Sats?

What is known about the South African Theological Seminary? A search on the boards pulls up a little that would indicate they are a decent school. Are they GAAP?

Pug

 

re:SATS

Hi Pugbelly,

I've been looking into SATS' M.Th programme myself as a potential next step following my current M.Div. Having rooted around a bit on the various discussion threads related to SATS on this board, I found the following thread to give the most info (and it's only from this past January):

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11756&highlight=sats

Matt

It seems that everything I've heard thus far has been p;ositive; they seem to be genuinely accredited in SA

 

Re: re:SATS

===


I think SATS is credible.

But a SATS ThM is not, in one sense , an academic advance, IMO, over a USA MDiv. The MDiv requires similar entry requirements (BA) as does the SATS ThM, the MDiv requires a longer period of study than the SATS ThM, and the MDiv is at a similar grad level as the SATS ThM.

One should understand that both grads of a BA and grads of a MDiv are doing exactly the same SATS ThM program. This is a significant difference between the SA and the US ThM.

In the US, ThM studies are often not just more at the same rigor of MDiv studies , but are at a higher rigor because they are based on the a higher entry criteria as the acquisition of languages and on a broad exposure to Biblical/Theological studies accomplished at the MDiv level. That is why the US ThM is considered by some US schools as a prerequisite for, or even as work toward , PhD/ThD studies in Bib/Theo.


However, on the other hand, the SATS ThM would allow the MDiv holder an opportunity to focus on a distinct area of study which often the MDiv does not. For that purpose it might well serve!

Still, it should not be thought of as a higher degree than the MDiv but only as an additional degree . It is similar to an MA.

One might wish to evaluate whether a US DL MA might serve one's purpose better than a SATS ThM.

 

Re: Re: re:SATS

I appreciate that input, Bill. Part of the reason I'm looking into the SATS M.Th is that in the context where I live, an M.Th really *is* the next stap after an M.Div, and qualifies one to lecture at the M.Div level. In the South African and apparently British systems, the M.Th is distinguished from the M.Div (which, oddly enough, is identical with a B.D.) chiefly by the length and depth required for a dissertation. I've actually been told (by a prof at a major seminary in the US, as well as the registrar at one UK seminary) that my Asian M.Div would qualify me to enter their doctoral programme directly. *Most* UK seminaries would require me to begin at the M.Th level and allow me to upgrade to the doctoral programme depending on progress.

Another issue is money a South African M.Th is, erm, *significantly* more affordable than the US counterpart of the same (though God can and does often provide beyond what we could "rationally" expect). Even if I decided to go the doctoral route in South Africa (as you have with UniZul's reportedly fine programme), the prerequisite would still be the M.Th; my M.Div would not, as I understand it, enable me to enter any South African doctoral programme directly.

Thanks!

Matt

 

Re: Re: Re: re:SATS

===

I understand all your points and either have experienced them personally or know by reading of their truth. At Western Seminary (Portland, Or) two of my MDiv profs had only (USA type) ThMs. I also know some US schools allow the MDiv grad to enter doc work. And, of course, I am experiencing the affordability of the SA program. Still, I'm surprised , IF in your MDiv you did a thesis, that you would not have a good chance to enter a SA doc. w-out the ThM.

Good "luck."

 

re:re:re:etc....SATS?

Bill,

Interesting that you note that I might, indeed, be able to go right into an SA doc programme with my (thesis-included) M.Div.

I also wanted to apologise to any reading my last post for all the typos! Certainly a good object lesson in "why it's good to hit the "preview" button first!"

Matt

 

Re: re:re:re:etc....SATS?

 

admission req. for SA Doctorate

Thanks again, Bill.

The impression I get is that it is *possible*, but not the norm, for a M.Div or B.D. holder to be granted direct admission into the doctoral programme. The admission requirements section for the UNISA D.Th notes,

"The Bachelor of Divinity (BD) or Master of Divinity (MDiv) qualifications do not grant admission to a doctoral programme, except with the special permission of Faculty and Senate. If such permission is granted, a student must complete a doctoral examination in the discipline in which the thesis will be presented, and may also be required to complete an ancillary doctoral examination in another theological and/or non-theological subject, depending on his/her previous studies and the topic of the thesis."

Anyhoo, first things first: I need to finish my M.Div before I come to any final conclusions: just a few courses and exams remaining.

