Howabout the offering of degree for ministry disease, "MDS' sounds like a disease similar to WITHYISM There is the point though that one can do much study on his/her own without being in a degree program. Problems do attach to this such as irresponsibity and lack of guidance. If course if one perceives him/herself as the source of truth, then such difficulties are minimized.
MDS "degree disease" Russell, Sounds like the degree disease can only be cured by a prompt application of credit card funds. Say, would this scam fall into the category of a "faith healing"?
The article was very interesting. I get the impression that in some denominations, if you don't have a degree, then you can't be a preacher. The degree is the ticket to academic as well as religious acceptance as a pastor.
Yes, I will concede that the article is interesting---but for different reasons. As I navigate this article, the distinct impression I read is the veneration of non-accredited degrees, if they, in fact, advance an individual's knowledge base. We would all agree that knowledge enhancement is a good thing in any context. I am sure, however, that we can all see the inherent subjectivity of that statement. At times in the past, I have alluded to my experience with Bob Jones graduates - having served with at least five of them in one church setting. All in all, I did not find them very receptive to theological discussion that differed from the mold that Bob Jones U have established for them. The one time I was able to convince a colleague (Bob Jones grad) to attend an ETS meeting with me in Southern Cal will always stand out in my mind. This pastor could not engage in simple discourse about some of the break-out sessions. As I tried to engage him about some of the ideas presented he vehemently, with facial veins to the point of bursting, forbade me to speak at our church concerning these issues. Some "education" leads to intellectual curiousity and some "education" leads to blind doctrinal commitment. Are both valued equally? Wouldn't that elicit a subjective response? From the article cited: . What does better trained really mean? What does better disciplined mean? What does "greater" knowledge base mean? Would a ThD from Dallas believe that a ThD from First Baptist U had a "greater" knowledge base? Would a PhD from U of Santa Cruz acknowledge the validity of John Adams U? Going the unaccredited way will never equal going the accredited way, Steven King
Church people! I think I'm on 'safe ground' here when I state that there has always been a 'fascination' by people (who belong to church demoninations) with academic titles. In my experience, the same is true in the USA as it is in the UK! Indeed, the majority of theological training colleges in the UK have adopted their own academic hoods which can be worn by 'graduates' of the colleges, irrespective as to whether they obtain a degree or not. This has enabled non-degree holders to wear academic dress and so not be 'left out' when in church processions, etc! Believe me...this has been the case for years in the UK. Now that courses have opened up to all and sundry I guess the use of such academic wear has decreased because now it is almost virtually impossible not to get a degree, of one sort or another, in the UK! 'telfax'
Perhaps in some denominations...but even greater in denominations whose churches freely elect or call their own minister...no degree means not even a chance to preach for many, or be taken as a potential canidate (I detest that word in conjunction with a calling) While many have said that it is better to have no degree at all then to possess unaccredited degrees, no degree at all leaves you trying to buy time on a radio station, or standing on street corners (nothing wrong with either) to preach your messages only to be again assaulted as unlearned and ignorant because you do now not only do not have a degree, but you don't have a church, either. Therefore, sadly it does tend to be a pre requisite to acceptance by both churches and fellow clergy. When that changes, more would be probably glad to openly say that they have no formal or accredited education past high school. For those churches that say it does not matter, many churches will at least hear the person out if they have unaccredited degrees as to why they went to an unaccredited or lesser known school (both can cause problems) and evaluate them on a case by case basis. Since many churches do not give their pastors tuition re-imbursement accounts, or educational allownaces, the church then takes what they can get in regards to his education. Usually if the person has a good ministry work record, has a proven track record of church leadership and sound doctrine, proof of legitmate license and ordination paperwork, and a willingness to serve if asked...the degree (if mandated) can be worked on to be brought to RA status, or accepted as is. So is it faith to step out and obtain loans to pay for a degree you may not be able to pay back, or is it good stewardship to only pay for the amount of education that you can afford? That is one of the many problems with understanding the true "utility" of ministry/theological degrees...there is no guarentee that after you get that elusive M. Div. or D. Min, that any church will fairly compensate you for having earned those degrees, regardless to if they are accredited or not...therfore it's only "utility" is to hang on your wall. No guarentee you will get a position at some university or college teaching in your field. And there are too many examples of those who have no degrees at all (by our standards here in this forum) or unaccredited degrees who are doing awesome works of ministry on a world-wide basis, who have people clamoring to be taught by them (hence where many of these so called in another thread "mom and pop" schools come from) while those with earned doctorates in religion/ministry/theology are teaching public school math, because they can not find anything in their field. As important as the degree is, there must be other things at work to truly see full "utility" of degrees in those who not only pursue but use ministry/theological degrees. This too has been debated in another thread. Now as to the ethics of possessing or obtaining an unaccreditted degree that is another matter that has been well spoken of in another thread, by many much wiser than I. Then there are those churches that do not want any preachers that have gone to Seminary (cemetary) because they feel they lose their fire and passion for the things of God upon entrance to school and leave out philosophizing about Christ instead of preaching Christ. They avoid any and all seminary graduates like the plague. No matter how "ignorant" this may sound to some, this is the reality that is out there that we who minister deal with every day. I am not advocating for unaccrediited degrees...just trying to keep it real. Let the assault begin!!!
