SATS & University of South Africa

Any grads in here from either SATS or the U of South Africa?
How are these schools? What is their reputation like?
No accredation issues I assume?

 

One needn't be a graduate to know the answers to at least some of your questions...

I'm neither a student or a graduate, so I don't know first hand. However, both institutions enjoy the highest level of government-approved accreditation that South Africa bestows on its institutions of higher learning; and US universities, generally, regard that as equivalent to accreditation in the US that's approved by the US Department of Education (USDE) and/or its Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Moreover, University of South Africa (UNISA) is DETC accredited, meaning that it's accredited by a USDE- and/or CHEA-approved agency. There is no question, therefore, that UNISA degrees are widely recognized and honored in the US. Of course, any foreign (non-US) degree, either from SATS or UNISA may (and probably should) be evaluated by either AACRAO or a NACES member agency for around $300 and declared equivalent to an accredited US degree and that removes all doubt.

Very good, in both cases. SATS is more responsive to prospective student inquiries, while UNISA has a reputation for not responding quickly to inquiries until and unless one is enrolled as a student. Also, UNISA's application process can be confusing. Both institutions seem to offer rigorous, respectable, legitimate coursework; and any degree therefrom is something of which to be proud. Both institutions are less expensive -- sometimes on orders of magnitude -- than most US institutions... which is part of the reason so many US students seriously consider or even go ahead and enroll in them.

Not a one.

 

There are several forum members enrolled at UNISA. I am not one of them. They can not answer your questions because they are all busy studying. I can answer your questions because I am floridly and flagrantly goofing off. These are both good schools. They are both "accredited" as Gregg has indicated. May I assume from your mention of SATS that you are interested in Divinity studies or Religious Studies? As you investigate your options, please be aware that there are many substandard schools offering degrees in these areas. Do your homework well and I believe you'll come to recognize that a degree from either SATS or UNISA could be a valuable commodity. Good luck.
Jack

 

Unisa grad

Hi all!

I am a Unisa grad -- MTH. Took three years, though I tried my best to make it go faster.

The faculty I dealt with are world-class, but not the best responding to e-mail.

Plan on using the "tele" if you go with Unisa.

SATS is far more conservative (theologically) than Unisa, so know that up front.

Unisa (of course) has been around longer, but SATS has a growing / first-rate faculty. They are also far more "geared" to electronic communications.

Best wishes on your efforts!!

 

If you would consider the SA public university of Unizul you might find it both inexpensive and responsive.

 

Re: Unisa grad

Ah! Interesting. I've wondered about (and have always heard) that; and that, by comparison, UNISA wasn't so conservative.

But those are relative terms... so, if you'll permit it, and so I can judge/visualize it on a scale with which I'm familiar, may I impose upon you to do the following:

With either the fairly not-so-conservative-and-almost-liberal (some conservatives say far liberal, but I'd hesitate to go that far) ELCA on the left; and the clearly conservative LCMS on the right; and allowing for points further left (liberal) or right (conservative) of either on the theological continuum, where on said continuum would you put SATS and UNISA?

Okay... what the heck... as long as we're at it: And UNIZUL, too?

Just curious.

 

Re: Re: Unisa grad

That's a hard question -- not only because these schools don't really "do Lutheran" but because the left and right categories we tend to think in are defined by the American religious experience. The lines are fuzzier in other places. This isn't to say that it's wrong to call SATS conservative but that they are broadly evangelical and don't fit nicely into our denominational boxes. However, take a look at their statement of faith. That should give you a sense for where they are coming from. (The very fact that they have a statement of faith sets them apart from Unisa or Unizul). If pushed I would have to say they would be closer to your Missouri Synod category -- but without the rigidity in terms of theological definition. The MS and the ELCA folk like to fish pretty exclusively out of the Lutheran ponds for their theological formulation. They are embracing or reacting to what has transpired in those ponds. However, these guys are fishing out of numerous ponds -- yet they are still theologically conservative. As I said, our categories don't do them justice.

 

SATS

Dear poster,

I am almost finished with my MTh studies at SATS, and I recommend it highly. It's government accredited, the administration and faculty are wonderfully attentive, and the price is right. They are theologically conservative, but will not judge your thesis based on that, but on content. I am a Unitarian, and have had no problems.

