Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

1. MY PROBLEM:

Charity is said to be greater than faith to move mountains. But can a Christian be charitable if he is critical of Christians who teach in or promote schools offering doctorates inconsistent with rigor?

This Christmas morning I rose early for introspection to evaluate my own motivation, reasoning, application, and conclusion on this question.


2. MOTIVATION

Any criticism by me could easily be interpreted as self aggrandisement. I'm sure I'm proud. But I am not convinced that my goal in expressing myself here in threads relating to Christian higher education is to draw attention to myself.

At present I am giving up some aspirations and interests. Some of these I never could attain anyway. One or two I should not even desire. It is too personal to explain with particulars, but the effect is a considerable narrowing of my life's focus and energy.

In fact what is left after the supposed "dross" is burned away by this supposed narrowing of focus may become a part of the essence of my perceived major purpose for the rest of my life. A "mission" if you will.

I connect this "mission" at this time with my love for the study of my faith. At this time I perceive that my concerns below are associated with moral componants of my religious beliefs. Maybe I'm deceived . But ethical tenets of the Christian faith are what I now see as my motivation.


3. MY REASONING: CRITERIA OF QUALITY


I understand that on this board there are discussions of how to get easier or quicker or cheaper degrees. But I think that regulars here reject the notion that doctoral degrees should be easy or quick to get. As for me , I think my area of study deserves and requires a very high level of rigor.

Who am I to state the principles expressed below? While it is common at degreeinfo to assess the worth of a post by the reasoning of it, not by the poster, I have a particular right to address these matters. I have spent 12 years of my life in the formal study of Theology. Also I think I speak for many who give up or gave up much to do their best to know the Bible at advanced levels. Some of these, as do I , resent that there are many who take much less strenuous routes to "earn" easy doctorates in Theology.

3:1 An Analogy

It is "easy" for my son Dan to jog three miles. It is not "easy" for me. But then, I am not required to pass Guard physical tests.

The Guard has such criteria, but since I am not a soldier I do not need to meet those criteria. If I were, I would expect to be criticised for being out of shape. It is not wrong for Danny's sergeant to evaluate the condition of his soldiers. Their physical abilities are necessary for them. It is expected of soldiers!

But is it right for Private Smith to say to his friends "Come on guys, get in shape. Sarge expects us to pass PE tests next month. If we don't, then we're not doing what we should. Is Smith being uncharitable or proud?

Or is it wrong for Private Jone's who does not wish to run that much, to reply " I don't agree that we should be able to run three miles. Three blocks is enough. I'm going to start my own squad of soldiers. I might even start my own Guard which will have its own criteria for passing its soldiers. Three blocks are quite enough to pass"?

Is it that Jones is being uncharitable to the needs of soldiers and too proud to strive to meet the criteria of the Guard?

I don't have a problem with unaccredited Christian schools offering training of most any sort , but I do have a considerable problem with unaccredited Christian schools awarding doctorates for work that is not at a level of rigor expected by accredited schools.

Walston argues that degrees need not always be accredited. He reminds us that Zodhiates earned an unaccredited doc from Luther Rice, and James White earned one from CES. That argument was advanced here too. Just see how successful Z. and W. are!

Yet the issue for me is not accreditation. It is quality. What does it take to offer a rigorous doctoral program in Bible or in Theology?

I suggest it takes several things.


3:2 Biblical Languages Indicate Rigor

If the program in a Christian school is in Bible, then it needs to use the Biblical languages. Even a school which believes the King James Version is inspired needs to make sure that its graduates can deal at the doctoral level with the scholarly subjects related to the doctoral degree.

Without the Biblical languages I don't see how a doctoral candidate could do a review of the literature for a dissertation . I don't see how he or she could evaluate opinions expressed in scholarly works. I don't see how a defense of a dissertation could be made .

If a school does not l require the Biblical languages in its graduate programs as the MDiv or the ThM in Biblical Studies , then it handicaps its students were they to apply for admission into accredited schools for a doctoral program. How is this best serving the student?

Neither is it best serving honoring Biblical Studies. If one is getting a doctorate in the Patristics , then one should learn Latin. If one is getting a doctorate in French Literature, then one should be expected to learn French.

Walston's examples, Zodhiates and White, are adept in Greek. They use it in their literature.

White discusses John 3:13 as to whether the form of the verb (on) is original and the significance of it. To best evaluate that discussion requires Greek.

