protestant liberal » label as a whole, especially at the Divinity School level. But if one comes to Vanderbilt and takes a concentrated combination of classes with DeHart (Theology… BA, Chicago [1987], M.A.R., Yale [1990], PhD, Chicago [1997]), Patout Burns (Patristics; Augustine), Robin Jensen (Aesthetics; Liturgics… M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D, Columbia University/Union Theological Seminary, New York [1977, 1986, 1991]), Doug Meeks (Theology/Economics), Melissa Snarr (Ethics/Political Theology), and David Wood (Philosophy; Heidegger/Derrida/Kierkegaard), and combines that with intentional participation in the robust graduate student community (such as the newly begun « Graduate Theological Society »), one will have the rigorous interdisciplinary makings for the kind of « systematic theology » needed at the outset of the 21st century.

This post is of course an appeal that Vanderbilt be reconsidered as a place for Ph.D. theological study, especially if we think more in terms of where programs are going, rather than where there has been has led them to where they are today. Theological education really needs to start looking to the future; very few programs are doing that these days. But mostly I want this post to be a plug for DeHart’s book. Pick it up; read its critique of Lindbeck carefully; consider its commendation of Frei vis-a-vis Lindbeck, and ask if it doesn’t problematize some of the categories Reno and many others have all along been assuming in their work.

I should not have failed to mention the recent addition of John Thatamanil to Vanderbilt’s faculty. John is working hard to develop a Christian theology of religions that is robustly « confessional. » I have done significantly less work with John, but he seems to be striving to articulate this vision with the kind of subtlety and sophistication that such a project needs. It will be interesting to see in what direction his work goes; at any rate, it appears it will not be going in the « post-Christian » direction that one would have thought such a theology at Vanderbilt would have gone after McFague (and Hodgson, though less so).

Source: sorry…it was more than two years ago and the link is missing….

Main Thread starts here (正文開始):

[評:從發問的第一篇開始的前半部及包含了豐富的資訊,Union, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Harvard,還有幾所保守福音派神學院都榜上有名。]

Anyone with some idea about the better schools, say schools in the top 25 or so, please let me know. The only schools I could think of were Union Theological, Columbia’s school of theology, and Princeton’s.

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

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

If you want to study spiritual formation, Talbot’s Institute for Spiritual Formation is an amazing place to be (no doctoral program at the moment, however).

To pursue conservative Christian theology then, for what it is worth, here are a few more schools:

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

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

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

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

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

[評:作者認為神學無法和哲學一樣靠學術實力進行有客觀標準的排名,因為信仰框架會非常大程度地影響學生的選校和畢業生的事奉方向。他列出了一個依據信仰光譜由右(保守)到左(自由)的排行方式供參考,範圍只包括基督新教的學校。]

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

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

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

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

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

Fundamentalist:

Bob Jones University
Grace Theological Seminary
The Master’s Seminary

Fundamental-Evangelical:

[Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]
Dallas Theological Seminary

Westminster Theological Seminary
[Talbot School of Theology]

Evangelical:

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Neo-Evangelical (leaning to the right):

Fuller Theological Seminary

Neo-Evangelical (leaning to the left):

Princeton Theological Seminary

Liberal:

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

Emory University- Candler School of Theology

Very Liberal:

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

…One might also look into the religion program at University of North Carolina with Bart D. Ehrman (American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at UNC) and James Tabor.

[評:這篇和下一篇在爭論Fuller是否為正統福音派的問題。這是一個我非常廣泛聽到的爭論,故問題是存在的。供各位自行判斷。]

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

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

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

From my personal experience, there was not a lot of significant difference between the teaching I received at The Master’s College (an indisputably fundamentalist college), Fuller, and Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (certainly an Evangelical seminary).

[評:這篇的作者從FullerYale畢業。資訊內行切實。他列出自己的綜合排名,他有說明排行是大約,每一個學校都可以和上下兩名互相更動位置。]

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

At the level of PhD programs, some may not know how to compare these across groups. So here’s my stab at it – PhDs in Theology, where the aim is to get a decent full-time, tenure-track teaching job:

Yale University
University of Chicago, Divinity School
Harvard Univ/HDS
University of Notre Dame [incredibly, I don’t think any previous posters mentioned ND!]
Duke University
Princeton Theological Seminary –
Emory
GTU (Berkeley) +
Wheaton Graduate School

Fuller Theological Seminary
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Dallas Theological Seminary

Union Theological Seminary? Vanderbilt? UCSB? Princeton U? West Virginia? Reformed? Asbury? Claremont? and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?

