a GSST doctoral dissertation

http://www.commstanth.org/PRISONEPISTLES.htm

There has been much discussion (chiefly related to Knightsbridge) on the quality of a school being made manifest (or not) by looking at dissertations from that school.

There has also been discussion of Golden State School of Theology.

FWIW, here's a GSST diss, or at least a draft of one (the site is a bit unclear).

 

This ThD student is clearly a man of deep, sincere devotion. His dissertation would surely provide enrichment and encouragement as devotional reading material. However, I'm honestly shocked at the notion that it could be accepted as a doctoral dissertation. The content is exceedingly superficial for this level of study, the grammar is not well edited, and the bibliography and end notes are astonishingly scant. As best I could tell, the dissertation is pretty much devoid of references to the original language. I'm not really sure at what academic level this document belongs. However, I must say that, length aside, it is not all that unlike the level of work we were expected to produce in 400-level courses as Liberty University undergraduates.

 

The dissertation is about 110 pages, and does seem to utilize minimal documentation. While original language usage is a given in certain fields of study (Old/New Testament, etc.), this is not always required in every field. For example, some schools allow completion of the Ph.D. in practical theology without utilizing original language exegesis.

 

Out of curiosity, is the purpose of a dissertation to display mastery of a given body of knowledge or is it to contribute to that body of knowledge? If the latter, wouldn't the writer be expected to use those tools that are necessary to explore his thesis which might, or might not, include language skills, statistical analysis, etc.?

 

I certainly agree. In my doctoral work in Practical Theology, I won't necessarily be expected to employ original language exegesis, although I anticipate that a certain amount of it is inevitable as I grapple with certain key passages.

In the case of this particular student, a considerable portion of his dissertation is devoted to scriptural exegesis. At doctoral level, I simply find it difficult to comprehend that greater consideration of the original text wasn't deemed essential. I'm not even talking about verse-by-verse Greek exegesis necessarily; one would expect that at least key terms emerging from the text would be subjected to this kind of penetrating examination. However, even this seems to be absent.

 

==

qualifications on comments: I did not read the entirety. I say nothing about the writer's character. I assume this is the dissertation.


I agree with Cory.

While Golden State specifies that its ThD is in Practical Theology , such a dissertation as this needs IMO to be linked with exegesis. This is because the writer bases his opinions on several Pauline Epistles. These opinions need to be substantiated by exposition. Such was required even in my MDiv practical classes term papers on such topics as worship etc.

If Bible passages are used as the source from which major points are elicited , then those passages must be shown to be properly understood. This writer makes practical applications based on passages such as Ephesians 1-4 concerning predestination, baptism, spiritual gifts, and the work of the clergy. But if particular Scriptures are his basis, then it must be shown he has rightly understood those Scriptures. He is not absolved from that responsibility because his applications are merely practical not dogmatic or in the sense of systematic theology. One's dissertation should not be a series of applications based on a string of possible non secuiturs.

For example, if one is defining what baptism is according to a denominational tradition , then possibly exegesis is not required of that text in Eph 4. But I saw no such qualification in the intro to this work. But if one is saying what Eph 4 itself means when it references baptism , then some exegetical work is required. A huge body of Christianity does not take baptism here to be the sacrament at all! This fact is ignored by this writer!

Nor as Nosborne 's comment implies, at least to me, does this work IMO contribute to knowledge. But I admit I read only a portion and that quickly.

While the short length seems atypical , what is so bothersome to me is the lack of evidence of research and support of statements made. It is as though the doctorate is given just for writing down one's own personal opining. If one is going to make a point by saying, "The aorist participle normally precedes the action of the main verb", then a grammar or two, I think , should be cited as proof. If one is going to say, "Ephesians is the Epistle to the Laodiceans", then one needs to provide reasons for that opinion with references. One in this writer's own tradition, Wikenhauser, takes no such position, why? If one is going to say " Paul wrote Hebrews", then proof must be provided for that. Why does Tertullian say Barnabas wrote it? Why doesn't Hilary say Paul did? This just making clearly arguable statements without evidence is not, IMO, even at the upperdivision level of theological composition. The doctoral student is not at liberty just to say whatever he wishes.

The Bibliography seems so very short...about 45 references? The last UZ chapter I finished had over 125 in about 40 pages which references were actually used in one chapter.

Even a scanning of just one chapter of this work reveals incomplete sentences and other grammatical aberrations which I think to most doctoral committee's would be unacceptable. Nor do the repitions of personal pronouns and addressing the readers seem consistent with a dissertation.

At best this seems a very basic, modest commentary or a lengthy letter to congreants. And these forms of written expression should not earn a doctorate. That the doc earned is a ThD further twists the knife(...thanks, Unk).

I think the school which awards the doctorate for this sort work might wish to beef up its expectations.

However, if my own ThD committee
in 18 months or so just gets a good laugh out of my submission, at least I know where then to go to get my award

 

None of this is surprising, as this school is considered by experts in the field to be a degree mill. Jimmy Clifton, a member of this forum, is a student in Golden State School of Theology’s M.Div. program. On several occasions, Dr. Clifton has stated that Dr. Paul Graves, President of GSST, informed him that the school had applied for accreditation to the DETC and that the DETC had conducted a site visit. However, according to Sue Reilly, Director of Accreditation for the DETC, Golden State School of Theology, never applied to the DETC, and consequently, the DETC never conducted any site visits. As such, either Jimmy Clifton or Dr. Graves isn’t telling the truth.