Zodhiates on John argues, that pros, in 1:1 indicates personal interaction ( I'm not convinced that he is correct as the verb is static. IMO pros only indicates movement with action verbs). But Zodhiates feels the need to use the Biblical languages to substantiate his ideas. To evaluate Zodhiates well requires Greek.

For doctoral student to grasp and respond to a White or a Zodhiates ( and to many other writers much more technical) requires usage of the Biblical languages. Further to some extent the success that such men enjoy is connected with their studies including the Biblical languages!

If one is defending an unaccredited school using the premise that other UA schools served the needs of a White or a Zodhiates, then the counter here is made that this school is not preparing its doctoral graduates to even understand a White or a Zodhiates, much less do the work they do, if that school does not require work in the Biblical languages!

Two schools are not equal just because they both are unaccredited!


3:3 Qualified Professors and Supervisors Indicate Rigor

To be rigorous requires that a doctoral program be taught by competent educators. This fact is entrenched in the positions of recognized accrediting agencies and is exemplified by the hiring practices of accredited schools.

Accredited doctorates in the subject taught are not the only way, just the common way, to indicate professorial competency. But then the question is , if a professor does not have an accredited doc in the area of instruction, then how shall his competency be measured?

Shall it be measured by the competency he/she instills in his/her students? But how shall student learning in graduate studies under "unaccredited" profs be measured? Well, by the same measures used for students of "accredited" profs!

Can the students of such professors enter and succeed in graduate studies in accredited programs? Can those students write a dissertation which objective and truly qualified academics would agree is at a genuine doctoral level? Do they contribute in scholarly ways to the discipline? If one wishes to argue the competency of an "unaccredited" professor , then let that one convincingly show the competency of the students!

Competency of a professor might also be measured by that professor's contribution to the scholarly literature in his/her field. So, if a UA school's defender wishes to be convincing about that unaccredited school having rigor -yet having the majority of its faculty without accredited docs- then, an argument could be based on such. If one wishes to argue the competency of an "unaccredited" professor, then provide the list of that professor's contributions recognized by academics as scholarly.


3:4 Other Criteria Indicate Rigor

3:4:1 Does the school require evidence by product or exam that the applicant to a doctoral program is qualified to do work at the level of an accredited doctoral program? If it does not, how can it be supposed that rigorous work will be accomplished?

3:4:2 Does the school require the student to achieve at a level commensurate with what is required of doctoral students in accredited schools. If it does not why is the school justified in offering degrees which other students in other schools work much harder to get?

3:4:3 Can the graduates of this UA school be successful in other accredited learning environs, and do they contribute in genuinely scholarly ways to the area of doctoral study? If the graduates can or do not, then what evidences the rigor of their learning?


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION

With apologies to those I may offend, I believe I'll continue here , as I'm allowed to, to express the opinion that while a school offering doctoral degrees in Bible or Theology need not be accredited to be worthwhile , it does do need to be rigorous .

And, rigor is measurable.

No one has suggested that I cannot express such opinions. I am just evaluating my own conscience. sharing the results.

After this self inspection , I still think that constructive criticism and Christian charity in this context are not mutually exclusive. I might work on the latter by being less aggressive, however!

Yet, while this is a good season to give gifts, I stand by my conviction that doctoral degrees must be earned- with genuine rigor.

 

Do you think that Liberty U would meet the standards you discussed above? Just curious as I attended for a year (on a baseball scholarship) and despite the reputation of Jerry Fallwell, they had some very good and qualified instructors. My major was business, but I still had to take Old testament survey, evangelism, etc..

 

I totally agree, Bill.

I would like to add a bit about a related topic that has been on my mind.

As you know I am a big fan of the bible but, not an expert of it at all.

I am a daily reader and an occassional studier. I understand the concepts but, ain't quiet along far enough to debate some of the finer points of theology.

I did do one year of a program through V.L.I. According to Dr. C. Peter Wagner of Fuller are graduate level courses. I guess he would know, he teaches some of the courses. The courses can also be transfered to fuller towards a graduate degree as well. The courses are good but, not on the Doc level for sure.

Honestly, because of my history, I didn't even read a whole book until I was in my mid 20s. I am just getting a grasp on this higher education thing.

I have learned so much on this board as far as the voice of the educated goes. It is very interesting to see both sides as far as the educated and the uneducated goes.

