I have struggled with similar dilemmas, as a non-believing member of a Jewish religious congregation. It looks like you have four options--(1) leave the church entirely, (2) teach in the normal fashion, (3) teach non-literally, and (4) remain in the church but don't teach.

You've made up your mind against (1), and you're struggling between (2) and (3). I think you're right to be worried about (2). It concerns me the way Sunday school teachers stand before children and present religious stories exactly as if they were history teachers or science teachers. This does exploit the credulousness of children in a way that is problematic.

It's been way too long since I read Austin, so I don't know what he says about the "backstage artiste," but I think it's fine for children to be taught that religious material is "meaningful to us" but not historically or scientifically true. The problem is that I doubt other congregants would think it's fine (unless your church is extremely liberal). So I can't imagine (3) is really a viable option.

Which leaves (4). What's wrong with continuing to be a congregant, but declining to be a Sunday school teacher? Perhaps you're thinking that it couldn't make sense to continue as a congregant if you weren't willing to participate in the church's educational programs. But much goes on in a religious organization. There's no reason why every congregant must support and be involved in every activity.

Maybe you're thinking you'd be a free rider if you didn't pitch in. "What if everybody did it?" you may be asking yourself. But in fact, it sounds to me like you'd be perfectly happy if everybody declined to be a literal Sunday school teacher (most likely the only kind you can really be). You believe it would be better if no one were exploiting the credulousness of children.

So (4) seems to me like a perfectly good option. If you do belong to an extremely liberal congregation and can get way with (3), I would rethink your doubts about it, if I were you. When I take my children to religious services, I don't think I'm going wrong in any way by telling them that the stories are meaningful to us, but not true.

Your plan sounds reasonable. I would suggest a few things. First, try to get your GPA as high as possible in your remaining semesters (don't let it slip below 3.0), perhaps doing a little less of your own study this year and focusing on your classes. Yes, try to get high GRE scores. But to get into MA programs you will also need a good writing sample and letters of recommendation from philosophers at UCLA (talk to them about all this). Your writing sample needs to be sharp (and less grammatically challenged than your question here) and include some philosophical argumentation (but keep it tightly focused--don't offer a new theory of something). Finally, if you can do all this, I'd suggest your goal #2 should be to get into as good an MA program as possible!

The short answer is: yes, you are right, a course on modal logic would be the one that probably will relate a little to a philosophy of religion course (it will help you understand e.g. modal ontological arguments).

But I think it is worth saying a bit more. I'd be a little worried if one of my first-year students said "I'm primarily interested in the philosophy of X" for any X. After all, philosophy is a subject where topics don't compartmentalize easily but connect up in deep and unexpected ways. Beginners should be exploring widely, and leaving themselves open to being gripped by all kinds of problems -- what I like at this stage is a student who says "the philosophy of Y is really exciting: that's what I want to do " one week, and then comes back three weeks later and says "wow, this philosophy of Z course is amazing".

And I'd be particularly worried if someone focussed too hard too early on a small area of applied philosophy like the philosophy of religion. This is a pretty narrow specialist area, which not all philosophy departments even think particularly worth teaching (e.g. mine doesn't offer a course apart from a few lectures on Hume's Dialogues). So, for the moment, do keep your interests wide! And then it is probably a good idea to do a fair amount more logic, as that will keep cropping up as useful background which is taken for granted in work across a range of areas of philosophy.

If you want to work eventually in the philosophy of mind and language, then much better to do some courses on scientific psychology, neuro-biology, and linguistics.

"Real" philosophers argue for nearly every position articulable! But I think the kind of issue that is most likely to come up among philosophers and other academics about such programs is more likely to be about resources. Resources for higher education right now are extremely limited, so judgments about the money required for academic positions and operating budgets to sustain such programs must always be made in the context of competing needs and demands from other academic units. Administrators must always confront the very real problem of where the scarce resources will bring the best value to the institution.

Moreover, different institutions have very different identities and missions. For an institution mostly dedicated to providing the kinds of education that will advantage their students vocationally, for example, such programs arguably do not fit well into that institution's mission. Where liberal studies is the institutional mission, then such programs would seem to be more viable within that institutional context--but again, they also compete for resources with more traditional disciplines, which the institution obviously also has a stong interest in supporting. Different academics will disagree about how to "rank" different disciplines in terms of their importance to the institution, and in these debates some of the more thoughtful criticisms made by opponents to such programs deserve to be heard. But then, many academics will make very different criticisms of the two disciplines nearest to my heart: Philosophy and Classics. Do colleges and universities really need these disciplines? I think so...but everywhere I have taught, I have had colleagues who thought the resources required to sustain these disciplines would be better spent elsewhere. It is because of decisions like these that we pay the big bucks to administrators!

I suggest:

1. you talk to the philosophy professors at your school and ask them lots of questions. Hopefully, there is someone that who has a good sense of what it takes to get into grad school in philosophy, to succeed, and to get a job.

2. you explore websites at some PhD and MA programs. There is also some useful information at http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/

3. if you remain interested (as I hope you do!), you consider putting off graduation one semester and taking more philosophy courses. I fear that only one course in philosophy will take you off the radar at many programs (I suspect it would take a lot--e.g., very high GRE and GPA--to get some PhD programs to consider you, when they have so many applicants that are philosophy majors or even have MAs in philosophy).

4. you consider applying to MA programs in philosophy to strengthen your background (though it will still help to have more courses in philosophy to get in to MA programs).

5. you will need a polished writing sample with a philosophical argument in it and you will need at least three letters of recommendation (and I think at least 2 of them need to be from philosophers).

None of this is meant to dissuade you, and your outside reading will be helpful (it's just a bit hard to make it evident in an application).

I hope this helps. And good luck!