Biblical errancy

I haven't looked into this in depth, but many of the DL institutions offering biblical studies/theology programs discussed here seem to require strong affirmations of faith regarding biblical inerrancy (amongst other foundational doctrines). But are there any DL programs appropriate for people who are unconvinced about biblical inerrancy -- e.g. those who are open to questions about status of pastoral and deuteropauline epistles?

Is it necessary to believe (or pretend to believe) in biblical inerrancy to participate?

 

Try the University of London external B.D. programme.

Roy Maybery

 

Ox~

I think you should just apply to the programs that interest you and send in a statement with your application.

As far as I can tell, there are some conservative schools out there that will be intolerant of you exploring such questions in your papers.

However, there are probably plenty of professors at many evangelical DL schools that are not "hair-trigger" about inerrancy so as to not allow you to write your papers on the topics that are important to you. I would look at the school faculty list and find out how many of the profs. have studied at schools that represent critical views for thier PhD's.

Personally, I don't have any particular experiences with DL to back me up on this one, just "gut" intuition.

Chris

 

I'm not asking on behalf of myself, but of my friend Mary Rosh. I'm sure she wouldn't propose to deliberately explore such questions in a provocative manner. But she would want to write honestly if such questions are directly relevant to an assigned topic.

Mar^H^H^H Ox.

 

Religious schools certainly seem to have as a preference preaching to the converted.

 

UNISA

In addition to the degrees offered by the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, the Faculty of Arts has a sort of parallel program that offers the BA, Honors BA, MA, and DLitt et Phil degrees in Biblical or Religious Studies.

Belief in biblical inerrancy is not demanded by either faculty. No specific beliefs are required, as far as I know.

 

I've graduated from three Protestant conservative schools and one Roman Catholic and am now engaged in two programs which I think also fit into that category ; I have never had to sign any belief statement to enroll or graduate. ACCS comes the closest which requires one to acknowledge awareness of its beliefs. While I concur that the autographa (originals) of the Scriptures are inerrant, I've never been asked to sign off on that position except when joining and renewing membership in ETS. The Test of schools is : can I put up with them, not can they put up with me

 

It's interesting that the conservative end of the theological spectum has been faster to adopt distance learning than the more liberal end. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Perhaps it's a part of a larger phenomenon that includes the home-school movement, the propensity to start up small spin-off denominations and the like. I'm tempted to link it to a wider sense of cultural alienation that might be associated both with sectarianism and with an iconoclastic attitude towards secular academic convention, but I don't know how far I can push this idea.

Certainly the Christian conservatives make the greatest use of state religious exemptions and run most of the non-accredited theology schools. There are some "new-agey" or "alternative" things here in California (once again the alienation/iconoclasm theme), but you really have to search for a liberal Protestant or Catholic degree mill.

The use of non-traditional educational means (whether that's openness to DL or operating degree mills) does seem inversely proportional to the solidity of the denomination's organizational structure.

And interestingly, the rigidity of doctrinal commitments demanded by a religion program also seems inversely proportional to the institutional rigidity of the denomination it associates with.

Programs associated with denominations with lots of loosely organized storefront churches often demand that their students sign loyalty oaths, while programs associated with denominations with tight and rigid organizational charts are often surprisingly relaxed theologically.

I'm speculating that these phenomena are all related.

Where are the sociologists of religion when you need one?

 

I don't know how much is *preaching to the converted* if you mean liberal vs conservative. Schools have a particular paradigm from which they produce scholarship. They may explore questions from different perspectives but are going to come back to the grounding in their own scholarly perspective. This is necessary. I remember when Peter Jennings came out with his program on Jesus. It featured many liberal PhD's that stated alleged problems, contradications, and perspectives as if they were fact. They would make statements that I am sure were bought by many watching who knew no other perspective. CRI later produced a document that took apart the liberal assertions from the program.

The same could be said from liberal schools where the pressure is there to buy into that paradigm. It happens within and without different disciplines.

North

 

Yes Bill. I think the institutional rigidity of "higher" church, if anything can be speculated accurately here, makes distance learning less acceptable. Whereas, churches that form identity derived by more cognitive structures have little reason not to buy into the DL model. That is, us fundamentalistic evangelicals are individualistic anyway.

Chris

 

The Episcopalian newspaper had a rather negative article on distance learning in the January issue. The name of the paper amuses some non-Episcopalians: it's "Via Media" (i.e. the "middle way") which says something about the denomination's lack of doctrinal rigidity.

 

I have looked at many websites and seen many that require statements of faith, statements of born-again experiences, statements as to the infallibility of the King James version etc. I guess the absolutes are of considerable importance to them.

I guess the problem is that there are 100 or more Baptist Colleges many Pentecostal Colleges but a dearth of Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic etc.

I guess what we need are some good Lutheran degree mills. Janko where are you?

 

The archives showed a January 2001 article called "Learning Across the Miles," which appears to promote DL.

 

There's always the Meadville-Lombard Theological School in Chicago.

http://www.meadville.edu/

These people are one of the two Unitarian Universalist seminaries in the US (along with Starr King in Berkeley Ca.)