Peace,
Daniel

 

Re: SATS

I'm sorry I let this thread get a little old without going ahead and asking this question as I had planned to do at the time (but got distracted): So, paynedaniel, are you saying that if a SATS MTh student submitted a thesis that took issue with or criticised SATS's theological conservatism, points would not be taken off or, worse, the paper flat-out rejected for just plain being all wrong?

For example, if a thesis were submitted which contrasted the core beliefs of theologically conservative and theologically liberal denominations, and then came to the conclusion that the latter had it more right than the former (and, of course, as long as it also contained good research, adequate citations, and it genuinely contributed to the body of knowledge on the subject, etc.), then you're saying it would be well-received by SATS, which would then be willing to go ahead and grant the MTh based upon it despite its flying in the face of all that the SATS advisor probably believes?

 

SATS's theological underpinnings

As one can probably tell from not only this thread, but also from others where I've participated in SATS-related conversations, the whole SATS conservatism thing has always been something about which I've been highly curious. Finally, today, I found a few moments to do some digging that I've been meaning to do seemingly forever. I wanted to find the church -- or at least the kind of church -- that most typifies SATS's theological sensibilities and values. I mean, most seminaries spring from a specific church or church body, even if said seminary claims to be non-denominational or trans-denominational, or multi-denominational, etc. I wanted to find out from whence sprang SATS.

According to the SATS web site's "Oversight" page:

• The South African Theological Seminary falls under the spiritual oversight of the Elders of The Village Church, which was established by Rosebank Union Church in 1986.

From what I can tell, the phrase "Elders of The Village Church" seems to refer not so much to a specific church, but to a "Village Church" movement or body. The seed or charter member of that body would appear to be the Lonehill Village Church, where SATS principle Dr. Christopher Peppler is pastor. Apparently Lonehill's philosophy has always been to only grow a given physical church to a certain membership size (perhaps 100 or so people, at most), and then, instead of letting it become 150 or 200 or more, go out and plant a whole new church. The churches that got planted either by Lonehill itself, or by one of the churches that it planted, or by one of the churches that one of them planted (and so on and so on) combine, as nearly as I can tell, to form a larger body called the "Village Church" (not to be confused with the Lonehill Village Church, which is, apparently, a mere member thereof). At least I'm pretty sure that that's how it all works.

Sadly, Lonehill's web site doesn't really provide very much meaningful information about either itself or any of its plants (though I'm sure if I'd dug deeper I probably would have found something more).

• UPDATE 6/23/2006: Since the paragraph, immediately above, was written, Lonehill's web site has been completely redone and is vastly improved. And, moreover, its previously not-completely-clear connection with SATS is now (or at least is, at this writing) clearly shown on that web site's "History" page.

So, to just sort of cut to the chase and more easily get some idea of the kind of church that SATS considers to be of overseer caliber, I went to "the mothership," so to speak... the church that planted Lonehill: The web site of Rosebank Union Church. There, we find:

• It's faith statement; and,
  
• its vision statement; and,
  
• its mission statement; and,
  
• its statement of values.

In keeping with my personal belief that any church may be assessed, at least in part, by its handling of pressing social and humanitarian issues, I'm fairly impressed with Rosebank's Rays of Hope programs. For an evangelical and theologically conservative church, Rosebank seems to have a fairly appropriate approach to some of society's most vexing issues.

And in item 9 of its faith statement, it certainly appears, at least, to exhibit a fairly tolerant attitude toward religious views other than its own:

• Freedom of Religion
  ...That there should be no coercion in matters of religion. While not all truth claims are equally valid, we recognise freedom of religion as a basic human right. Inherent in this right is the right to proclaim one's faith.

This seems to fit nicely with the statement Rosebank makes at the very top of that same web page: "While the members of the Church are not required to subscribe to specific creeds as doctrinal touchstones, the Church stands in the tradition of historical Christianity."

All this may help to explain why paynedaniel found his Unitarianism so well tolerated by his SATS advisor.

And there's some pretty cool stuff worth reading on the vision page, too.

