Decision Regarding ACCS Postponed Until April 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

===
===


I also doubt that ; that comment of mine was stupid.

However, at UZ my four readers will all have accredited docs. As far as I know that is the standard practice in accredited doctoral work regardless of what country in which it is done.

That you can hypothesize that as LBU has 1/7 of its "personnel" with accredited docs, and that these may actually sit on doc commitees, and that their docs are possibly in areas of the dissertation, and that one accredited doc on a committee is better than none, does not IMO raise LBU to an acceptable standard in the supervision of doc work(at least in Bib/Theol) .

***If you think your hypothesis does raise LBU to an acceptable standard of doctoral supervision in Bib/Theol and you have a more forceful logic for that than, "Well, look at BJU", I'd like to know that reasoning.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

===

Sure, my dissertation will be read by my UZ promoter, the Dept Dean, and two external readers each from a different university. [with BTW accredited docs in the area of the dissertation].

But Jimmy, it is the function of the promoter to make sure the work is at genuine doc level. He guides the work as it is being done. The other committee members simply read it when the dissertation is finished. The Super reads it as it progresses. The Promoter must IMO , with very few exceptions, be qualified for that leadership function by an accredited doc in that area. Again I am not speaking of practical theology doc work where in my view experience might much substitute for academic qualifications.

So, the logic that the committee chairman need not be so qualified as long as one member is, is faulty.

In case I've not made it clear, I'm only referencing grad work in Bible or Systematic or Historical Theology, not undergrad and not ministerial coursework as homiletics or pastoral leadership. And I certainly am not meaning to question the Christian character of any connected with LBU.

I am only concerned with the quality grad studies in Bib/Theology which I consider of extreme importance. I think my feelings are based on general principles found both in academia and in Scripture. I simply want these disciplines to be well done.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

No one could ever accuse you of this. You are always a gentleman and have always risen above character assasination and ad hominem attacks.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

==


Thanks Jimmy.

Still there is a tension in me between being critical of some practices by some Christian schools and acknowledging the worth of the disciplines they teach and the good character of the students and staff. There is a blindness that could occur to one as critical as I to real virtues in a school. There is a fine line to carefully walk, and sometimes I do not.

Then, there is also the effect that my comments motivated by a very narrow purpose could be interpreted as a broader criticism or general disregard for a school. But I really am only talking about grad work in Bib/Theol from my perspective of how it should be done.

I am only saying that unaccredited schools in these areas need to be as rigorous as their accredited sister schools and follow , in general, and as much as is feasible, the minimal standards of those accredited schools.

Unaccredited Christian schools are deserving of approbation and support to the extent they make diligent attempts to do this.

The Faith deserves, demands, and requires IMO, a rigorous study.

 

The Faith (sic) also deserves intellectual and moral integrity, no phony degrees, no substandard schools, no shilling for schools which lie about accreditation and academic equivalency, no fake denominations, no fake seminaries, no self-inflation on the part of its representatives.

The universal brotherhood of man (we all suffer) would seem to require no less.

Making a distinction between the haplessness of ACCS and outright flummery is further validated by one crucial difference between the ACCS folks and the flummerers: ACCS tries, however feebly, to remediate its weaknesses, while flummerers try relentlessly to aggrandize themselves, employing a rhetorical strategy which oscillates between belligerence and self-pity.

Anyone who can't catch that distinction, at this late stage in the game, deserves to be confused.

 

The Faith (sic) also deserves intellectual and moral integrity, no phony degrees, no substandard schools, no shilling for schools which lie about accreditation and academic equivalency, no fake denominations, no fake seminaries, no self-inflation on the part of its representatives.

The universal brotherhood of man (we all suffer) would seem to require no less.

Making a distinction between the haplessness of ACCS and outright flummery is further validated by one crucial difference between the ACCS folks and the flummerers: ACCS tries, however feebly, to remediate its weaknesses, while flummerers try relentlessly to aggrandize themselves, employing a rhetorical strategy which oscillates between belligerence and self-pity.

Anyone who can't catch that distinction, at this late stage in the game, deserves to be confused.

 

The Faith (sic) also deserves intellectual and moral integrity, no phony degrees, no substandard schools, no shilling for schools which lie about accreditation and academic equivalency, no fake denominations, no fake seminaries, no self-inflation on the part of its representatives.

