[文摘] 美國最佳神學院校排名(2009)

Source: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/10/a-2009-ranking-of-graduate-programs-in-theology

Author: R.R. Reno (professor of theology at Creighton University)

簡介:2006年時提出驚人的神學院評比,Russel Reno 在三年後又有新作。他的想法有了些什麼改變呢?三年間學界又發生了什麼震盪呢?

由於沒有時間筆耕,這篇文章僅進行摘要處理(或許之後又有閒暇能將它補完了也說不定)並附上個人評註,有興趣者請自行瀏覽英文全文。

當年的排名:

1. 杜克大學神學院

2. 聖母大學神學系

3. 普林斯頓大學宗教系

4. 波士頓學院神學系

5. 三一神學院、美國天主教大學、普林斯頓神學院

今時的排名:

1. 杜克大學神學院:Richard Hays成為杜克神學院的新院長。杜克大學的強項是最前線的神學倫理學和由聖經神學支撐的神學思想建構。

2. 聖母大學神學系:在原先的基調上,杜克大學和聖母大學都比06年時更強大了。聖母大學的強項是歷史神學。此外,作為一個研究型大學的整體,聖母大學堅持自己的正統天主教信仰框架更甚杜克大學之於衛理宗信仰,成為他們泛文理學科的精神思想底蘊。

3. 普林斯頓大學宗教系、普林斯頓神學院:普林斯頓大學宗教系和普林斯頓神學院建立了合作關係,懂得利用的人不論讀了哪一所學校,可以在神學中有宗教社會學、在宗教社會學中有神學。

5. 多倫多大學神學院威克理夫學院:多倫多大學神學院得到了Ephraim Radner,威克理夫學院如今是新長成的後自由神學重鎮(「聖公會」為外在形式),並吸引福音派優秀學子前往。

6. 馬奎特大學神學系:馬奎特大學,擁有良好的耶穌會傳統,正向的天主教神學也在勃發。

此外,

老牌三強-芝加哥、耶魯、哈佛-仍然是被視為太過不正統,且自成學界一格,和教會脫節。尤其哈佛。

值得一提的是芝大神學院的Kathryn Tanner在本學年(2010)投回耶魯大學的懷抱了。剛巧現在三所學校在神學哲學上都有思想非常睿智及宏大的教母級人物:哈佛的Diana L. Eck、Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza(注:Sarah Coakley 已經「回去」了劍橋,不過哈佛的女教授比例仍然極高。)、芝加哥的Françoise Meltzer、Susan Schreiner、耶魯的Kathryn Tanner。

戴頓大學(Dayton University)、貝勒大學、南衛理公會大學、加州柏克萊的道明會神學哲學系的優秀學者也被點評。三年前榜上有名的波士頓學院、美國天主教大學、三一福音神學院則被除名。尤其三一,在系統神學名教授Kevin Vanhoozer(06年三一上榜唯一原因)離去後,更是隻字未提。

這篇文章與三年前相比,作者從後自由新教立場轉向後自由天主教立場的意識型態明顯。福音派學者的名字在文章中不見影蹤(且有只有貝勒大學一所學校得到簡短評價)。

個人覺得較大的遺珠之憾是惠頓學院(Wheaton College),其近年成立的博士班擁有Douglas Moo 和Kevin Vanhoozer(僅附帶一提,G. K. Beale 轉投西敏神學院。但我不會將他與上兩人並列),且較年輕的學者如Daniel Treier、Timothy Larson 也頭角崢嶸。由於他們給予全額獎學金和積極擔保學生三、四年內畢業,近年收入的博班學生相當優質。培養的學者也是福音派教會的祝福。

以對福音派友善的廣義北美新教正統神學院校而言,杜克、普林斯頓(神學院)、多倫多威克理夫、惠頓、富勒,將是我心目中的前五善。

至於諸多人感興趣的英國,我認為除了劍橋、牛津陣容龐大而整齊穩居前二之外,聖安得烈(N T Wright; Trevor A. Hart)、杜蘭(Lewis Ayres〔從美國艾墨瑞轉投; J D G Dunn 退休〕 )、亞伯丁(John Webster)、愛丁堡(Oliver O’Donovan)、諾丁漢(John Milbank, Anthony Thiselton)等校各自有名師坐陣且各善勝場,加以學制相當個人化、獎學金寡少,因而排行見仁見智。

.

Related articles

A few years ago, I made a crude and impressionistic ranking of graduate programs in theology in North America. Recently, I mused in a more general way about what makes for a really good program in theology, and, in response, a couple of friends asked me if my old opinions still hold true. It’s a good question, and one I’ll try to answer.