Sorry - not the assaulting type. This discussion will prove how subjective we all are in ascertaining the utility of a given degree. While it is true that God uses all types of people to accomplish all types of things - no one should seek not to be properly educated - because it's convenient. Does "utility" imply only adequate monetary compensation? Can utility include increased competence or ability to more effectively minister? I have a problem with people earning hokey doctorates and then running out and putting the title "Dr." on everything. I have witnessed ministers in this category correcting their parishioners to call them "Dr. So-and-so." At least with properly accredited institutions, there exists a fairly objective standard for evaluating the reality of one's educational experience. I have no problem calling my professors from U of Santa Cruz "Dr." because I have some sense of what they accomplished to earn that title. On the other hand, I have great difficulty calling someone "Dr." because they wrote a Mickey Mouse, 10-page homily and submitted it to Dayspring University. Kindly, Steven King
Thank you for your kindness!!! Are you sure that Mickey Mouse is not a contracted paid spokesperson against degree and diploma mills....rofl. Within some denominations the title Dr. is given as a honorary title or term of endearment that has nothing to do with education but as to repsect of one's proven abilities in pastoral ability, preaching ability, administrative ability, etc. I know several senior ministers who never went to college, but peers and people alike call them Dr. So and So. Not because they ask for it, but because they have earned respect in the eyes of the people. To put Dr. So and So on everything begs to me several questions...among them insecurity... First, did they truly earn the degree? Did they actually do the work required by that institution? If so, then they are not lying about earning the degree, even if the quality of that degree is questionable. After all a graduate from a Division I School has more name recognition and favor than a Division III and both are "properly" accredited. (Harvard vs. Louisburg) I would rather a person tell me that they earned a degree from XYZ College, but they are not accredited than to lie and say they did not go anywhere at all. Next, was that institution upfront with them about their lack of "proper" accreditation? Who are they trying to be accredited by? Even in these forums we can not all agree on anybody past RA by the US Department of Education. DETC, TRACS, ASCI, and others all have their supporters and detractors. Are they truly planning to get accredited and are trying to get the requisite # of PhD's on board, build the library, and everything else that is required before getting accredited. or is that just being thrown out there to gain new students, and therfore more money? I have less problem with the first than the second, probably because the majority of ministers I know at one time or the other were in schools in that condition. Were there other comparable ministry programs availible in the area? Why pay "X" amount of dollars to go to a properly accredited university Continuing Education Non Degree program when the same money can go towards a degree? Was it truly the easy way out, or the only thing availible at the time? Was the School of Religion/Ministry Accredited as well as the college? (Many schools have these types of problems where your specific course of study is not accredited...so then technically your degree from that program is not accredited...a Community College here just lost their SACS accreditation in the School of Business for this same thing, (Not enough PhD's)but their Nursing program and General Ed program is fine) These are the things I heard and still hear as well as experience every day in my community and within my state convention. I also think we forget that it is only with the recent advances of the Internet that make it possible to get a "properly" accredited degree right at home. However try to sell that to your church members that you did your degree online and most of them will still holler "SCAM" or well you didn't truly go there, now did you? It sounds ludicrious except it is so true. Next to look at the "properly" accredited institutions from a financial aspect only means many ministers would never get any education at all past High School. Why? Because they can not afford them. Why is it that so many assume how much another person has to pay for college? That is especially true in ministry where more often than not, the acceptance of the call into the ministry and subsequent schooling in the field is not only a major lifestyle choice, but a career choice as well. Perhaps (and I have suggested both of these to a couple RA