The universal brotherhood of man (we all suffer) would seem to require no less.

Making a distinction between the haplessness of ACCS and outright flummery is further validated by one crucial difference between the ACCS folks and the flummerers: ACCS tries, however feebly, to remediate its weaknesses, while flummerers try relentlessly to aggrandize themselves, employing a rhetorical strategy which oscillates between belligerence and self-pity.

Anyone who can't catch that distinction, at this late stage in the game, deserves to be confused.

 

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

 

===


UNK


All of what you say may be true about the differences between ACCS and some others.


But don't you agree:


(1) That ACCS needs to be more forthright both in terms of what its representatives say on the phone to prospective students and on its website about its present difficulty?

Could it not on its website say something like:

"We are accredited until April, 04 at which time our accreditation is up for review. While we may lose our accreditation, we really are confident we will retain our accreditation. For further info, contact TRACS." ??


Sure, it is public knowledge on the TRACS site, but I don't think the average prospective applicant to ACCS would think to look there at TRACS to see the truth that ACCS has some problems. Is it not deceptive to allow students to enroll thinking the accreditational standing is solid when in fact it is not? Does not "The Faith " require such aboveboard openess and care for prospective students by those who are entrusted to train ministers of the Gospel?



(2) That it would seem that ACCS did not try hard enough to retain the accreditation it had?

One wonders if ACCS had the skills to acquire accreditation why except for sheer carelessness or bad judgement it had not the ability to avoid this prospect of losing it. Accreditation , if lost, may hurt many students. To avoid doing that by employing proper diligence during the preceding years also would seem required by "The Faith."


(3) That judgement must be impartially applied wherever it is deserved not just to those we deem most guilty?

I am on the side of ACCS. But I see feebleness or good natured but stupid, "good old boy" mistakes as no excuse. ACCS assumed a huge responsibility for its students. It had attained accreditation therefore it knew exactly how to keep accreditation !

To know the good , and do it not, is sin.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

Bill,

I am in complete agreement with you on this and also in agreement with "Uncle Luther," ha! I have never not been critical of many unaccredited, state licensed schools. Many have a lot to be desired. Many don't have adequate staff, many don't have adequate faculty, many don't have rigorous programs and many don't require depth of study. My main concern over the years is that everyone with an unaccredited degree is held suspect and their intelligence, scholarship, and academic ability is ridiculed based on the degree alone. Yet, many degree holders of accredited schools resemble high school graduates in terms of ability, intelligence, scholarship, and academic ability. But because they graduated from an accredited college there is no critical mass regarding them and their abilities. I believe I received a good education at Bethany. It is the person, not the school, that should be examined. While at Bethany I went above and beyond the requirements of study. I immersed myself in each subject and spent hour upon hour in extra research and reading. I read more books than was required, etc. Yes, I have had some major concerns with Bethany and have spoken with them about these concerns. For instance, their connection to the National Christian Counselors Association is a grave mistake on their part. Not having a Biblical language requirement is another concern I have. They should produce some scholarly work in an in-house organ. They shoud have more Th.D.'s and D.Min.'s on staff. Their curriculum, however, is equal to or better than most schools, accredited or not. The courses outlined in their catalog, minus the language studies, are on par with LRS. I have compared the catalogs. Their M.A. is more thorough than the M.A. at Johnson Bible College. I have the Johnson catalog and made the comparisons. The Johnson M.A. requries 33 hours; Bethany's, 42. Is a Bethany degree on par with ESR, ACCS, DTS, Starr-King, Meadville-Lombard? Of course it isn't. Is it sufficient for those who enter into the pastoral ministry in most Baptist and independent churches? Yes, it is. As a matter of fact, many Bethany graduates serve in UCC, UMC, DOC and other denominational pastorates. Is a Bob Jones degree sufficient for the UUA ministry? No, it isn't, but BJU has excellent academics. Would a Liberty M.Div. qualify one for the UUA ministry? I seriously doubt it. Would an ORU graduate be able to serve in many mainline denominations? Perhaps with the exception of the liberal denominations. Like you I deplore poor academics and poor scholarship. But, again, I have seen both of these come from regionally accredited graduates. The last criticism many unaccredited degree holders receive is that they couldn't make it in a "real" school. Well, many choose unaccredited schools simply based of the financial picture. I had to choose Bethany for this very reason. I don't know about any others but I do have 21 graduate hours (Augusta State University and ESR) with a GPA of 3.00. So, I can, did and still do (CCHS) make it in a "real" school.

