Sorry, couldn't get the url to work. This RA school in Pa. offers the PhD in Biblical Studies mostly by DL. There is a one week residency for each course. That means it does not fit my schedule. Cost per unit exceeds $400 , so it neither fits my budget. Entry requires an MDiv or lesser masters with addl work. Wowsie : a ThM gives one a real break..only need to do another 37 units for the PhD. That cuts it down to a total of around a mere 167 units of theological grad work for me I find the personal prerequisite interesting as I just lightly studied the Donatist controversy in the early church. You know, the one where it was argued that the church should have no sinners in it at all ; none of those "weak folks" who to save their necks during the Diocletian persecution had made homage to Roman deities, but now after Constantine's conversion wanted back in the church. Augustine received them back well enough , maybe he knew his own "sinful" past so was not too judgemental, but another African bishop refused them...once a "sinner" always one, he thought! That sort of relates to this school's prerequisite: To enter the PhD in Biblical studies there, one cannot have been divorced! Nor can one be separated from his/her spouse. Nor can one be married to a divorced person.-- [ wonder if the grad signs an agreement to return the diploma should a marriage later fail / wonder if the never married, the untested ones , like St Paul, himself, are accepted]--None of these conditions fit me since my wife always puts up with my shenanigans! But how many noble and virtuous and faithful and "forgiven" too are able to in any other manner meet this school's prerequisites for the PhD program but are excluded for only this one . Were the basis of this 1 Tim 3 and the elder requisites, then howabout the other stuff like unruly kids the basis for exclusion, for exampe? Curiously, the masters in Biblical counseling there has no such prerequisite listed! Sigh. Go figure
Nor will they accept Pentecostal/Charismatic students. I spoke with the Ph.D. director via phone about two years ago. The guy was diplomatic, but stated that Pentecostals and Charismatics should look elsewhere for their Ph.D. studies. I wonder what would happen if a twice-divorced, separated from the third, Charismatic Baptist applied to the Ph.D. program?
I appreciated the position of Western Seminary, a Conservative Baptist school. I questioned some minor(in my view) points of the school's belief statement but was still allowed to enroll and graduate. I know of no reason why a charismatic (and I sort of am) should not be allowed at Western provided he/she is not argumentative to an extreme about that position. As to the marital issue that passage which I suppose BBS bases its restriction on (1 Tim 3) is subject to varied interpretations. Even were it not, where is the grace? Where is the "forgiveness" (if needed), where is the new chance in Christ, that I myself desperately need every day. See Chris and Russell, we can agree on *some* things
Amen br. Bill. I think the issue of grace gets lost. I have heard ridiculuous things such as a middle aged pastors whose wife leaves him is unfit for future pastoral ministry. That even though he may have lived a completley spirit filled life in accordance with the will of God and just been in a situation where his wife got tired of being married and left. On the other hand a pastor committing adultery, theft, etc. can be restored. Indeed, where is grace. You are also correct the the greek in the Timothy passage can mean a number of things. Christian legalists (who often have it wrong) make Christianity looked mean spirited and small. I seem to remember at one point the Grand Rapids Seminary had a similar issue (no divorced applicants or married to divorced person). I think they did have a provision that if you were married to a divorced person you could promise not to assume any church leadership role. Sigh........someone once said that Christians are the only ones that shoot their wounded. Rather strange considering that Protestants have a higher divorce rate according to Barna than other including no believers. North