 

Jimmy is not to blame here. GSST has been claiming they were in process with DETC for the last year or so.

 

They may very well have consulted DETC and found that too many changes were needed to even bother applying.

 

GSST has indeed had contact with the DETC. However, I don’t believe that making a few enquiries constitutes being “in process.”

To my knowledge no one but Jimmy has publicly stated that GGST had applied to the DETC and that the DETC had conducted a site visit. Jimmy explicitly stated that this was the information given to him by Dr. Paul Graves, President of GSST.

As we now know that this information is false, the fact remains: either Jimmy or Dr, Graves was not telling the truth. At the very least, Jimmy is, once again, guilty of repeatedly passing on self-serving misleading information without bothering to verify its truth or authenticity.

 

I was given the same information from Kenny Rhodes of GSST.

 

If so (and I have no reason to doubt you), then we are dealing with deception and fraud as an institutional policy. I can’t imagine stronger proof that GSST is a degree mill.

Now, if Jimmy has really reformed, he will drop his involvement with GSST immediately and consider filing charges. I am not a lawyer, but if it is true that Dr. Graves told him they had applied to the DETC, he might have a legal case against GSST.

 

Gus,
If you go to the GSST FAQ PAGE and scroll down to item #4 you'll see that GSST claims that "the day will come in the near future that GSST will acquire accreditation." When I wrote questioning that statement the reply came that the accreditation they were pursuing was with the DETC and they had a site visit scheduled. That was the last that I pursued any of this. I don't know what, if any, recourse is possible for Jimmy or anyone else.

BLD

 

BLD, I am aware of GSST’s Web page. In fact, I recently quoted GSST’s accreditation statement in another thread on this forum and called it standard millspeak. However, informing you that they were “pursuing” DETC accreditation is open to interpretation, as is saying that they had a site visit "scheduled." This is not what Jimmy posted on more than one occasion. Here are Jimmy’s exact words.

The DETC does not conduct site visits without a formal application. Sue Reilly, Director of Accreditation for the DETC has given me permission to publicly disclose that that GSST never applied to the DETC, nor did a site visit ever take place. As such, one fact remains: either Jimmy or Dr. Graves was not telling the truth.

 

Gus,
The following is a portion of an e-mail I received from Kenny Rhodes on April 3, 2003:


DETC only accredits through the MDiv (first professional). We are "in the process" of accreditation. Actually, in May we will have to drop all doctoral programs all together. We will probably have a MDiv with an Apologetics focus when it is all said and done. Presently, we are talking to Answers in Genesis to partner with them in this creationism MApol. I expect to speak to Ken Ham in the next few days. After the creationism MApol is completed I will begin work on an evidential apologetics program. The core of this program will be Gielser and Zacharias material with a little JP and Bill Craig thrown in.

I had written inquiring about their program in apologetics to see if they were going to offer it at the doctoral level.

The only reason I'm posting this is to show that while Jimmy had been less than forthcoming in the past, I believe everything he has stated concerning information he received from GSST about their upcoming accreditation by DETC is accurate.

BLD

 

What's wrong with this picture?

1) GSST still lists doctoral programs on its website.

2) These statements about the "core of the program" can only refer to a reading list. A reading list doth not a program make. Anybody can put anybody on a reading list. That scarcely serves to associate Geisler or Zacharias with GSST.

3) If Dr Clifton's report is accurate, he was deceived by the GSST administration. There's no excuse for that. None. Period. (But then, since Dr Clifton freely expresses his disapproval of "sanctimoniousness", one wonders why he does not express his disapproval of being deceived.)

4) If GSST really did apply to DETC (not that I believe that, at this point), why did they not apply to TRACS? TRACS would have let them keep their doctorates if the doctoral programs were up to snuff.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

would TRACS allow the PhD/ThD?

 

Uncle Janko,
Paul Graves told me that TRACS accreditation was "too expensive." I have no idea what the difference is in cost between TRACS and DETC, but that was the explanation I received.

Bill,
I'm not sure what TRACS does or does not allow, but all of the schools I'm aware of that have TRACS accreditation offer the D.Min. as their highest degree. Of course, many don't offer the doctorate at all.

BLD

 

Too expensive? Maybe. I would imagine, though, that the expense would be well compensated by retaining a doctoral program even if "demoted" (actually, raised by accreditation QC in this instance) to a DMin.

I'm aware that GSST's tuition is quite low, but what's your good name worth?

I think you guys are correct in saying that TRACS will not accredit a ThD or PhD but only a DMin.

Deception? Ignorance? Wishful thinking? Millspeak?
The bottom line on all this is that somebody is not telling the truth about GSST and accreditation:

1) Clifton
or
2) Graves
or
3) Rhodes
or
4) DETC

I don't think the problem lies with #4, somehow.

 

TRACS

Janko: "I think you guys are correct in saying that TRACS will not accredit a ThD or PhD but only a DMin."

Sure looks that way. The highest degrees any TRACS schools currently offer are the D.Min. and the Th.M.

Based on a private correspondence, I believe that TRACS has plans to include research doctorates circa 2006. Most TRACS schools that offer graduate programs are better served by sticking with the D.Min., anyway. However, there are several solid schools that currently offer the Th.M. or have previously offered the Th.D. that would benefit.