Matt

 

Re: admission req. for SA Doctorate

===


Matt

Unfortunately the identical nomenclature used by SA/USA departments of Theology does not indicate the identical program. While Unisa does not offer the MDiv, I understand, Free State does. I assume the Unisa reference to the MDiv connects to a Free State sort of curriculum.

However, the Free State curriculum, it should be noted, is considerably different than some USA sort of MDivs :

(1) At Free State the MDiv is a two year graduate program. But at **Western Seminary (Oregon) it is a three year program.

(2) At Free State the entire second year is in "practical, professional" training with a congregation. But at Western the student in the second and third year is still doing academics!

(3) At Free State the total coursework in Bible/Theology is about 15 sem units. But at Western one must take 16 sem units in Bible, plus 12 in Biblical Languages (these includes exegeses of Biblical texts, not just grammar) , plus 16 in Theology, plus another possible 14 in electives in those areas!

Obviously, the Western MDiv curriculum has much more of an academic focus than does the Free State MDiv!! And Western certainly is not a unique sort of MDiv program in the USA.

. Therefore, I would suggest that any SA school should examine the possible differences between some SA MDivs and some USA MDivs before it says the MDiv does not qualify one to do doc study but the SA MTh does.

Good "luck,"


** This comparison is not done to say one is better than the other ; it is done only to demonstate the differences between the two.

 

Re: Re: admission req. for SA Doctorate

Hi again, Bill,

Actually, this can vary considerably depending on the M.Div programme even within the US. For example, Asbury Theological Seminary lists as prerequisite for entry into their Th.M, D.Min, D.Miss and Ph.D programmes the following:

"Completion of an accredited master of divinity degree or an academic or professional (two year or 60 semester hours) master's degree in an appropriate theological or missiological discipline, with a minimum of 30 semester hours in biblical and theological studies."

Even the programme in which I've studied is either 2-year or 3-year, depending on whether one has (or is deemed to have the equivalent of) an accredited B.Th.

Regards,

Matt

 

Re: Re: Re: admission req. for SA Doctorate

Indeed! While the MDiv requires a general core of study (e.g., biblical studies, theology, etc...), the specific requirements vary between institutions. Some MDiv's strongly emphasize biblical languages, others have no language requirements at all. Some programs require counseling courses, others don't. Some require a major thesis, while others lean toward the more practical internship project. So yes, MDiv programs can vary considerably.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: admission req. for SA Doctorate

Hi Again Russel & Bill,

Russel wrote:

Yeah, my own M.Div has no required language modules, but is really strong on contextual religious and philosophical issues in our region. A thesis is part of the requirements; ironically, my thesis advisor (from another institution) is, among other things, a Greek prof.

I just stumbled on something else on the U Pretoria site which perhaps may at elast partially validate Bill's earlier point,

Brief description of the M.Div:

"Magister Divinitatis - MDiv
The MDiv builds on the BTh programme. It is a structured Master's degree programme (i.e. with course work). It aims to offer advanced theological knowledge and practical skills that will meet the needs of the ministry of the Word. Church-specific training and formation are offered in co-operation with the church partners involved."

Brief description of the M.Th:

"Magister Theologiae - MTh
This programme links up with the curriculum structure of the BTh. From a broad theological base it tapers towards specialisation and research at Master's level."

I guess the M.Div is regarded as more practically oriented. Perhaps it doesn't include a thesis. Mine does, but it is a shorter-length one (about 10K words). At any rate, <i>both</i> are described as either "building on" or "linking up with" the B.Th. The one thing with the SATS M.TH is that it is offered as a purely research degree (as well as with modules), with a dissertation of considerably greater length than that of the M.Div one in my programme. Maybe it's just different in S Asia; as I'd mentioned earlier, out here an M.Th is definitely considered the next step up from the M.Div/B.D. Doctoral programmes in theological disciplines are rather scarce, though.

Matt

 

The Asbury MDiv requires 96 not 60 units! You misinterpret, I think, the function of "or."

ALL USA accredited MDivs require 90+ cumulative units--NOT 60 .

The Free State BTh is a four year degree. It allows one to enter the Free state MDiv. The MDiv there is two more years. A total of SIX. Not SEVEN. The second of the two is practical work in a congregation.

I again say this is neither the equivalent in duration nor in curriculum of some US MDivs.

