The Road Ahead
I've been trying to figure out where I am headed, in a number of ways, for some time. In different ways, I've tried to make some strides in two particular cases over the past week. I'll deal with one way now, and one in a future post, I hope.
For the past four or five years, I've realized my calling is in academia. I'm a theologian at heart and in the present time, academia would appear to be the best place to go to work on such a pursuit. Instead of the more practical pastoral ministry, this is a ministry, but one for the mind more than the heart. That is to say, my “patron saint” would be Thomas Aquinas and not Francis of Assi; John Calvin rather than John Wesley; C.S. Lewis rather than Rick Warren. The need for both is strong; these are a complementary pursuits. Knowledge does not save, but it does provide a stable foundation for faith — it is the well tilled soil in which carefully planted seeds can thrive.
I am aware that I am squarely aiming myself for a field that is “highly competitive,” which means I must be as well qualified as possible if I hope to actually crack the nut and get in. With that in mind, I'm considering exactly what kind of training I need to take aim for. Some have advised me to make my next goal a MA in Religious Studies, presumably continuing to a Ph.D. in the same. This would be useful, but is rather limited: should I ever wish to do anything in the other realms of ministry, I'd be totally unqualified by many standards (be they legitimate or not). Moreover, while I readily admit and appreciate the usefulness of anthropology, sociology and other disciplines which inform the Religious Studies field, they are not the part of the Critical Study of Religion that I have the biggest affinity with. I'd rather focus on Christian theology and philosophy and supplement that so as to make myself able to teach World Religions and other similar courses.
It seems to make the most sense to take aim for some kind of seminary degree. Ultimately, I am mostly convinced to aim for a Ph.D. track (be it directly from a school that would start me off working in that direction immediately or working through a masters and then finding a place to continue later), but along the way I must decide whether to go with a MA in Theology or a M.Div. For my purposes, the former is mostly what I need, and would allow me to reduce the amount of time I have left to reach my goal in about six to seven years rather than seven to eight. But, again, it leaves something lacking in ordination qualifications, which I think might be a mistake. Therefore, I am mostly leaning toward an M.Div. Although I do not see myself in a pulpit ministry, I do want to pursue ordination eventually.
That is not the end of the discussion, of course. My big decision is whether I should aim for the local PCA seminary, which is small and I've been looking at for some time (Covenant), or perhaps I should instead aim for a PC (USA) seminary back East. Some of those who advise me seem to think (I suspect correctly) that the well established PC (USA) seminaries may be more oriented to the scholarly, rather than practical, and therefore better suited for an academic career. This, of course, could be crucial to actually making it into a good position down the road.
Right now, the two seminaries I'm looking most closely at are Covenant and Princeton, but I'm still doing a fairly cursory consideration. Some others that I'm planning to examine more closely are Fuller and Union. I've briefly considered Concordia, which is also in town, but I think I've ruled that out, along with Trinity. The main criteria that will end up deciding what happens are class sizes, academic job placement success rates and scholarliness. Cheaper would be nice too, but none of them are going to be cheap. I would like to stay here in St. Louis, or nearby, but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot either. I'm most likely aiming to stay within the Reformed tradition as opposed to the more Evangelical seminaries.
Any recommendations, would, of course, be appreciated.
Reformation Sunday
Well, I wrote up a really nice post on Reformation Day and, particularly, reflections on some of the problems it leaves us with today, but I'm afraid I hit the wrong button and it went off into the abyss. It was probably the best post I've written in awhile, but not good enough to warrant rewriting the whole thing, so I guess I'll leave well enough alone for now.
Something, That's What.
In response to my last post — it has been a bit of a peculiar week, but overall, everything went better than I had hoped. I am thankful for that. I almost feel as if the last week hasn't really occurred, but I don't mean that in a bad way.
I have a few blog entries I'd like to write if only I had enough time to do so. It just seems I never have time and energy at the same time lately. Oh well.
What Have I Done?
I'm still wondering about that. I sent out a letter that I wonder if I should have sent. More once I see how things settle down.
The MacIntyre Adventure
For my philosophy independent study, Modern Ethical Theory, we are using exclusively primary sources. I always enjoy sticking to primary sources, so I'm pretty happy about that. I will say, however, that my present read, After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre, is really slow going. It isn't that it is hard to understand, nor that it is uninteresting. For some inexplicable reason, however, my reading speed just plummets every time I read it. I'm rather glad to be moving on to something else after this week. On the other hand, he does make a lot of good points, and as someone who rather likes Thomistic thought, I appreciate MacIntyre's work to defend the philosophy of Aristotle over Kantian, Utilitarian and general emotive theories. I just wish I could figure out why I move through the text so slowly.
