Ranking Theology Programs- the very idea
Theology lacks the rigid institutional pecking order that some other disciplines have, and I think that’s largely a good thing. At the same time, such a rankings vacuum creates some of its own shortcomings. Students entering grad school depend upon reliable information on the capacity and suitability of different programs, and often this information is lacking. We should, therefore, welcome contributions to transparency with regard to this sort of information when it happens to come along. R.R. Reno attempted to offer just that
in 2006, writing a subjective and cursory ranking of theology graduate programs in North America for
First Things magazine. Yet despite the commendable goal of helping students figure out how to pursue studies in a wise manner, it also opened itself up to a good bit of (quite justified) critique.
After three years, Reno has returned to offer
another ranking of theology programs at
First Things, and this one strikes me as just as unhelpful as the last one. To be fair, Reno never claimed to be attempting anything that was exhaustive or scientific, so it wouldn't be appropriate to expect the equivalent of the
Philosophical Gourmet in the space of a single-author column. But it seems to me that there's an egregious amount of favoritism, superficiality, and limited evaluation in the column.
Reno's Remnant
Let's begin at the end of Reno's 2006 piece, which actually wasn't half bad. Of Ephraim Radner and David Bentley Hart, he wrote:
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.
I don't know about "excluded," but his point is well-taken, and it's worth making. We need to be discerning, and pay attention to where the innovative work is being done. The problem comes, however, when Reno begins to go a bit too far in identifying a remnant of "good" theological work in the wider wasteland of North American academia. In this bleak picture, two schools garnered
"even a relatively strong thumbs up", and the rest of the list related a rather woeful amount of shortcomings. Some departments were
"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." Other places were
"aggressively post-Christian." Still others
"have seen a decline in serious intellectual life brought on by the intensely ideological agendas."
Reno, in other words, took a very good point about the precarious state of innovative work in academic theology (the point could be made of most humanities disciplines as well), and inflated it into a sorting of the sheep from the goats, department by department, based on a rather over-psychologized sense of their underlying motivations for or against nothing less than the very proclamation and continuity of the Church. Much as I'd want to be on the look-out for such hostilities, I just don't think he's being at all realistic. And worse than being unrealistic, he's distorting the way that prospective students look at graduate programs in theology. The attitude is much the same in his most recent piece, and I'll move on to that.
As in 2006, Reno sees Duke and Notre Dame as the top schools to go to for graduate education in theology. I won't argue with that- whether or not there are better programs out there, these two are certainly worthy of substantial praise. We begin to see the ideological commitments behind Reno's argument, however, when he mentions the supposed shortcomings of Notre Dame's systematics faculty:
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.
This hearkens back to Reno's 2006 article, where he blamed the Jesuits for a "liberal-revisionist agenda" that "may have seemed cutting-edge, but these days it's pretty tired, and tiresome."
I won't deny Reno's point, in some ways. More traditionalist and conservative theologies are enjoying the fruits of some really wonderful work these days, and there is a sense that what was radical a few decades ago just isn't anymore. I'd even personally associate with some of the schools of thought that Reno is trying to defend here. But:
1) It's stupid to speak of "the Jesuits" as some academic monoculture, and the same goes for liberal Protestantism. The complexities of these and other theological traditions cannot be boiled down to some political drumbeat or cultural agenda, and Reno is lazy to make such a claim.
2) It's stupid to act as if such things as the theological interpretation of scripture, or the embrace of a
ressourcement project, or the courage to respond to the errors of secularism, neo-liberalism, or modernity are somehow
not being done in all sorts of theological circles- liberal, conservative, and otherwise. They are. Reno is excited about the work of some theologians, and I'm happy for him. But he needs to open his eyes and realize that his favorite theologians don't have a monopoly on vitality and innovation. This sort of triumphalism can unfortunately be present in lots of Barthian, Radically Orthodox, or Ratzingeresque Catholic circles, and I think it would be best (despite my own sympathies with all of these groups) to be a bit more humble about who the cool kids on the block are right now. Contextual theologies aren't "stuck in the '70s."
Nor is liberalism. Academic theology is flourishing in lots of different, contradictory directions. And that's a good thing.