While I consider this tiny bit of informal, anecdotal research to be potentially revealing as to SATS's basic theological underpinnings, it may not actually be. As I'm sure Brad Boydston (whose own denomination has, in my opinion, raised church planting to something of an art form) will attest, planted churches sometimes go their own way and do not remain true to the sensibilities of the churches which planted them. We really don't know if Lonehill (and/or any of the larger Village Church body which it seeded) has morphed into something different from (and perhaps more conservative than) Rosebank. Lonehill was, after all, planted by Rosebank back in '86 -- some nearly 20 years ago, at this writing. There's no telling which direction (more conservative, more liberal, or more-or-less the same) it went thereafter. I'm guessing it stayed roughly the same, but who knows. Perhaps someone here is interested in digging further into the whole Village Church thing, figuring that out, and then reporting back here. That would be nice. I wish I had the time.

At any rate, I, for one, feel a little bit better about SATS now. Between paynedaniel's remarks and my cursory (and paltry, wholly inadequate) research, I think I have a better handle on what getting a SATS MTh might be like. Interesting.

I hope others have benefited from it as well.

 

Re: SATS's theological underpinnings

Of all the online theological schools SATS is my favorite -- for many reasons - - quality, rigor, cross-cultural perspective, efficiency, approachability, and tone. I once did some web searches on their faculty -- and discovered, if I remember right, that some were Baptist, some Anglican, some Reformed, some non-denominational types (Sorry, Gregg, I don't remember there being any Lutherans -- but there might be one closeted away in there). So there is some breadth -- and yet they are remaining true to who they are.

If they get approval to add a DTh to their curriculum (as is expected to happen in 2006) I am more than tempted to sign-up to do another doctorate -- even just to work with them a bit. I've been keeping in touch with Reuben van Rensburg, the vice-principal. If anyone is in the Nashville area he is going to be there late September - early October for a conference. I'm sure he'd be happy to meet with anyone who is interested in their programs.

 

Wow, thanks for that, Brad. I'm not sure I knew that you felt so strongly positively about SATS. You wrote, "Of all the online theological schools SATS is my favorite." Stong words, indeed. And, coming from you, words to be taken quite seriously... at least from my perspective.

And how well you worded your reasons why: "...quality, rigor, cross-cultural perspective, efficiency, approachability, and tone." It's difficult to imagine more appropriate criteria.

Too bad his airport of entry can't be SFO, eh? I, for one, would be interested in hanging with him during his layover for his flight to the Midwest. If you wanted to, too, I'd even drive down and pick you up! You should mention it to him... or maybe ask him to detour to California and join you at worship. I'd certainly be there! Heck... I might even offer to pay his detour-associated plane fare and expenses! (Hmm. That's actually a thought, isn't it?) [grin] Naaah!

Anyway... thanks for your input, Brad. I'm gaining a whole new perspective on SATS.

I'd also be interested in knowing, Haggai12 (that is, if you're still around and following this thread), if anything that's been written in the last few posts tends to mitigate for you, in any way, your original "SATS is far more conservative (theologically) than Unisa" characterization. Just curious.

Hey... wait a minute: I thought the SATS DTh was supposed to be approved in 2005. In fact, it even still says that at the very bottom of the MTh web page. Did it get pushed back? If so, are we talking early, mid or late 2006, do you think? Also, just curious: In your conversation(s) with them, did they happen to at least ballpark roughly what the cost of the DTh will be?

 

The date was pushed back and the webpage has not been updated. They are applying for candidacy this month. IF all goes according to plan they could be approved for the program by the end of 2005 and start in 2006. I don't know what their calendar specifics are.

I have not heard estimates on cost. I assume it will be competitive with other SA programs. I also do not know how many students they will be able to handle at first.

At this point I am hoping to route some of my fall travel through Tennessee and connect with them there for a few hours.

 

Re: SATS's theological underpinnings

Indeed, Gregg! Don't you know it takes a village to raise a seminary?

 

Re: Re: SATS's theological underpinnings

Heck... I was just makin' sure it even took a church!

 

Re: Re: SATS

Exactly - mine does just that.

 

Re: Re: Re: SATS

Huh. You don't say. That's terribly interesting.

Thanks!