This ordering is approximate (and surely I’ve left out some great institution); any two next to each other could really be exchanged. And the ordering will vary a lot depending on the area of specialization… If you do NT, Yale and Duke, and maybe Emory, are at the top (and others, like Univ. North Carolina-Chapel Hill might come into play); if you want to do systematic theology and study Barth, PTS is at the top; if you want to do religious ethics, that will have to include, eg, Princeton University‘s religious studies Dept program, and so on. And this list doesn’t even include UK schools, of which Oxford, Cambridge, Aberdeen, St. Andrews, Edinburgh, and Manchester are excellent.

But if you’re broadly evangelical, and/or somewhat moderate theologically, I think the two best seminaries in the country, in terms of orientation, total resources, faculty quality [incl. diversity of views], and academic excellence, are Fuller and Princeton.)

[評:想在福音派做神學研究的,可以參看此篇。下頭排行為本人整理,在較廣義福音派的定義下,論其學術研究實力。Wheaton為本人所加上,以其2010年時的實力為準。事實上,就我目前瞭解,Fuller的博士班入學標準至少較4, 5寬鬆不少,給獎能力和學生競爭力也大不如1, 2,並不值第三位。]

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

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

Evangelical seminaries

  1. Princeton
  2. Wheaton
  3. Fuller
  4. Trinity
  5. [Gordon-Conwell]
  6. Westminster
  7. Reformed, FL
  8. Talbot
  9. Dallas
  10. Southern Baptist
  11. Reformed, MS

[評:終於使用了一種分等制度,主要是以博士畢業生在學界的影響力來做出對比。這樣HarvardYaleChicago,三所極為自由多元、信仰框架薄弱的的老牌頂尖學府,便最容易得到青睞。這不是說排在第二等的DukeNotre Dame在學術上有任何不及前者之處,只是因為兩者分別有極重的Wesleyan/EpiscopalCatholic的信仰框架,故畢業生的影響力擴散幅度不及前者。原作在下方的評等經過了本人的細微更動和補充。加上以上的說明,希望成為應用此表時的參照。此外,新教神學系統當中,推薦了PrincetonFuller,主要是看上他們的研究廣博和自由風氣。同樣,這也不表示Fuller本身有比TrinityDallas更嚴謹的博班訓練或資質優的學生;但和教會界可能相反,在目前的神學教育界,「廣」就是一種優勢。]

I would have ranked GTU higher, PTS lower, and added Claremont and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary–since conservatives seem to have started favoring it over Dallas). Notre Dame is definitely an oversight.

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

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

Maybe a tiered approach is best for PhD programs:

Tier One:

Yale University (NT & OT)
University of Chicago Divinity School (OT)
Harvard University (OT)

Tier Two:

Graduate Theological Union/Berkeley (OT)

University of Notre Dame (NT)
Duke University (NT & OT)

Tier Three:

Claremont Graduate School (OT)

Princeton Theological Seminary (ST & NT)
Emory (NT & OT)

Vanderbilt University
Marquette (ST)

Wheaton Graduate School (NT)

Tier Four:

Fuller Theological Seminary
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (NT)
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dallas Theological Seminary

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

[評:這篇有較為中肯,內行且精準的資訊。指出Graduate Theological Union新約跟舊約研究水準落差很大的問題。舊約依靠UC Berkeley可以衝上頂尖學府。說明Fuller不是純福音派;Yale也不是自由派,而是後自由派。認為Harvard值得一念,而TalbotDallas則不適合真正要做神學學術的人。]

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

Marquette and Georgetown (both Jesuit schools) should definitely be mentioned as well…

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

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

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

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

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

[評:幫Yale University Divinity School說好話,指出Talbot School of Theology生師比失衡的大問題。認為福音派神學院的博士路線太窄,非常不推薦。]

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

You don’t need to be a fundamentalist to be a full inerrantist. Bob Jones University is fundamentalist. Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, Westminster, and several of the other top evangelical schools are full of inerrantists who are not fundamentalists.

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

For the record, I didn’t see any problem with the tiered structure explaining how broad someone’s acceptance would be at various places. I would never recommend anyone to get a Ph.D. at an evangelical institution unless they never wanted to teach in a mainstream department.