3) I think the ecclesio-centric aspect of Reno's rankings can be misleading. Reno's opposition to a place like Princeton, or UVA, or Brown, or Columbia because of the correlation with culture and society that is emphasized relies too much on theology running the show. His worry is of theology being the "tentative intellectual outsider." While such marginalization would be troublesome if true, what Reno's opposition amounts to is an inability to play nice with others. These departments aren't shutting out theological voices, and the attention to non-theological norms and questions strengthens theological projects rather than pushes them aside. We need these conversations, and it's no virtue to eagerly put ourselves into a situation of academic ghettoization because theology doesn't possess a super majority of the faculty.
Really, truly, they're not out to get us. And really, truly, the Church isn't going to burst forth in some institutional apotheosis just because a faculty of "ecclesial theologians" is lined up somewhere. If anything, their work might stagnate because they aren't being asked enough questions from outside.
Reno's essay seems like something that would appeal to
First Things readers and audiences that are caught up with a concern to emphasize the present normativity and indeed resurgence of a tradition that is Christian in a
classical and an
orthodox sense- as defined, of course, by them. An "us-against-them" mentality runs through the whole thing that doesn't seem to see dialogue across confessional or methodological boundaries as being helpful or formative.
Another thing that's bothersome about Reno's piece is that it focuses on a shortlist of well-known names and reduces the American theological scene to these people. Hauerwas, Hütter, Griffiths, Hays, Tanner, O'Regan, Stout, Radner, Seitz, Barnes, Volf, Levering... don't get me wrong- with a few exceptions, Reno picks a wonderful set of names to highlight. But surely he can try a little bit harder than simply spouting off folks in his own graduate cohort and those who have tended to fill the footnotes of
Pro Ecclesia,
Modern Theology, and
International Journal of Systematic Theology over the past two decades. It just strikes me as too easy, and really, too cursory. Besides a few token mentions, Reno ignores a ton of people who are less well-known, and who positively
make a number of departments (departments that aren't on Reno's list, of course). And seriously, if a prospective graduate student in theology is looking for schools, Hauerwas, Volf,
et al. are the names and the reputations that will already be obvious. It doesn't help to rehearse them yet again and ensure that less well-known scholars continue to go under the radar for lack of attention.
Some Things Reno Should Have Said I don't want to get into "ranking" programs too much myself. I try to stay away from using this blog for polemics and opinionated commentary, as I intend it to be more of a resource hub for work in historical and systematic theology. But it seems resourceful to at least think through the academic situation a bit, so I'll do some of that now while attempting to avoid making a shortlist.
1) Reno should have mentioned Union Seminary. He dismisses Columbia in passing, but he's wrong to do so. He also should have mentioned Vanderbilt and Emory, which he brought up in 2006 only to criticize. He also should have mentioned the Graduate Theological Union in Berkley, and Claremont, and he should not have dismissed the Boston schools. And all of these are the obvious names; we're still talking prestigious schools and not diamonds in the rough. Reno seems to ignore these places because of a perceived old-school liberalism that he thinks gets in the way of good theology.
2) To his credit, Reno mentions some schools toward the end that don't tend to get as much press. But he seems to be more keen on the Catholic schools here, and even here he only mentions a few. Some mention of other Catholic schools, as well as smaller Protestant and Orthodox ones, would have been helpful. He also sticks to the superficial list of names mentioned above... Levering is a great theologian and it makes sense to highlight his hire at Dayton, but two other professors were hired at the same time as Levering, and they don't even get mentioned by Reno.
3) I would have ranked Marquette higher. Their faculty is just stellar, and I think that they are only getting more attention each year. This will be the place to be in a few years, like Chicago, or Yale, or Princeton, or Notre Dame, or Duke were/are now.
4) Reno should have paid some attention to evangelical schools. Wheaton has gained some great faculty over the past few years, including Beth Felker Jones, George Kalantzis, Jennifer McNutt, and Keith Johnson. Vanhoozer has also lately arrived from Trinity. Places like Fuller also would have been good to mention in this category.