All I Can Say Is...
GO CARDS!!!. Right now, we're behind 3-0. We need to beat the Astros… let's hope it happens soon.
The Miers Mire
I have to admit (perhaps much to the pleasure of my left leaning friends), I gotta wonder what Dubya is doing. Why on earth would he pick Miers? Now its leaked out that in 1989 she publicly noted her support for a pro-life measure. That's all well and good, I'm pro-life as all of you know, but it is judicial suicide. The administration is going to end up spending massive amounts of political capital on someone I can just about guarantee cannot get into the court unless there are swine defying gravity in the vicinity.
I think the court needs good pro-life justices (although I would argue what it really needs are justices that don't come up with fictional constitutional rights, and if that were the case, they would have to be pro-life), but they really need to be the types that don't have their name next to any pro-life causes. One who does can easily be filibustered to death in the senate. Moreover, Miers was already a weak pick since she has no real qualifications to make up for what the Left will now see as a major blemish on her. How did the same team that picked John Roberts pick Harriet Miers? I know there were rumors that they wanted a female nominee, but that does not explain why they didn't pick a woman with stronger credentials (the White House, in the past, has been good at that considering picks such as Condi Rice).
This is topped by the White House's idiotic attempts to win the Right by advertising Miers religious piety. I don't want to be told about that, all that does is make the president look like he's making a double standard. Now the Dems are going to judge every nominee's religiousness negatively even more than before. Sheesh.
For those, like me, of the Right, we have a serious problem. As the saying goes, if these are our friends, we hardly need enemies. I predict a Democratic landslide in 2006, unless we get our collective acts together.
To Tell A Story
I've been feeling in a reflective mood the past few days. I decided to write a letter to a friend reminiscing about a nice event last fall. It was going to be about a one page letter — in fact, I thought I might handwrite the final draft (I'm convinced handwritten notes are still preferable to typed in many respects). Well, that ain't happ'n. I said I was in a reflective mood, right? Well, I was really in that mood — the one page letter turned into a five an a half single-spaced page story (4,100 words). As is my usual mode of editing, each attempt to pare it down makes it longer. At times, my words can be like Tribbles (good thing I'm not a Klingon).
In other words, I'm wordy. Very wordy. It is at times like these, I wonder how I ever manage to meet the 600 word requirements for an op-ed… It is also at times like these I wonder if maybe I really should get into politics.
Seriously, I have been known to win a debate solely on the fact that I can keep churning out words until everyone has grown tired of debating with me (of course, I'm right, which helps).
Missing
Well, I've been all but missing from the blogosphere, so maybe this is appropriate.
Please, please forgive me,
But I won’t be home again.
Maybe someday you’ll have woke up,
And, barely conscious, you’ll say to no one:
“isn’t something missing? “You won’t cry for my absence, I know -
Even though I’d be sacrificed,
You forgot me long ago.
Am I that unimportant…?
Am I so insignificant…?
Isn’t something missing?
Isn’t someone missing me?
You won’t try for me, not now.
Though I’d die to know you love me,
I’m all alone.
Isn’t someone missing me?
—Evanescence, Missing
How are y'all anyway?
Deafening Silience Follow-up
Over the past few weeks, I revised my play, Deafening Silence: the Tragedy of Private Alan Michelson in numerous ways. The most important, perhaps, was adding an interpretive essay at the end dealing with the serious theological issues it brings up. It isn't anything heavy, but considers the big issues of the play, at least in passing: the problem of evil, the verification and falsification debate and the ability (or lack thereof) to lose salvation.
From a story standpoint, I also introduced several pages of new material that helped smooth out the scenes, create what I hope is a more natural, realistic pace and so on. Couple that with improved wording, and I think the play is a lot better now than it was in early September.
How long is it? It is a featherweight if you compare it against Shakespeare's works. Compared to its inspiration work, Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, it weighs in about 14% shorter. It is about 33% shorter than Chekhov's Uncle Vanya. I'm just guessing, but I'm presuming with its size, it would take 60-90 minutes to stage, at most.
If anyone who has already received a copy would like an updated release, please let me know. Also, if anyone else is interested, just give me a holler.
