Let’s be honest, there are a lot of armchair theologians out there. Many people are shocked and scandalized to hear that anyone might actually spend time and money studying theology or earning a degree in the field. Please don’t say these things to someone who majored in theology.
1. “Theology…Is that where, like, you go out and dig up dinosaur bones?”
Someone said this to me once. A full week after I told her I studied theology. It took her a week to guess that theology involved digging up dinosaur bones. Her name was Stormy. I should have said, “that’s right, I’m basically Indiana Jones.”
2. “Did you get that degree at a real college?”
Yes. It actually exists in time and space and is accredited. There are still schools where you are free to study the highest things.
3. “My cousin got ordained online.”
No, he didn’t.
4. “Too bad it’s not useful, like science.”
First, Theology IS a science, it is the highest science, the divine science. As Thomas says, “Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science…So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.” (Summa Theologiae, I.Q.1, a.2)
Second, it is the most “useful” science, because it concerns the study of the object of man’s highest faculties and final end, the True, the Good, the Beautiful, in a word…GOD. Since knowledge concerns natures and causes, and since God is the author and final end of all natures and causes, theology is the MOST “useful” science.
5. “What a waste of time…what are you going to do with that?”
Know, love, and serve God in this life so as to live with Him forever in the next. BAM!
6. “I went to Catholic school, so I know all about that.”
As a Catholic school teacher let me say this: Highly suspect.
7. “Isn’t it all just subjective?”
No. Theology is a science with a particular method. It takes its data from divine revelation. In that way it is the most real, objective, grounded, and sure science there is.
8. “I took a theology class in college…it was pretty boring”
Let me see if I understand this. The uncreated God of the universe revealed Himself to humanity by creating the universe out of nothing, placing upon the human heart a desire to know and love Him, giving men the means through reason and conscience to know something of Him and seek Him, then BECAME A HUMAN BEING through the humble yes of a young Jewish girl, was crucified, died, and was buried, ROSE FROM THE GRAVE, commissioned His disciples to bring this truth to the ends of the earth through a Church that still does so to this day, and which still encounters Him through the sacraments, most notably His own Body and Blood in the Eucharist…you took a course on this and were…”bored”?
9. “But I mean, it’s all still just a matter of opinion, right?”
10. “So you’re like, religious then?”
Theology assumes revelation.
11. “What do you see yourself doing with that?”
Pretty much this.
But if you’re seriously considering getting a degree in theology, the first place you must visit is the Cardinal Newman Society. In their annual guide they profile the best in authentic Catholic education. I got my advanced degrees from Holy Apostles College and Seminary (website currently under renovation) and highly encourage you to learn more about them in this quick video:
https://youtu.be/p_Sd8XO3QS8
I am a Filipina. I find myself in a quarter-life crisis of sorts. I am law student but I took a break for a year. Meanwhile, I am taking some online Theology classes. I realize that I really enjoy Theology. Now I am at a cross-roads whether to pursue theology or become a lawyer (pro-life advocacy) or both? Is it possible to do both? Any advice pls?
I would say yes. Theology does not just deal with God but also humanity. Therefore if you have a solid understanding of what it means to be human, it becomes easier to support these beliefs.
Thank you! God Bless!
Right on, Drew. Theology will also have something to say about man since, as St. John Paul II reminded us, Jesus not only reveals God to man, but man to himself. Sound anthropology is crucial. I think MOST bad ideas derive from bad anthropology.
It is CERTAINLY possible to do both. I know several professors who have gone one from Ph.Ds in Theology to earn their JD. You have high goals – do what makes you happy and builds the Kingdom!
Thank you for your encouragement! I want to serve God both ways. Maybe I will do both! :)) Not sure about PhD…will just focus on JD then MA for now. God Bless!
If you decide for an MA, I *highly* suggest checking out Holy Apostles. God bless you with whatever you choose.
Thanks for the suggestion! I live halfway around the world though. It would be easier and more economical for me to study in the Philippines. I’ll keep it in mind though. I have a few years of law left.
Christendom and Franciscan University have both launched distance MAs in Theology. And if the cross between the two is confusing, you may want to look in to Cannon Law.
Is Cannon Law a subset of Maritime Law? JK…Couldn’t resist the ol’ “Cannon” Law joke…
Thank you! Will look into it!
Augustine Institute is another great choice for a distance Theology MA.
Studying theology and philosophy will only make you a better lawyer, since law concerns the good of the one for whom it is promulgated and to reason about how to promulgate ordinances for man’s good, you’ve gotta know what constitutes his good. A bioethics concentration will be especially valuable…just look at all the recent cases where law and life intersect! And I second Shaun McAfee’s recommendation of Holy Apostles!
I was a humanities student in college with a philosohy and literature focus. I agree bioethics would be useful! Especially in pro-life and pro-family advocacies. Abortion, divorce etc are still illegal here. But there are people advocating for them. I’ll look into bioethics maybe, even if it would just be self study. Thank you! God Bless!
You’ve clearly never been deposed or been in a court of law.
As someone who gets 6, 7, and 9 (a lot), I must say: Great article. Thanks!