schools where I personally knew some professors and educators) if the Community Colleges could start classes up, their lower cost would help out...or if "properly" accredited" insitutions would take some of these people on "probation" and develop a non tradiional course of study for them ie Defiance College in Ohio, then it would put a lot of the scam schools out of business. Word of Note: One school in Virginia has done something similar to what i have said after seeing how much money they were losing to these "scam" schools...my cousin is a professor there...we have debated this issue for many years ...result...5 "scam" schools have since closed down in that area. It is better to work with these people than to castigate them..that only fuels the schism. You are most accurate in your assessment towards the many other areas of utility other than monetary compensation. Yet I can point to many who have not darkned a schools door past High School or have 4 years of College at the most and have all that you say and more. That is why many juinior minister and pastors go and sit at thier feet to learn from them instead of paying money they don't have to some schools. Again I am just keeping it real....not advocating for anything or anyone.
To use the title "Dr." implies, whether intentionally or not, that one has completed a doctoral program. Herein lies the problem of using an honorary doctorate within an ecclesiastical context. 1) A parishioner introduces his/her pastor to someone in the community who understands academe as "Dr. Jones." When the person makes inquiry as to Dr. Jones' alma mater, and for those who understand academe this is a very normal response, the minister is placed in a defensive position--one of offering an explanation. "Oh, well, I didn't earn a doctorate, its an honorary." 2. What other profession uses honorary doctorates in a professional manner? Do attorneys, actors, politicians? No! Why do ministers, then, feel the need to do so? 3. The purpose of an honorary doctorate is not academic, nor for use as a title, rather, it is a certificate of appreciation. IMO, ministers who utilize the title "Dr." in a professional/public manner, when the doctorate is an honorary doctorate, are using the award in a manner it was never intended.
In saying people give especially many senior ministers the term of endearment Dr., it is strictly in the unoffical sense...almost a colloquial expression at times....I was recently at a meeting where the moderator of the meeting addressed every minister present in the room as Dr.______________. (In the room was a friend of mine who has a JD degree....no longer practicing now that he is in the ministry... of course he was addressed as Dr._______________, but my friend never uses that title...he signs everything Rev.________, JD) At my first church my business cards, said D. S. ___________, Minister. My members there refused to use that and put Rev. on it themself and put my first name on it because they said the D. was trying to sound like Dr....however that is the way i signed my name for years. I personally do not use the title Rev., but I am called it every day... In my limited opinion, I do not think anyone who has an Honorary Doctorate, regardless to which school awarded it (RA or or any others) should use that title in any official capacity, or in their CV unless it is listed under awards or accomplishments. I have always though it would be good to know if a degree was Honorary or not right up front. Again I think it personally speaks more of an insecurity issue than anything else...I prefer the term minister or servant for myself, regardless to what education level has been completed. I do not have to go out a call myself a man...I know what I am..I just walk in that...same sentiments towards titles...If you have to announce it to the world and wear it on your shoulders...you don't have it...or you are very insecure with yourself...with a bad dose of pride on the side. While I am aware of some who have been "officially" awarded an Honorary Doctorate, I have never challenged their use of it in their title, or stationary. One that comes to mind never uses it (He holds a BA from Elon College, and a few credits from the now closed Bishop College and that is it) While he has never called himself Dr., I have never heard him stop his peers or anyone else for calling him Dr. But note, I have never heard...does not mean he has not. I know of no one that has secured a position for themself on the basis of a Honorary Doctorate passed off as an earned Doctorate.
Nor do I use the title Reverend, however, our culture has designated ministers with this title. Therefore, ministers are indeed referred to with this title. As for the use of honorary doctorates, I fully concur with your above assessment.