5) Another difficult issue with any theology rankings is the problem of seminaries and denominational schools that have some very good work going on, but are not research powerhouses the way the bigger and more prestigious institutions are. I don't think these schools should be ignored, but I also don't know how one should take them into account. The job market is tough, and there's no question that brand name will go a long way, for better or worse. I wouldn't fault Reno for not discussing this more delicate issue, as it's just difficult for any ranking to take into account both the prestigious universities that are usually rightly lauded, and the less prestigious ones that will have faculties just as sharp and worthy, but perhaps also carry some unfortunate liabilities on account of their size.
Some thoughts on Chicago
I had a number of issues with Reno's thoughts on the schools he mentioned; often I was puzzled and disagreed, other times I think he was fair enough. I won't bother to mention all of my reactions, as there are others in a better position to give an assessment. But I thought I'd discuss Chicago quickly, since that's where I am now. I'd qualify that I don't have extensive experience at the Divinity School, and I'm not on campus regularly, so my opinion will not be the most expert.
The University of Chicago is apparently on the decline because it's saddled to the sinking ship of
Ye Olde Liberalism. This is awfully convenient for Reno's narrative, but entirely useless as a guide. In addition to Tanner, every professor I've encountered has been challenging and concerned with doing excellent constructive work in theology. I don't know how Reno concludes that "orthodox Christian theology is marginal at best," my only guess is that he looks at a school with faculty committees on the history of religions, Islamic studies, History of Judaism, sociology of religion, etc., and assumes that this inherently presents a competitive and marginalizing situation for theology. On this, see my point above about Reno's ecclesiological bunker mentality. I think such concerns are symptomatic of an underlying insecurity on his part, rather than any real opposition to orthodox voices in theology.
Another point I'd add about Chicago- I've been shocked at how many
conservative students I have run into here. For those who are interested in applying, you will not be alone and up against a bullying crowd if you come from a conservative Evangelical or Catholic background. This actually took me by surprise; I was expecting less conservatism than I've encountered thus far. I wouldn't worry- here or anywhere else- about being shoved to the side by those nasty liberals that your pastors and undergraduate professors told you ghost stories about. Academic theology in America these days is being bombarded by conservative Evangelicals and Catholics, and it's going to be tough to find
any place where good work from these perspectives isn't well-respected. Don't fall into Reno's trap of mistaking a
pluralist environment where not everyone agrees with a
hostile environment where people don't care about doing good theology.
Okay, I'm Finally Ready to ConcludeAlthough I have a lot of complaints about Reno's piece, I think it's a good idea that he bothered to write a column like this. What we need, however, is a dozen such columns from people of widely differing perspectives. This would provide better context and highlight the fact that there is no single answer for where the best place to study theology is. For some people who are looking for a certain type of environment, Reno's advice may be quite good (although I think I know "these people" and "this type" well enough to say that even here Reno unfortunately leads his readers astray). For many others, he's just muddying the waters and being unfair.
Theology is in a good place right now in North America. There is a lot of good work coming out, and there are a lot of new rising stars just beginning as faculty or still in graduate programs. While job prospects in the humanities are not good, most departments are also being smart about this by tightening their acceptance quotas in order not to flood the system with lots of unemployable PhD's. This will only make the next generation of theologians tougher and sharper. So I don't think it's right to look at the situation as one of gloom and doom, nor do I think it's appropriate to say that only a handful of schools... and really only two... are getting the job done. Prospective students should ask around and chat with lots of different people from different perspectives. This is the only way that they'll come to some worthwhile conclusions about graduate school. Hopefully this post has helped a bit towards that; feel free to share your own thoughts in the comment section or contact me if you want to discuss things further.
The UC Press sale that has been going on will end tomorrow. Some of the 4,000 titles available on sale include Robert Middlekauff's The Mathers: Three Generations of Puritan Intellectuals, 1596–1728; Quine and Carnap's Correspondence; Robert Williams's Hegel's Ethics of Recognition; and a number of Wittgenstein titles (here, here, here, here).
To close, I'll note one recently published book that looks interesting. Colin Koopman's Pragmatism as Transition is out from Columbia University Press. One of the aspects of the pragmatist tradition that interests me most is what Rorty discussed as a "Hegelian" move made over against some (supposedly) static "Kantian" insights. The idea of historical and experiential process as central to the giving and taking of reasons injects historicity into the life of concept use. Koopman's study applies the insights of older pragmatist generations and more recent continental theorists to emphasize "transitionalism" in neo-pragmatist work.