WHO is being pompous and self-righteous? Frankly, I have no problem with BBC&S's position. One must understand that this is a school affiliated with GARBC (the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches), one of the most conservative of the various Baptist fellowships. Thus, they are closer to, say, the Bob Jones University line of thinking than the other Baptist Bible College (which is affiliated with the BBF, or Baptist Bible Fellowship, with which Falwell is alligned). (By the way, Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, mentioned earlier in this thread, is alco a GARBC school.) My position on BBC&S (for the unitiated, this thread is about Baptist Bible College & Seminary, in Clarks Summit, PA, just north of Scranton) is that they are quite credible. Unlike BJU, BBC&S is regionally accredited. I had the pleasure to speak on their behalf when I testified for various committees of the Pennsylvania legislature on the issue of counselor licensure. At the time, BBC&S was virtually the only Christian school that met the National Board for Certified Counselors' curricular criteria for licensure (in part, because the then-head of their counseling department was NBCC certified himself). Would I recommend BBC&S to someone seeking a doctoral degree? Without hesitation. And I say that with the knowledge that, because I am openly gay, they would not accept me as a student any faster than BJU would. But aside from any doctrinal disagreements one might have with them, from an academic perspective the school is outstanding, no doubt about it. And for those who do not meet their doctrinal criteria, there are plenty of other credible alternatives. Incidentally, I sat on the doctoral committee of a professor from the then-Philadelphia College of Bible Graduate School* (now Philadelphia Biblical University). The guy was divorced and remarried, yet has since gone on to become the provost of the grad school. BBC&S may be holding onto a more stringent behavioral code than many would like, but when one looks at the Bible college movement on the whole, you will find lots of schools that have learned the art of forgiveness. Thus, as long as the BJU's and BBC&S's of this world want to do their thing in a more constipated manner, who cares? Remember, the concept of Fundamentalism is relative. Many people would assume that schools like PBU and Moody, for example, are Fundy. And they're correct. But they don't hold a candle in terms of "moral conservatism" to Grand Rapids, BBC&S, or BJU. My criterion on how Fundy a school really is: Do they let me wear jeans and sneakers when I teach there? ______________________ * The usual disclosure statement: I have also taught at the PBU Graduate School. Hey, come to think of it, I even taught there two years after they found out that I was gay. They are quite clear in the notion that they do not support gay issues, but what can I say? When you're the best in your field . . . Seriously, when a school is up front about their position, people have the option of getting their rocks off by bitching about it, or simply acknowledging an open disagreement and using it as a launching point for discourse. I find the latter a far preferable option. Besides I know some really hot-looking Fundies . . .
Re: WHO is being pompous and self-righteous? Is Ian Paisley one of them? Maybe it is the Irish lilt and angry persona. Ahh.............I can see it now. Most kids of my generation grew up with Cheryl Tiegs swim suit posters. I cannot even imagine an Ian Paisley swim suit poster. Especially not before supper. All in jest. Thanks for your analysis Steve. I agree with you that if one does not like the particular politics (paradigm) of a school then choose another. I do not like graceless legalism but that is a school's right to orient itself that way if it chooses (or liberally, etc). That is what this country is all about (diversity & freedom). North
It would seem that if you take I Tim 3:2 quite literally the "single or unmarried" would not be elgible for ordination. But what the heck, I'm presbyterian and we are somewhat liberal.
Levicoff, Nobody is questioning the school's academic credibility or their right to run the school the way they want, merely expressing disagreement with a particular policy. Incidentally, Grand Rapids is no longer on the GARBC's list of approved schools. One of the requirements to be in the GARBC "network" (as they now term it) is that the school be and call itself Baptist. Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary is now part of "Cornerstone University". Since the name change, the GARBC pulled them off the list, but when I asked, their rep admitted they are still a fine school.