As a theology major, I would just add… some theology classes WERE boring… not because the content needed to be, but because the professor did a terrible job.
Pingback: Pope Francis: Large Families Is Hope for Society’ - Big Pulpit
When I told my cousin, a Church of thh Brethren minister I was interested in this subject, he asked, “What? You want to become a Jesuit?”
As a Theology teacher with degrees in Theology and Chemistry…I actually thought a few of those points were valid.
There are a lot of suspect degree mills out there, it doesn’t provide as transferable a skill set for careers as a natural science; education, priesthood, maybe social work if you’re a real charmer and can can really sell it in an interview but that’s about it. A natural science can open doors to pharmaceuticals, industry, research…Far more, and I’m assuming most get degrees for a job and not just for fun. If you want to be a teacher, its a good choice. There’s other subjects to do that but have other options however.
And contrary to what we like to think…Theology is not a science, at least not in any sense we’d use it today in English. Religious Studies, that is Religion as observed from an anthropological or ethnographic perspective is a social science. Catholic Theology lacks the open endedness to work as one.
True, what we mean by calling theology a science is not what, say, a high school sophomore has in mind by the word. It really is too bad the way the naturalists have hijacked the word “science”. Science just means thinking. To say that the term must only refer to what we today call “science” (think of the “hard” sciences…chemistry, physics, etc.) reveals an epistemological bias, namely, that only that which is based in empirical observation can yield knowledge, truth, or even certainty. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by saying that theology is not open-ended enough to function as a science. Nevertheless, there is open-endedness in theology. Hence the concept of the development of doctrine. The Word of God can never be exhausted by human reason and thinking on it, so it that way it is more open-ended than the empirical sciences since they only deal with limited, finite matter. We can always find new insights into what God has revealed. So theology is a science in the true sense of the word (as Thomas suggests), but yes, not in the hijacked sense of the word.
I’m glad to hear you place religious studies under the umbrella of anthropology. Whenever we have back to school night or open house at the high school were I teach, there is invariably the parent who asks if we teach comparative religion. They are sometimes shocked when I suggest that such a study belongs in the social science department and not in the theology department, properly speaking.
Hehe, Oh I think we owe a lot of that to the way its presented within schools. Having taught in both Catholic and secular establishments the latter doesn’t really explain the difference between exploring revelation and observing the practice of religion as a purely social/ritual phenomenon and hence students tend to think the terms are interchangeable (something I personally find maddening, especially with transfer students from state to Catholic education).
When I was refering to a lack of open endedness I was refering more to the concept of Dogmatic truths. Science is far more reluctant to make statements on absolute truths and everything is always up in the air for testing and further development. A good example of this might be say the theories of gravity or evolution; we’re more or less absolutely certain how they work but scientists are open to the concept that new developments may widen, improve or dispel previously held convictions.
When we come to Theology, Catholic moreso than any other there are some topics which are simply taboo. You do not question a Dogmatic truth once defined, there is no more room for alternative interpretations or opinions; full stop (or at least this was my experience as a student). This limitation is what sets it apart not only from the natural sciences but the social (Sociology, R.E, Psychology etc) as well; everything is up for question and re-examination all the time. Revelation implies the opposite and while doctrine can develop, base truths cannot and science in the modern sense is averse to any idea of an unchangeable absolute.
Whether a topic is “taboo” has nothing to do with whether it belongs to a particular discipline. I guess I’d say two things here. The first is that the natural sciences and theology are distinct sciences with distinct methods. Theology is inherently personal and relational. Some approaches to the subject matter of theology aren’t healthy (“questioning everything”, for example) because those things have been revealed by God Who calls us to relationship and communion. That doesn’t mean we don’t ask questions and pursue insights, but it does mean that the approach will be quite different from the natural sciences. The subject matter of the natural sciences is impersonal and (think the difference between conocer and saber in Spanish…conoscere and sapere in Italiano). This difference in method doesn’t mean theology isn’t a science, it just has a different method because the subject matter is a Person and not impersonal matter. Questioning what God has revealed in theology can be genuine, but it can also take on the spirit of rebellion. Not the case in the natural sciences.
The second thing is that I don’t think it’s true that the natural sciences or the scientific method is non-dogmatic. Every science, every discipline, every mode of thinking rests on some assumed axioms. If everything had to be demonstrated before demonstrating something, we could never demonstrate anything. Theology assumes there is a God Who has revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth. Logic as a science has assumed “dogmas”, the principle of non-contradiction and the principle of identity, for example. And so too, the natural sciences have assumed axioms, such as the reality of the external world, that we can come to knowledge about it, and that our senses give us actual data about material phenomena. Every science is dogmatic because it involves thinking and thinking necessarily moves from premises to conclusions.
In itself, the study of theology is no different from the study of biology. But it might just become another way to lord it over other people. Remember the scribes and Pharisees!
Don’t take it too seriously…we’re just having a little fun here. I do think though, that the study of theology is different from biology not just in method and subject matter but in dignity. It is, after all, the “Queen of the Sciences”!
“It is, after all, the “Queen of the Sciences”!”
According to theologians. According to most scientists–not so much.