M-L offers low residency M.Divs and D.Min.s that require one's presence at two short meeings a year. As far as I know they aren't RA, but they are accredited by the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) which in this case is their institutional accreditor. (I understand that this kind of arrangement is common with seminaries.)

Actually, I'm not entirely sure if this program allows one to study independently, or simply lets one take classes at other seminaries and then transfer them in. (I've heard that the ATS is pretty hard nosed about DL.) They describe it this way:

The Modified Residency Program is for distance students who can take one-week intensive courses at Meadville Lombard offered during January and July. Most of these students also study at a non-Unitarian Universalist theological school near their home. They must take at least half their courses at ML. This program, previously open only to students preparing for the ministry of religious education, is now open to all tracks of ministry.

The D. Min. is for ministers with a M. Div. and at least three years of full time ministry experience. Courses are available in both the residential and the intensive format; the latter makes it possible for ministers to remain in their current positions while taking course work at ML for only one, two or three weeks per year.

I don't know if one has to be an intending UU clergyman/woman in order to be admitted to the M.Div. But I'd be willing to bet that the Unitarian-Universalists won't crucify you for having a few unorthodox ideas about the Bible.

 

The article I am thinking of was called "Let's get creative" in the January 2003 issue. A Google search revealed the following: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/episcopal-life/Ltr3'03.html (scroll down to nice letter entitled "Online not inferior") which is a response to the article. I haven't seen the original article online.

 

Bill Dayson: I suspect that the problem is not theological, but that most liberal/mainline seminaries are ATS-accredited, and ATS is not very friendly to DL.

 

oxpecker wrote:

> Is it necessary to believe (or pretend to believe) in biblical
> inerrancy to participate?

Bill Grover wrote:

> [...] I concur that the autographa (originals) of the Scriptures
> are inerrant [...]

Jeremiah 8:8 (calling the P source "the lying pen of scribes")?
1 Timothy 1:4 (Paul warning against the genealogies that were later incorporated in the Gospels)?
Proverbs 26:4-5 (two proverbs that contradict each other)?
All inerrant?

Gosh, I don't think I could ever "pretend to believe" this.

 

===




re 1 Tim 1:4 and inerrancy

Your critique (or slam?) of a principle of my faith is an interesting bait. I have looked at the inerrancy questioned and have not isolated myself from such issues. Bibliology should be , in my opinion, the first study in Systematic Theology. But I don't think I'll hit on it Mark as I'm a little busy now. The thread I thought rather related to school entrance requirements and my comment connected only to that. I didn't strike up a debate with Oxpecker or his friend. I did not challenge anyone.

Oh well, OK I'll bite just a little. Let's check out your research and argumentation on just one of your arguments against inerrancy shall we, Mark? I cannot discuss the whole question of inspiration , but I'll just respond in a limited way to just one of your claims above if you don't mind:

Please supply your evidence that 1 Timothy 1:4 as you claim refers to geneologies "later incorporated in the Gospels" and that it therefore constitutes a challenge to inerrancy.

 

I agree that's part of it. But I think that there are more fudamental (and interesting) issues involved.

This thread was originally about the loyalty oaths that theologically conservative programs require their faculty and sometimes their students to sign. I think that these things are much less common in more liberal religion programs. These latter programs not only tolerate, but may even actively court original (even if unorthodox) thinking.

I wonder if there is an inverse relationship between "outer" institutional rigidity and "inner" intellectual rigidity. Perhaps the inner rigidity compensates for the lack of social structure. Perhaps the organizational structure makes the lack of doctrinal rigidity seem less threatening. Or perhaps the inner rigidity is associated with a perfectionist sectarianism that leads people to disassociate themselves from the social structures of what they interpret as the "fallen" world.

There seem to be two competing and often contradictory ideals at work in seminary contexts: On one hand the conservative theological ideal of doctrinal purity and fidelity to what is taken to be divine revelation, on the other hand the academic ideal of original thought and following reason wherever it leads. Jerusalem and Athens.

We can ask why it is that more liberal seminaries seek ATS accreditation in the first place, and more conservative seminaries might not.

But we can also ask why it is that the theological conservatives make so much use of state religious exemptions. We see literally hundreds of spurious DL Bible and theology seminaries all over the internet. I think that if one investigates them, they will turn out to be overwhelmingly fundamentalist. The exceptions, as I pointed out, tend to be "new agey" "alternative" California-type things that seem to me to illustrate a similar social alienation, except from the diametrically opposite direction.

I'm struck by these spurious internet seminaries simply shrugging off accreditation and traditional academic recognition as unimportant (or even dangerous), while placing tremendous emphasis on their own peculiar statements of faith (which almost always revolve around Biblical inerrancy). Bob Jones University is a more credible example of the same alienated/separatist dynamic.

I am speculating that this thing goes a lot deeper than issues of accreditation. I think that it might illustrate interesting things about the psychology and sociology of religious believers and of denominations.