Duke and Notre Dame remain at the top. Indeed, they are stronger than ever, in large part because the longtime Dean of Duke Divinity School, L. Gregory Jones, and the longtime chair of the Notre Dame department of theology, John Cavadini, provide steady leadership. Both men have kept their eyes on the prize: hiring intellectually exciting professors who are committed to students and care deeply about the future of a decidedly orthodox and church-oriented vocation of theological scholarship.

Duke is perhaps the stronger of the two. Stanley Hauerwas exudes intellectual excitement and theological zeal. Reinhard Hütter has a deep knowledge of modern Protestant theology, as well as modern Catholic theology—and unlike so many who teach in Catholic programs, Hütter has not deliberately ignored and forgotten the tremendous riches of the scholastic tradition. Paul Griffiths combines intellectual creativity with scholarly rigor. J. Kameron Carter, Jeremy Begbie, and Amy Laura Hall have vivid and interesting and forceful theological voices. Warren Smith treats the church fathers as living resources for contemporary theology.

There is a further reason why Duke is a remarkable place. In the mid-twentieth century, Karl Rahner pronounced the Bible off limits for theologians. Systematic theologians, he argued, should not presume upon the domain of properly “scientific” historical exegesis. To my mind, this untenable divide between theology and biblical interpretation has crippled both systematic and biblical theology. Duke’s program works against this divide. Richard Hays, Kavin Rowe, Stephen Chapman, and Ellen Davis are biblical scholars who can (and want) to talk to students about Augustine, Aquinas, the Reformers, Karl Barth, and even Karl Rahner. Moreover, Stanley Hauerwas has written a biblical commentary, and Reinhard Hütter and Paul Griffiths are working on commentaries as well. Duke is the ground zero for a restoration of theology to biblical exegesis, and biblical exegesis to theology.

In the past, the main problem with Duke was institutional. The PhD program is run through the Duke University department of religion, and only a couple of students a year were admitted to study theology. A few years ago, however, the Divinity School inaugurated a ThD (doctorate in Theology) program. This means there’s a larger cohort of fellow doctoral students, which enhances the program. Intellectual vitality comes from the give-and-take of smart folks pursuing a common project (and arguing vigorously about the common project), and the more the merrier.

I say that Duke is perhaps stronger, because Notre Dame can make its own claims on preeminence. For any student who wishes to pursue study in historical theology—and wants to do so for the sake of contributing to contemporary discussions and debates—Notre Dame offers some superb professors. Brian Daley and John Cavadini make the Church Fathers sing. In his work on Hegel and Gnosticism, Cyril O’Regan has developed what I think is one of the most sophisticated and insightful theological accounts of modernity. Ann Astell brings out the remarkable theological wisdom of medieval literature. Old Testament scholar Gary Anderson engages the history of theology and interpretation.

In the area of systematic theology, Notre Dame’s theology department is less interesting. The old Liberal Catholic Establishment continues to hold sway, which can lead to a narrow fixation on the old battles of the post-Vatican II generation, as well as the grotesque reduction of modern Catholic theology to the heroic figures of the mid-twentieth century: Bernard Lonergan, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, and the rest. These figures are obviously worth studying, but endlessly teaching the innovators tends to produce students who have little idea of the underlying tradition that made the innovations so important.

One final dimension tilts strongly in Notre Dame’s favor. As a university context for the study of theology (or for that matter any form of Christian scholarship), Duke can’t begin to compete with Notre Dame. The sheer number of very fine faculty committed to the Christian tradition, not only in theology, but also in philosophy, history, literature, and law, is remarkable. Young graduate students should not underestimate the value of this aggregation of Christian commitment and wisdom. It makes for an exciting environment. Students can try on rather than just theorize about the queenly robes of theology.

After Duke and Notre Dame the picture gets muddy. But I’ll try to give a plausible (if very ad hoc) rationale for assessing and ranking some other programs.

My old ranking put Princeton University’s department of religion in the third slot. I’m not sure I was right. Their strengths are significant. Eric Gregory certainly offers students an opportunity to study St. Augustine and other major theological figures. Jeffrey Stout and the rest of the religion department sustain an enviable culture of support and encouragement for graduate students. That counts for a lot in my book.