Not pompous, caring It has been suggested that to question this school's policy on admitting aspirants into the PhD program is being "pompous" (ie, trying to seem magnificent, being fond of display, trying to be self-important). Yet, this board regularly is filled with critical posts about schools, about the length or rigor of their programs , and about the utility of their degrees. Few such posters are ever called "pompous." Further, here one's personal political or even religious views are discussed and at times even attacked ! Neither are these posters much called "pompous." So why should my personal observation on this school's admittance policy be viewed and uniquely announced as "pompous"? I promise my motives are somewhat purer than pomposity. So, it is not just what regularly happens on this board that justifies my comment. It is also that I am a member of the (univeral) church, and so I care about upholding the forgiving nature of God and His right to lead as He will. I also have much interest in Christian higher education. Then too, I am concerned that Scripture be correctly interpreted and applied by others in the church. Yet it is not just the function of this board and ongoing posting by others nor my personal motives that should free me from being viewed as and uniquely called "pompous." It is also the nature and purpose of this school itself and its PhD program which should be seen as the issue, not the sincerity my motives. Can we agree that this school does not ordain pastors? Yes, the PhD's standard academic prerequisite is the ministerial degree, the MDiv, but that assumes that the applicant already is ordained, does it not? The school's function is rather to teach , not fuss with whether the applicant's ordination was a mistake or not! This school's own creed says local churches are independent. The local church chooses its own ministers and evaluates ministerial qualifications. The school's documents also reference the priesthood of all believers and the right of these to deal directly with God to establish their own mores for life and practice. Doesn't the school exist for the church, and not the church for the school? The creed of conduct says that personnel should follow the Spirit's leading. How then can the school exclude those who see divorce as a viable and Biblically supported alternative to a hellish marriage? Should the school be able hire whom it will? Of course! Should a school intended to serve the church exclude qualified candidates from programs whose spouses have left them? Not in my opinion! The school is not the spokesperson for God! Further, the PhD specifically is said to be a degree intended for teaching, not for ministry, so why apply supposed Scriptural ministerial personal qualifications to Phd aspirants? But there is another point to be elicited from the school's own nature. The school insists on "loyalty to *plain* injunctions of the Bible." However the Scriptural requisite for a specific marital status for ministry is not so "plain." Does "husband of but one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2, cf Titus 1:6) concern: (a) only marriage to the Church ? (a Roman Catholic position),or, (b)polygamy ?, or,(c) remarriage after death of spouse?, (or, d) excluding unmarried applicants ? (neither could these 'rule' their own 'house.'), or, (e) (never a ) divorce? Kent, who supplies this list, adheres to the last view (The Pastoral Epistles, 129). However Grudem believes that the present tense of the verb indicates that these criteria pertain to the ministerial applicants current status, not their past, ie, "not now a polygamist" (Systematic Theolology, 917). It seems to me this latter position better meshes with other Scriptures such as the *possible* grounds for separation or divorce (eg, see: Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:15) and also to divine forgiveness and restoration: 'What a wretched man I am..who will rescue me? I thank God through Christ our Lord" (Romans 7:24,25). Besides, why pick, define, and apply just this one prerequisite when the passage in 1 Timothy 3 has many criteria: above reproach, self controlled, hospitable, gentle, not quarrelsome, manage own family well, obedient children, good reputation outside the church, and some say masculinity too! Why not require an exhaustive personal inventory and do a FBI background check as well? I am saying that this view on divorce and ministry is not so plain after all. Personally, I could easily subscribe to both the lengthy BBS statement on beliefs and could abide by the school's code of conduct as well. That is not the issue. My issue is, if I have graduated from a Roman Catholic school (USD), it neither means that I am Roman Catholic nor that the school warrants the perfection of my character. If I graduate from a Nazarene school (Point Loma) it does not mean that I subscribe to holiness or Arminian distinctives nor does it mean the school recommends my theology or ministerial suitability. If I graduate from a cessationist and dispensational school (Western Seminary) it means not that I agree with the particularites of the Conservative Baptist denomination or that the school recommends me for the pastorate! These schools see it that to assume the role of dictating theology or marital status to their students would indeed indicate pomposity ,and my bet is that these schools as well would decide that he who questions the sincere motives of a Christian when that one expresses concern over a Christian school's prerequisites is acting himself most pompously. In other words, Steve, " Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" and, "whatever you say about me goes double for you", so,
"Baptists just aren't good party animals" Quote from Dennis Ruhl No they're not. But former Baptists are. Must be all those pent-up sins waiting to get out.
Re: Not pompous, caring Isn't the universal church a term used by Church of England types to refer to Catholics and churches who broke with Rome for political reasons, rather than doctrine, such as Anglican and Orthodox?
