If I told you that I had just returned from Alchemy 143: Challenges in Transmutation during a Sesqui-Quadrate Jupiter (cross-listed with Astrology 154), would that sound particularly odd? A bit off the 21st-century mark? So why is it that we no longer teach alchemy or astrology but continue in our medieval attachment to a School of Theology?

Let me first say that I am in no way discouraging the study of religion, the history of religion or the effect of religion on contemporary culture and politics. As a sacred cow in our society, religious studies need to increase and we need to shine a brighter light on religion’s role in modern life.

What I question is the validity of embracing a school whose expressed mission “is grounded in the Christian faith and shaped by the Wesleyan tradition of evangelical piety.” Subsequent claims to ecumenicalism notwithstanding, such a mission strikes me as seriously out of place at Emory. Although the school’s mission covers much other than its theological roots, my gripe is with its fundamental belief structure, not its accomplishments.

While the assumptions and beliefs in every other department and school can be questioned, reevaluated and critically examined, the totality of efforts at the Candler School of Theology is predicated on the dogmatic acceptance of a revealed truth.

It isn’t just Emory, of course, that harbors a theological seminary — respected universities from the University of Oxford to Yale to Harvard do the same. Vanderbilt University, which severed its ties to the church in the early 20th century — placing Emory as the main Methodist institution east of the Mississippi — maintains its divinity school as well.

But Emory’s other colleges don’t view their missions through a Christian prism. I expect more than a few professors would bristle at the notion that they were practicing “Methodist biology” or “Methodist medicine.”

The anachronism is being increasingly recognized — in the past five years Mercer University, Yale and Georgetown University have severed ties to various congregations. A recent report from the University of Oxford questioned whether or not its Christian colleges were “suitable for school-leavers.”

Thomas Jefferson, in his first attempt to reform higher education in 1779, proposed amending the constitution of the College of William and Mary to abolish the school of theology in favor of “law and police, of medicine, anatomy, and chemistry and of modern languages.”

I challenge any reader of this publication to proffer a non-apostolic role fulfilled by the Candler School that could not be performed equally well in some other department. Our own esteemed Department of Religion does much of this, and could be joined by the departments of history, language, anthropology and political science, among others. Let’s look at some course areas which the seminary offers, as described on their website:

Area I: Biblical Studies. Several of these courses devote themselves to the “exegetical study” of various books and biblical topics. Surely a secular literary criticism course could unearth the same meanings and secular relevancies that are divined in OT625: Minor Prophets of the Eighth Century.

Area II: History and Interpretation. Biblical history, a rich and interesting field, need not invoke supernaturalism to teach us something of relevance. HT618: Ethics of Aquinas might be annexed by the secular Center for the Study of Ethics. Surely we can learn a bit from good St. Thomas without having to implicitly accept belief in his sainthood.

Area III: Christianity and Culture. Any Department of Anthropology class would be deficient if it were not already teaching the importance and relevance of religion vis-à-vis culture. This area abounds with courses on ethics, politics and law — all areas of legitimate study whose secular counterparts do not fail on their own to address religion.

Area IV: Arts of Ministry. Most worryingly, Candler offers courses such as EV501: Enabling an Evangelizing Church. That strikes me, and I hope others, as inappropriate for an institute of higher learning.

While many universities have their genesis in churches and theological seminaries, universities have long since shed their unquestioning obedience to tradition and authority. As Emory’s own recent dialogues concerning free speech and the proper scope of legitimate debate have shown, continual critical evaluation is necessary to maintain the high standards we have come to expect.

Dean Jan Love of the Candler School recently remarked that “we don’t have any programs that have outlived their usefulness or that are in need of strategic reorientation.” However, I would suggest that it’s long past time to begin a dialogue — perhaps in these pages — on whether or not theology itself has outlived its appropriateness at universities, and if Christian evangelism is compatible with Emory’s mission.

Ryan Seals is a second-year student at the Rollins School of Public Health from Farmington Hills, Mich.