Yes, Russell, I know your MDiv included no exegesis in the languages. Arminians should never do that anyway. In a Calvinistic environ this exposure to what the Bible actually says could seen as proselyting. Best not to confuse the happy Arminian

 

The Lutheran keeps his trap shut while the Protestants play Max-und-Moritz.

Q. How many Adoptionists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Into what?

 

===


But some are not silent:



"Repudiamus igitur et damnamus omnes , quos recitabimus , errores... ."


Art II, On Free Will,
Formula of Concord

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: admission req. for SA Doctorate

 

Hi Bill: we usually have picture bulletins, but this week I put a big extract from FCSD Art. 6 on the third use of the law on the cover. Hee hee hoo hoo.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: admission req. for SA Doctorate

 

Bill noted (and Russel replied),

quote:Originally posted by Bill Grover

Often in more missiologically-oriented programmes (as opposed to exegetical studies) original languages are given less emphasis than courses related to what are considered more practically-oriented issues; e.g., more emphasis might be given to knowledge of local languages or even languages of religious importance in other areas (e.g., Arabic, Sanskrit, Pali, etc). In my case in my M.Div programme that doesn't have a Greek componant, it's kind of my tough luck, and I'm in the beginning stages of the process of supplimenting this by teaching myself a working knowledge of Latin and Greek (both of which I'll need to look at Patristic texts in the original, aside from Scriptural exegesis).

Matt

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: admission req. for SA Doctorate

===



Really? Can one not negate a belief by action, or inaction, and not just by words? Does not what we do show our beliefs?

Oh, you only minister, not exegete? There is no connection between these???


I wonder if your reference to your "pastoral ministry" focus is really an effective counter. Is not a minister a teacher? It seems to me that the New Testament itself puts the greatest requirements on ministers to be able to understand and teach the Scriptures precisely and convincingly: "...able to teach..." (1 Tim 3:2) ;"able to refute" (Tt. 1:9) The pastor is the one who primarily must defend the flock against false doctrine (Acts 20).

Can such requisites for ministers be well obeyed without a working knowledge of the languages? Can ministerial opining not be easily overturned by a learned cultist just slightly aware of the languages? These injunctions are not directed at Seminary profs only, are they? They are addressed to ministers ; wouldn't you agree?

So, for one who has reached the pinnacle of ministry, a "Doctor of Ministry" , how would this obligation, in the Pastorals and elsewhere, to accurately teach the flock and defend the true Faith be met with no recourse to the languages of Scripture? If meeting that obligation is attempted without recourse to the languages , is that attempt not itself a negation of the need for those languages? Are your convictions not expressed in your actions as well as in your words?

The Erskine quote I provided was an attachment to a course in Biblical Hebrew. The author of the quote plainly expresses the opinion that a thorough grounding in the Biblical languages is absolutely essential for pastoral teaching - not just Seminary professorship. Essential?? Then, were this true, IMO, it is ironic that the Erskine MDiv requires the Biblical languages (does it not?) but the Erskine DMin does not. But who am I to go "hardy har" over that apparent inconsistency?? Let the schools do whatever they want ; they are in charge, not I. Why should schools be criticized on this board??


Yet, aside from the issue of what some seminaries do or not require, how can you assert that you personally have "...never negated the importance of the original languages..." if you have chosen not to acquire them in your BA, MA ,DMin or personal study?? It seems to be that such a durative education would include opportunities to learn these if such learning were not "negated" but affirmed.

But perhaps the Biblical languages should not be required at all at any level or for any purpose. Perhaps they are not needed. Why do we need them if we have creeds to tell us what to believe? Why do we need them if the laity does not take to the deeper things anyway? Perhaps as the majority opinion on this board held, where BTW, I don't recall you not negating, on the Walston PhD dissertation thread found here, one need not use the Biblical languages even at the doctoral level to define the Bible's meaning. Do you not recall how when Chris and I discussed the Pauline teaching on women pastors that some "laity" here judged the discussion, the merits of each side, by their own experiences not by what the Scripture says ? So, are the Scriptures, by which I suppose you minister, important at all?

So, perhaps we don't even need the Scriptures! If we do not need the tools (viz languages) to interpret the Scriptures, why are the Scriptures essential?

Yet I disagree with that . Further, I find the KJV Only position more logically consistent than a position which does not negate the Biblical languages but then chooses despite much education to acquire them not.

Yet , this dialogue does show that curricular experiences differ. That was exactly and only my point when I said that Unisa would be ill adviced to suppose that no MDivs qualify one to do doc work.