But the Princeton program focuses on a philosophically, culturally, and historically oriented study of religion. For a student called to a vocation in theology, considering these angles is all for the best. But the problem is that theology as such is marginal in nearly all programs of religion or religious studies, which is why I don’t tend to recommend the University of Virginia or Brown or Columbia or other doctoral programs that might have one or two fine professors. The danger is that a young graduate student will find him or herself slowly socialized into the role of the tentative intellectual outsider who downplays the theological dimension in order to be in on the conversation.
There are, however, good and complicating possibilities at Princeton. (I warned that things get muddy.) In recent years, the religion department and Princeton Theological Seminary (an institution entirely distinct from Princeton University) have established connections. Graduate students at the seminary, which offers a PhD of its own, are now to some degree involved in the religion department, and PhD students in the Religion Department are more likely to be engaged with faculty at the seminary.

Princeton Seminary has a roster of superb theologians, so much so that I consider the PhD program first rate on its own terms. Bruce McCormick, Ellen Charry, George Hunsinger, and a new hire, John Bowlin—one is hard pressed to find more learned and creative contemporary theological minds.
Therefore, an aspiring theologian should think of Princeton as a package and consider both programs—both in the religion department at the University and at Princeton Theological Seminary. If you already have a seminary degree, you might not feel the theological limitations of the religion department so keenly. If you are fresh out of your undergraduate studies, the Seminary PhD program might be better. The Seminary will provide you with theological formation, and then you can branch out and engage the religion department (or philosophy or history) over at the University—and do so as a theologian.

After Princeton—or perhaps on a par with Princeton—I put Wycliffe College and the larger Toronto School of Theology at the University of Toronto. Ephraim Radner is one of the most important theologians of his generation. His book, The End of the Church, offers theological account of the modern Christian experience unparalleled in depth and insight. Radner now teaches at Wycliffe, along with Joseph Mangina, George Sumner, and Chris Seitz. The species is Anglican, but the genus is post-liberal theology, a church-committed theological vision that is clear minded about the challenges posed by contemporary culture.

Last time I ranked programs, I plugged Boston College. They have lots of money, but I think I was mistaken about the quality of the program. Like so many Jesuit theology departments, Boston College has drifted from the excitement of the post-Vatican II era to the banality of contextual theology. I’m sure a motivated graduate student can get a good education. There are certainly some good professors, such as Khaled Anatolios. But the program as a whole seems complacent. I’m afraid the same is true of Fordham and St. Louis U.

The one Jesuit exception is Marquette, which I put in the fifth slot. Michel Barnes, Alexander Golitzin, and Mickey Mattox are superb historical theologians. Susan Wood, Ralph Del Colle, and Stephen Long provide a great deal in systematic theology. Overall, Marquette seems to have avoided the narrow parochialism of the now old and often narrowly liberal Catholic theology. As a result, the Jesuit tradition of adventuresome intellectual fidelity fits nicely with a graduate program that is interested in the riches of the theological tradition.

University of Chicago, Yale, and Harvard once dominated American Protestant theology. As the social reality of Liberal Protestantism declined, their rationale and coherence melted away. Today, these schools have some good people. Kathryn Tanner at University of Chicago is one of the most gifted formal thinkers currently teaching theology. Jon Levenson at Harvard has a great deal to offer. I admire the theological imagination of Miroslav Volf at Yale. And these schools are housed within world-class universities. That’s worth a lot for students who have the get up and go to make the most out of intellectual opportunities. But I keep coming back to the problem of theological vocation. At Chicago, Yale, and Harvard, orthodox Christian theology is marginal at best.

By contrast, programs at Catholic University or affiliated institutions such as the John Paul II Institute and the Dominican House of Studies exude confidence in the inherent dignity and importance of a vocation of theological scholarship in the service of faith. I often advise prospective graduate students to put some of the options at Catholic University on their lists.

Doubtless there are other schools worth thinking about. The University of Dayton recently hired Matthew Levering, and he ornaments an already attractive faculty. Perhaps the theology program there is on the rise. I’ve long been a big fan of the work of Bruce Marshall at Southern Methodist University’s Perkins School of Theology. Baylor has some excellent people, and their theology program might be worth investigating. Augustine Thompson and Richard Schenk at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology at Berkeley would make very fine mentors.

Well, I’ve covered too much ground too quickly, and no doubt too glibly. I hope, however, readers can see my overriding prejudice. Good theological training requires a program animated by a spirit of confidence in the essential truth of the Christian tradition. Theological formation requires mentors whose scholarly gifts are shaped by the task of serving the Church. The intellectual resources and graduate student stipends and academic reputation—all the rest are empty without this spirit of confidence and commitment to the Christian faith.

2 thoughts on “[文摘] 美國最佳神學院校排名(2009)”

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