Sometimes with expertise pride can come, as well as insensitivity. I don't mean to seem like a whiner about this but, there are things that the uneducated folks don't understand. This can be a double edged sword. The uneducated can feel a bit insecure and the highly educated can be a bit prideful in dealing with people without giving it much thought. Uneducated folk just does not know many of the things that education brings and IMO should be welcomed to join in on the discussion without being crushed. Too many times you see the highly educated talk to others like they are so beneath them. In God's system this shouldn't be an acceptable practice.

I am not speaking for myself now but, I have felt this way in the past. I think those with higher knowledge should do their part to reach down and be a bridge instead of a turn-off.

I'm not suggesting that it is the responsibility of the learned folk to always worry about those who don't care or are lazy. Just a little more consciences, that's all.

This in no way should take away from the person's hard work and knowledge gained through much deserved achievement.

But yeah, to be Doc of any field you should be able to prove your knowledge by the means that you point out, Bill. Good job on articulating that.

 

Bill,

I agree with your well thought out and articulated position on academic rigor. I can understand the posts from people who have taken classes from many institutions--perhaps with a few changes of major along the way--and have "hit a wall". They have career or personal goals that require an undergraduate degree and are now interested in obtaining the degree in the swiftest manner possible. With the curriculum changes and lack of advising that occurs in many colleges and universities (including those for whom I have worked), it is hard for me to fault the student who exclaims, "How can I get this thing finished?!)

Now, when it comes to doctoral study, I must agree with you. Advanced study is an elective process which is quite different than the undergraduate expereince and requires a different set of academic tools. In order to produce the original research necessary for a disseetation, one must be thoroughly grounded in the history and literature of one's topic (to determine what has been done, where the research gaps are and how your study will help to fill some gap).

In the area of Biblical/Theological studies, there are basic questions arising from the fact that, while manuscirpts and fragments of Biblical text are more numerous than those of any other ancient book, we are in possession of none of the original autographs of any Biblical author. If one's goal is to determine what the Apostles and Prophets actually wrote and meant, there appears to be only two methods to achieve that goal: revelation or literary analysis. The former is generally rejected and the latter cannot be done without a knowledge of the ancient languages.

In practical ministries that emphasize counseling, organization and welfare, an argument can be made that learning Greek and Hebrew are nice but not necessary. However, when one is embarking upon a study of theology, Chrisitan history or foundational work, one is crippled if he or she cannot read or analyze the earliest manuscripts and fragments (or must rely upon the expertise of another scholar to do it). I must agree with Bill on this point.

Can knowledge of ancient languages be gained at unaccredited schools? Certainly, but the two examples cited by Bill gained their knowledge elsewhere, prio to their doctoral studies. While James White's anti-Mormon books are certainly less than impressive, there is no doubt that he has a command of Koine Greek (something that his predecessors, such as Walter Martin did not) and that his knowledge of ancient languages has served him well in his works on the King James Version and other projects. Like Walter Martin before him, White's unaccredited doctorate has left him vulnerable from an academic standpoint (a fat not lost on his critics), but his CES ThD allows him to be referred to as "doctor", so I suppose that its purpose has been met.

Tony

 

yup, i'm down with that.

 

Np person with a sense of justice and right can condone fraud, in himself or in others.

Fraud has victims; everyone has an obligation to protect the vulnerable.

 

I concur with both Bill and Tony. If one is going to persue doc level work in biblical studies, then familiarity with the languages should be viewed as essential.

 

Is resentment an ethical tenet of the Christian faith?

 

Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

==

Why would you suppose that it might not be?

 

Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

I don't. I thought the point of my post was obvious, obviously not.

You express concern about ethical tenets of Christianity and yet you report being resentful.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

===
?

You DON'T "...suppose that resentment might NOT be " a Christian virtue? I'm confused, but I don't think grammatically that represents your feeling.

But anyway, I am saying that IMO resentment CAN be a Christian ethic.

If you think that it canNOT be, would you tell me why you think that. I certainly cannot claim to be perfect in Christian virtues, and am willing to change my opinion, so this is an interesting topic.
Thanks,

 

The problem is that both Walter Martin and James White held their doctorates from degree mills. (Martin received his at California Coast, then called California Western. White, of course, received his from Faraston/CES, Walston's debacle of a one-man-show degree mill.) And, regardless of how tight their acts may have been, Mormon apologists such as Robert & Rosemary Brown (in their brilliantly researched book series They Lie in Wait to Deceive) were able to decimate the anti-Mormon apologists based largely on their mickey-mouse credentials.