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

[評:舊生挑出來幫Talbot說好話]

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

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

Jon: You are right that the student-faculty ratio at Talbot (MA Phil) leaves something to be desired. But I would point out that the department is actively working on the issue. As a recent Talbot alum, I can say that I have spent quality, out-of-class time with faculty members more times than I can count – not to mention time spent with visiting scholars such as Richard Swinburne, Robert Audi, and Steve Wykstra. Not all of my peers have had the same level of contact with faculty, but the opportunities are there for those who seek them. I realize, Jon, that you were speaking about ‘norms’, but I would take exception with the claim (which seemed to be implied) that Talbot is a sub-par program, on the whole.

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

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

[評:這篇繼續說Talbot生師比誇張的問題]

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

[評:總算有人開始用研究領域來劃分不同學校的長處了]

He is talking about doctoral programs. As far as Duke, he must be talking about Duke University’s Ph.D. program. But [Gregory] Jones is not the dean of this. He is the dean of Duke Divinity School which just accepted their first crop of Th.D. (doctoral) students for this fall.

In Old Testament, I hear people talking about Harvard University, Yale University, Johns Hopkins, University of Chicago, Duke University, and Emory.

In New Testament, I hear people talking about Duke, Notre Dame, Princeton Theological Seminary, Emory, Cambridge (UK), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and Wheaton Graduate School.

Another mention in theology and philosophy might be: Baylor University

In practical theology, I am hearing about Princeton Theological Seminary, Duke Divinity School, Fuller Theological Seminary, Luther Seminary, Emory, and Vanderbilt.

Theologians might not be familiar with what has become an institution within the field of philosophy: Brian Leiter’s « Philosophical Gourmet Report » ( http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com )–a (global) ranking of graduate programs in philosophy. Leiter’s report is not without controversy, but it plays a huge role in how undergraduates think about applications to graduate programs in philosophy. Perhaps the time is ripe from something equivalent in theology & religion?

[評:把英國的一些學校拉進戰局,還有討論中被忽略的Toronto University School of Theology]

Programs in the UK have the benefit of RAE rankings, which offer a quasi-objective ranking of the research quality of graduate programs in theology and religion, made possible by a more centralized organization of higher education in the UK (as most other countries). This would be impossible in the free-marketization of higher education in America.

Thinking about the UK also opens the question: do Americans consider doctoral programs in the UK? And if so, which? It seems to me that a lot of evangelicals–particularly in biblical studies–still make the trek to the UK. And the recent meteoric rise of theology in Scottish universities is sure to draw a number of American graduate students to St. Andrews, Edinburgh, and perhaps Glasgow (depending on whom they appoint to succeed Newlands), as well as the stand-by of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, and King’s College. More creative, pluralistic programs draw students to Manchester and Birmingham (which includes significant resources for work in Pentecostal theology).

Looking internationally also reminds us of the resources at the Toronto School of Theology at the University of Toronto. Some excellent discussions are going on there.

[評:Union的校友出來為母校幫腔。自稱是福音派的他,批Trinity學術不如Marquette和Princeton,遑論和Union叫板。]

Another reason why this list is outdated is that there is no mention of Union Theological Seminary anywhere on the list. Sure we have some old farts, but Gary Dorrien (Niebuhr chair) is in the top five most important scholars of our time. He’s bringing back a social gospel movement that is really generating some major momentum. When Langdon Gilkey was asked to produce his life acheivments and goals in five pages or less, he called Dorrien and asked him to do it for him! Alongside Dorrien, we have several legends in their field: James Cone (Briggs chair), the founder of Black Liberation; Paul Knitter (Tillich chair), an international source concerning interfaith dialogue. Roger Haight, faced heresy trials from the Catholic Church while producing a definitive work on the Trinity, called « Jesus Symbol of God ». Christopher Morse is one of the major authorities on Barthian studies today (of course, besides Dorrien). Hal Taussig’s Bible department is one of the best liberal approaches towards scripture in the Ivy’s.

It is obvious that whoever this guy is that wrote this essay is a hard core evangelical. Placing Trinity on the same plain as Marquette and Princeton is absurd. Now granted, I did apply to Trinity. I am an evangelical. But Union is clearly a better pick. I agree that both theology and ethics program more or less revolve around one person. But Dorrien vs. Vanhoozer? Come on.