Probably not, since they don’t know much about theology. They should read Epic Pew! But I think we can say that it is *objectively* the most dignified science, since its object is the highest possible object of study.
“But I think we can say that it is *objectively* the most dignified science, since its object is the highest possible object of study.”
To a theologian. To the rest of the world it might be “subjectively” the most dignified science.
Or it could be considered as meaningless as going to Star Trek conventions or pretending to play Quidditch.
If God exists, then the study of God is the study of the highest object of thought (as Anslem said, ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be thought’), so theology in that sense would be the highest science, irrespective of personal interests like Star Trek or Quidditch. But there can be no theology if God does not exist, which is why theology does not consider the question of God’s existence to be proper to theology, but to *philosophy*. Hey now we’re having a great conversation!
You misunderstood. I didn’t mean to attempt rank the importance of the study of theology vs. Star Trek or Quiddich.
I meant that to some they may be equally meaningless.
And if your definition of theology is based on a presumption for which there is no evidence I don’t consider it a science. (And no matter what you call your Thomasin word games they do not produce actual proof of God.)
I understood. Wouldn’t you agree that if God or some Maximally Great Being exists, then the study of that Being would be of greater dignity and importance than say, mushrooms, even if someone personally found mushrooms interesting? And if we had to rank theology, Star Trek, and Quidditch (just for fun) I think we can say that it would go: (1) Theology, having an object of study than which no other object of study can be greater; (2) Quidditch, insofar as it is a real sport with rules and that people play in the spirit of fraternal competition and using their bodies and minds to achieve a common end; and (3) Star Trek, being completely imagined. Of these three though, I find Star Trek more interesting than Quidditch, personally. Though as an object of study, a real game (if we consider it as real) is objectively more dignified.
Theology is the study of God and what God has revealed. That’s not a a word game (you may have meant “Thomistic?”), that’s a definition. Now, I agree that there can be no real science of a subject that does not exist, which is why the question of the existence of God is not a proper subject for theology but for philosophy.
I believe (and the Catholic Church teaches) that God can be known with certainty through the natural light of human reason (Catechism #39 & 47). You’re right that theology “presumes” God exists. But it is not “presumptuous” to say so if there is good reason to think God does exist. I only think we should believe things that, when faced with their contraries, seem more reasonable, don’t you? Which of the arguments for God’s existence are you familiar with?
You have no more proof of the existence of God than a Trekkie has of the existence of the Starship Enterprise.
There is no more valid presumption that God exists than a Trekkie has of the existence of the Starship Enterprise.
As for “what the Catholic Church teaches….” In my opinion Mark Twain got it right–“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.”
It is called FAITH–and there is nothing wrong with that. Just stop trying to prove it is something it isn’t.
The question of God’s existence is not an article of faith (Aquinas said that, even), since you must first have knowledge of God’s existence before you can have faith in Him. And as I’ve said, I think there are good reasons to believe that the proposition “God exists” is true. I think many of the classical arguments for God’s existence are sound. Are you familiar with any of them?
Fine–then you call up Aquinas and tell him I’d like proof of God’s existence. Tell him I’d like it at 4 PM Pacific and then (since proof is reproducible) I’d like you to get me the same evidence at 4:15.
But congrats on finally using the appropriate wording ” And as I’ve said, I THINK (emphasis mine) there are good reasons to believe that the proposition “God exists” is true. I THINK (emphasis mine) many of the classical arguments for God’s existence are sound.”
Yes, you may THINK both of those things. You were (finally) correct as you did not state them as established fact.
Since I think there is good reason to believe them, I think them to be facts, yes. Can I ask again, which of of the arguments are you familiar with already? Here are a few I think are good to start with.
Argument from Motion
Argument from First Cause
Argument from Conscience
Argument from Desire
Kalam Cosmological Argument
As I’ve said, I’m happy to have a conversation with you, but I’ll stop if you continue to be rude and sarcastic. I believe we should treat one another with respect and it seems like you’re very angry for some reason…
Ryan, re: your answer to Question no. 11, although that certainly is not a traditional understanding of putting on “the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil.” (Eph. 6:11, DRB), I must say, I LIKE IT!!!
I teach theology in the SF Bay Area, so I basically picture myself this everyday. This gif and Aragorn’s speech before the Black Gate from Return of the King are the only things (besides God’s grace OF COURSE) that get me to the end of the day sometimes.
Pingback: The F.U.N. Quotient… for theology majors and the people who love them
Oh, look. Another theology major with a big ole puffed out chest and a righteous axe to grind. Guess what, numbnuts? You may find these 11 statements annoying, but everyone who is NOT a theology major finds everything you have to say irritating and presumptuous as hell.
Wow. Just…wow. I’m…never have I…I don’t even…the sheer…but how…wha…?…do they even…but why…could it be…nah…nah…isn’t it just like…you know what…Putin?
Uhhh,…………..PutiePie13? Seriously???
Do you ever get, “Are ALL theology majors this ragingly insecure while paradoxically massively self-important?”? I bet you get that one all the time, too. Must be annoying.
This is a tad bit prideful….
“Theology” here means “Christian theology.” Which, of course, is not the only type.