But based on how Bill Grover titled this thread, "Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools," I think we have to differentiate between various definitions of Christian. Some "schools" claim to be Christian but are merely using religious exemptions to licensure laws as a ruse to grant bogus degrees. Others, in terms of their operators, are sincere but totally unqualified. "Christian charity" is far from necessary when discussing either type of institution.

Here's a classic illustration: You have a house in Salt Lake City. One night, your pipes burst. Being a good evangelical, you pass up 100 Mormon plumbers and bring in the only Baptist plumber in town. He purportedly fixes your pipes, but they burst again the following day. When you call him to complain, he says, "Well, praise God! He's just testing you," and proceeds to quote James 1:2-3. The plumber may be sincere, but it is likely that he doesn't deserve to call himself a Christian.

Having written a book that exposed so-called Christian degree mills, I have no hesitation about stringing such schools up by the short hairs.*
_______________________

* Okay, I know that's graphic. But y'all expect me to totally clean my act up?

 

Using this logic---that one's "tight act" is decimated if one's degree is perhaps non-RA---one would have to assume that men such as Charles Stanley and Spiros Zodhiates (both of whom hold their only doctorate, the ThD from pre-TRACS Luther Rice, and both of whom are prolific writers and Christian leaders) are to be questioned as to their credibility.

 

Never knew this book existed. Thanks for the reference, Dr. Levicoff. I see it is sold at a bargain here.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

I guess it all depends on the core of your resentment, Bill. Is your resentment based on pride, bitterness, jealousy, judgement, harshness, hard-heartedness, etc.?

Why would you be resentful because someone else received a doctorate and he/she didn't work so hard as you? Do you suppose one who earned a doctorate at Luther Rice, Faith Evangelical, ACCS, Temple Baptist, etc., worked as hard as you? I don't. Yet, their doctorates are just as legal, legitimate, and valid as yours.

Besides, Bill, you made the choice to work hard. Hold no one responsible or accountable except yourself for your choices.

Resentment is dangerous, Bill, it will eat you up alive, cause emotional and physical problems, ruin relationships, give you an exaggerated sense of self-importance, and turn you into a bitter person.

Remember the story of Miriam?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

===

Jimmy


Thankyou for that counsel. I agree it does depend on the "core" of the resentment. I'm glad you made that qualification "it depends," because in your former post it appeared to me that IYO there were NO just grounds for resentment.

Let me give you a little more info. You can then help me judge as to whether my "core" is just or not. You can help me decide if I need to worry on this account about "pride, bitterness, jealousy, self-importance " and so forth.

You see I thought those were not issues because as my initial post said, I sincerely prayed and meditated on this issue during the last week.

I am defining resentment as "anger." This is how my two dictionaries and Roget's define resentment.

I'm sure that you'll agree that those we are to emulate get angry. We read about the wrath of God. Jesus chased the merchants out of the Temple with a whip, and called His opponants a generation of vipers. Paul chided Peter and pronounced anathemas on those who confused the Galatians. He mocked the achievements of the false apostles and ignorant teachers of Law. So, there must be SOME valid reasons for resentment.

I should also mention, Jimmy, believe it or not, that I have a life besides criticising those schools about which you and I SO OFTEN disagree. I suppose that if I didn't have a life, while off of degreeinfo, then I could not have finished my dissertation. But I did.

Now let me particularize for you an example of what causes my resentment: The Andersonville Theological Seminary ThD. It is a perfectly LEGAL, LEGITIMATE, and VALID (the adjectives you use above) degree. It must be, as ATS says its degrees are "widely recognized" by other schools and that ATS enjoys "world -wide recognition as America's BEST distance ed Seminary." Further, if you get on such sites as Baptist Board you will see ATS favorably compared to accredited programs.

To clarify (for a reader who does not know) , a US sort of ThD or PhD from an RA evangelical institution as Master's Seminary has as its prerequisite the ThM (some schools as Dallas may allow one with an MDiv to enter, but require more work).