[評:Vanderbilt的校友出來為母校幫腔。這篇有非常有價值的訊息。說明Vanderbilt雖算不上信仰正統,但近期神學蓬勃地開展使其不應再放在過往自由派學術標籤的框架下理解,尤其是它和「後自由神學」高度且密集的對話,絕對有值得一瞧之處。]

I would venture to say that Paul DeHart’s just published work _The Trial of the Witnesses: The Rise and Decline of Post-liberalism_ (Blackwell, 2006 — Paul is in his seventh year at Vanderbilt), as well as the work that will just now start coming out from his first round of graduate students (a dissertation just now being finished on « The Politics of Christian Mission in Barth, Hauerwas, and Yoder » by one student; another student writing on the « nature/grace » discussion in Barth, de Lubac, and Milbank), and some of the things that Vanderbilt graduate students in theology are now involved in (such as the putting together of the « Critical Responses to _Theology and the Political: The New Debate_ » panel at AAR this year with Milbank, Ward, Cunningham, responding to other younger scholars from programs like Duke and Vanderbilt; the organization of a forthcoming international conference on « Theology and Aesthetics »), will cause Vanderbilt to emerge as a place to engage the influential work of those who have been or are on the faculties of the schools Reno and others have mentioned (Duke, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Notre Dame), in a fresh and critical context — one that can no longer strictly be delimited as « Protestant liberal » or « post-liberal. »

Vanderbilt’s program is small, and in many respects still deserves the « Protestant liberal » label as a whole, especially at the Divinity School level. But if one comes to Vanderbilt and takes a concentrated combination of classes with DeHart (Theology… BA, Chicago [1987], M.A.R., Yale [1990], PhD, Chicago [1997]), Patout Burns (Patristics; Augustine), Robin Jensen (Aesthetics; Liturgics… M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D, Columbia University/Union Theological Seminary, New York [1977, 1986, 1991]), Doug Meeks (Theology/Economics), Melissa Snarr (Ethics/Political Theology), and David Wood (Philosophy; Heidegger/Derrida/Kierkegaard), and combines that with intentional participation in the robust graduate student community (such as the newly begun « Graduate Theological Society »), one will have the rigorous interdisciplinary makings for the kind of « systematic theology » needed at the outset of the 21st century.

This post is of course an appeal that Vanderbilt be reconsidered as a place for Ph.D. theological study, especially if we think more in terms of where programs are going, rather than where there has been has led them to where they are today. Theological education really needs to start looking to the future; very few programs are doing that these days. But mostly I want this post to be a plug for DeHart’s book. Pick it up; read its critique of Lindbeck carefully; consider its commendation of Frei vis-a-vis Lindbeck, and ask if it doesn’t problematize some of the categories Reno and many others have all along been assuming in their work.

I should not have failed to mention the recent addition of John Thatamanil to Vanderbilt’s faculty. John is working hard to develop a Christian theology of religions that is robustly « confessional. » I have done significantly less work with John, but he seems to be striving to articulate this vision with the kind of subtlety and sophistication that such a project needs. It will be interesting to see in what direction his work goes; at any rate, it appears it will not be going in the « post-Christian » direction that one would have thought such a theology at Vanderbilt would have gone after McFague (and Hodgson, though less so).

結論

A List (from fundamental to ultra-liberal) by myself:

  • Group 1 (fundamental / evangelical)

Dallas Theological Seminary

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Westminster Theological Seminary

Talbot Theological Seminary- [Biola University]

Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary- [Gordon College, London School of Theology/Boston University]

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School- [Trinity International University]

Wheaton Graduate School- [Wheaton College]

George W. Truett Theological Seminary– [Baylor University]

Regent College- [University of British Colombia]

Fuller Theological Seminary

  • Group 2 (mainline liberal and neo-orthodox)

Claremont Graduate School

Duke Divinity School

Candler School of Theology- [Emory University]

Toronto School of Theology- [University of Toronto]

Notre Dame University Department of Theology

Princeton Theological Seminary- [Princeton University]

Yale Divinity School

Marquette University Department of Theology

Virginia University Department of Religious Studies

  • Group 3 (neo-liberal, pluralistic, and atheistic)

Harvard Divinity School

University of Chicago Divinity School

Graduate Theological Union- [UC Berkeley]

Union Theological Seminary- [Columbia University]

Princeton University Department of Religion

Oversea alternatives (非美加的海外系統)

Oxford University

Cambridge University

Aberdeen University

Saint Andrews University

Edinburgh University

Tubingen University

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

3 thoughts on “[文摘] 美國最佳神學院校排名(2007)”

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