Sincerely,

"Uncle Erasmus"

 

When I came back from lunch with my wife, there was a message from ACCS on my answering machine. It was from a lady named Susie. She said she knows I am concerned about the TRACS situation. She said she wanted to let me know "everyting is fine. We went before TRACS and everything is fine. They will come back in April for a final and we will be accredited for ten years." The reason I agree with Uncle Janko is that I have been going through the same type of confusion with CCHS in their current stages of new management. No one seems to be getting it right. However, I did get a call today and it looks like things are finally settling a bit. The only bummer for me is that I have been paying $63 per month. With the new financial plan it will be 12 x $242.12. So, I may have to postpone my Free State studies, bummer! However, a 24-month or 36-month payment plan may be forthcoming.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

My observation was merely to point out that ingrown faculty alone is not a cause for questionable academics, whether LBU, BJU or Harvard. If the school in question is a degree mill, hosting faculty with degree mill credentials, then a caveat would indeed be in order.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

I wondered when you would get back to defending "less than wonderful" schools.

By the way, is there something unholy about the use of paragraphs?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

Is this a defense?:

If you think so I hope you're not a defense attorney!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

==

Fair enough.

Now would you give your opinion on whether LBU, despite the ingrown and mostly unaccredited docs of the faculty, has a credible doc program in Bib/Theol...AND why you think that.

Perhaps it would be helpful for readers interested in such programs for you to clearly and candidly take and express a conclusion

 

CALLING CRAIG HARGIS

Actually Craig Hargis, who has a doctorate from LBU, should address this. Where are you, Craig?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

It depends on what you mean by credible. Is LBU's program on par with DTS or TEDS, or would the LBU doctorate qualify one to teach at DTS or TEDS? I wouldn't think so. But from reading LBU's literature, as well as that of BBFI, this is not their intended purpose. LBU exists to provide training for those "in the field," yet have a desire for further academic preparation. In this regard, for those whom an unaccredited degree is sufficient, then LBU appears to be a sincere effort.

My numerous posts will reflect the position that if possible, one should pursue RA programs. However, reality suggests that it is not always possible, or necessary.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

===

As a PhD is an academic degree I think more than sincerity should be the measure of it. You speak in extremes: not good enough for DTS, but good enough for the field--whatever that is. I don't understand why anyone who is qualified academically could not do a gap doc rather than an unaccredited one. But we will have to, I'm disappointed to say, agree to disagree.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

Agreed!

Back to the ACCS thread, I notice that the ACCS D.Min. is no longer in your signature line. Did you drop the program?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

===



I've tried to reply twice. Up appears "The Website is Not Responding." The post fails to go through. Here's try #three:

While I am not active in the program now, I've not officially dropped out. I've both personal and academic issues for my inactivity.

Personal: My good UZ Super is not requiring me now to submit individual chapters. So, there are no time gaps now in which I was fitting the ACCS work. I can taste the completion of the UZ dissertation and do not wish to break stride! Also, we've had some financial difficulties lately.

Academic: Since I've already taken shots at Bethany and LBU of late, I hope in a fair spirit and with a good purpose, I might as well say how I feel about ACCS. There is the accreditation issue, of course. But besides that, I've a feeling that the ACCS DMin courses in Bible/Theology are the same as the MA, MDiv courses. I am not a pastor. My DMin classes were all in Bib/Theol not ministry. But, I do not feel doc courses should be at the same level as the masters even if they are part of a DMin. One should not just do more, it should be done at an increased rigor in doc work. Classes should not be surveys. A DMin student should be past surveys! The doc courses rather should be investigations of narrow problems which the student opens up and interfaces with the broader body of knowledge related to that issue, and the student should be required to interact with the best literature on the topic.

Further, such courses, IMO, *in general* at the doc level should be taught by profs with accredited PhDs/ThDS , ie, research-academic degrees, not with DMins.

This is not to say that any chicanery is being carried out by ACCS or that I disrespect the work they are trying to do or the people who are trying to do it. I appreciated my experience there and would recommend ACCS for MA, MDiv, or DMin in Counseling or Ministry. I only speak of doc level courses in Bible/Theology.