The ThM in such schools as Masters or Dallas in Bible or Systematic Theology requires two (Biblical) languages , four years of full time study plus a thesis . Then, upon entering the ThD at Masters or PhD at Dallas one can anticipate three to five more years of study including the dissertation. Therefore, it would require a minimum of seven years to do the Master's or DTS ThM/ThD (PhD) and possibly ten. It takes so very long because such seminaries think there is so very much that is essential to learn. It takes that long to be rigorous.

So how does this Master's ThD or DTS PhD compare in program length with Andersonville's ThD? At Andersonville one can do the masters in Theology in EIGHT MONTHS! Then, one can knock off the ThD in another EIGHT MONTHS!!!

Wait a minute. Is this just more effective professors and more efficient curricula that allows ATS to cover the essential material required by Masters or Dallas in a ThM/ThD (PhD) program in SIXTEEN months when it takes the Master's or Dallas Seminary SEVEN to TEN years to cover it? noooooo. Are the students at Andersonville just far superior and faster learners than those at Masters???? hardlyyyyyyyy.

Well, then how can we account for the 5 1/2 to 8 1/2 years of difference in the duration of the programs? By recognizing that Andersonville does not require the student to do and learn what Masters or Dallas requires--that's the difference. Masters or Dallas requires (if we judge just by duration and not by rigor) up to SEVEN times more than ATS for the ThD. If we factor in rigor too, why the ratio of learning at those two RA seminaries to Andersonville is about 50 to 1 !

There , nevertheless, are two docs then: Smith (ThD , Masters) does FIFTY times more work for his doc than does Jones (ThD, Andersonville). Yet, they both hane LEGAL ThDs in Bible all the same, don't they?

Do you think that possibly Smith has just cause to resent Jones or not?

Well, we could counsel Smith: "Hey Smith, what's your problem? You made the choice not to go to Andersonville, right? You could have been done 8 1/2 years ago! Andersonville is legal. Watch it there Smith, you're liable to become prideful and self-important because unlike Smith you chose not to do it the easy way! "

We could explain to Smith " Be like Jones. Jones isn't prideful. He knows it doesn't take 7-10 years to acquire a rigorous doctoral level understanding of the Bible. Jones knows he can do all that easily in SIXTEEN quick months and be called DOCTOR Jones. See, he's not prideful like you!!! Besides, his doc is just as good as yours, isn't it?"

But I don't think I'd want to take on Smith with that sort of rhetoric. Smith might counter that Jone's rather is the prideful one because he thinks he can learn the Bible at the ThD level in 8 months and do it furthermore without "accredited" profs, without the Biblical languages, and without rigor.

Now Jimmy as I said in my initial post, I searched my heart in this matter diligently. I prayed and meditated about it at length. Possibly I got it all wrong. I can do that soul searching over again if you think I should . I really don't mind! I think we Christians each day need to submit our wills to what we think God wants .

I just believe for now at least that doctoral programs in Biblical studies need to be very, very rigorous indeed. The more rigor the better! I feel that one must give him or her self wholly to the learning of God's Word IF one wishes to be a doctor of that Word. Short cuts should not be made unless they are in practice at accredited schools.. Rigor should not be spared. Quality should not be compromised. The study of God's Word at the doctoral level deserves the best of our effort not the least.

 

It's actually not one book, but three (it may even be four at this point), an entire volume of which was devoted to exposing Martin.

As an evangelical, I'm certainly more on the Martin side of things (nothing personal, Tony P.). However, I think that everyone who wants to call himself a Christian apologist or "cult-buster" should read the Browns' books - it shows that things are not as cut-and-dried as the so-called apologists would have you believe, and how important it is to have personal and professional credibility.

Besides, their exposé of Martin, et al. makes great gossip, which even the Christian Research Institute (founded by the late Walter Martin) has not been able to refute.

 

AMEN

Bill G.: "Rigor should not be spared. Quality should not be compromised. The study of God's Word at the doctoral level deserves the best of our effort not the least."

I agree wholeheartedly - but don't stop there. Many low quality schools have faculty with only low quality in-house degrees. While the problem is likely more pronounced at the doctoral level, I am not convinced that they can provide adequate master's level education, either.

 

Re: AMEN

==

Yes. You're right.

I was hoping, vainly I guess , since I'm hearing few "AMEN BROTHER" , to first get some general consensus here among our grads of Christian schools re faculty qualifications at the doc level first.

Some times these things, like a carving, need to be whittled at removing only small pieces and these one at a time.

As Someone said, "I have many things to tell you, but you can't stand them yet."