TF Torrance: The Difference Between University and School

By -
Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Frame of Mind: Reason, order, and openness in theology and natural science (Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1989), 129.
"The fundamental ethos of a university is different from that of a school. In a school, instruction and learning are the prime functions of teacher and pupil, and the objective is some prescribed standard level of knowledge and competence in various subjects. In a university, on the other hand, all this plays only a subsidiary role, for the prime task of students is to engage in inquiry, and to learn as they pursue their inquiry under the ultimate authority not of the university teachers but of the truth itself. Correspondingly, the university lecturer is not an exalted schoolteacher but a thinker and researcher to whom the student is, as it were, apprenticed in academic and scientific inquiry."
Given TFT's distinction between university and school, where might we place and MDiv program at a seminary? My reflex would be to locate it more under school than under university, because - as a professional degree - it is primarily concerned with certain competency levels. But, I'm worried that such an approach to theological education could stifle the joy and excitement that comes with the study of God and his works, and so I am sympathetic to the university paradigm as well. In any case, this goes to show the difficulty involved in developing a coherent account of what a Seminary is.

Comments

Michael said…
Theological seminaries are an American innovation that predated the kind of universities that Torrance probably had in mind (i.e., those influenced by the German model). When the university movement got going in the late 19th century, most seminaries maintained a commitment to education and research within the context of a commitment to the (or a) church. There was an interesting exchange between Princeton President Francis Patton and Harvard President Charles Eliot in 1884, in which Patton wrote that seminaries are not only concerned with theological education but also with ministerial education. And the church, Patton said, “holds certain definite convictions … it is absurd to suppose that the church should not take the oversight of the theological training of her ministers.” Elsewhere, Patton wrote that “the seminary is a place for the practical training of ministers, but it is also a place for advanced scientific research in theology.”

Congratulations, by the way!
September 25, 2008 10:57 AM
Unknown said…
Using Torrance's categories, the seminary degree (M.Div.) should definitely take place in a school. People can still love their subject in a school. Love of the subject matter isn't a problem, nor is a lack of "apprenticeship." One training to be a pastor should be apprenticed to a pastor in a parish, not a teacher in a school, assuming, of course, that one should be apprenticed by the type of person you want to become!

So, using Torrance's tags, the seminary should be a pastor's school, and the parish should be his or her university.
September 27, 2008 11:13 PM
W. Travis McMaken said…
Michael,

Thanks, and thanks for the history lesson. :-) Speaking of which, I thought that the University of Berlin actually predated seminaries in the USA by a few years. At least it was a couple of years before PTS was founded. In any case, it is interesting that the universities of Europe are not so committed to particular faith communities given that they reside in nations that posses a state church.

Jason, I like your concluding sentence, and I think that TFT would too!
October 01, 2008 6:29 PM
Michael said…
The modern German research universities, which have their roots in the 18th century, didn’t significantly influence higher education in America until the latter half of the 19th century. Often, it was seminary graduates (like Charles Hodge) who went abroad and became interested in what Schleiermacher and other scholars were up to.
October 07, 2008 11:45 AM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri
Keep reading

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 1, Day 5

By -
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that
Keep reading

Karl Barth on Hell, the Devil, Demons, and Universalism – A Florilegium

By -
Image
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from
Keep reading