Has anyone had any experience with the Open Theological College? Strengths? Weaknesses? I'm trying to determine if it might be a place to refer some potential students. I see that it is now a part of University of Gloucestershire. But didn't Gloucestershire recently eliminate their residence-based theological programs?
Re: OTC Hey Brad, I've not taken classes there yet, but that's the school with whom I'm seriously thinking of doing a BA (Honours) in Theology. I've corresponded with them, both by e-mail and phone, and they are pleasant folk. I don't know if you know the history of OTC's Theology program, but it was initially a product of six different participating UK colleges comprising the BA degree in theology. Different courses from the different colleges were available at the first level (year). The second level was fixed, and the third mostly fixed with some choice. There were, as I understand it, inputs from some of the other colleges for the second and third levels, but little choice offered for those levels. Initially, I was strongly attracted to London School of Theology (LST--formally London Bible College), but they had no BA degree via distance learning. This is where OTC came into play, because I could take all LST courses for my first year with OTC, thus getting most of my cake and eating it too! But something happened between LST (I believe the other colleges as well) and OTC so that they are not working together anymore. Based on my own research, here is what I've concluded about the LST's and OTC's current programs: LST: LST is developing a full BA degree via distance learning, but it's year out, if not more. There is little information yet about the third year cirriculum, and what I have heard about it (having talked with the director there--I forget his name), I wasn't satisified with where it's going; not enough theological breadth. For instance, one course is "Women in the church." Perhaps a fine course, but not broad-based enough for me. There was also the option to use first- or second-year courses to fill in the credits for the third year. Your best bet is to give the school a call, if you have questions about it, and talk directly with the director. Nice fellow. Finally, LST is very evangelical, the largest evangelical Bible college in the UK, I believe. OTC: Their first year is cirriculum is almost complete. Each year, as I'm sure you've seen in their prospectus online, is progressive: the first year prepares you for the second year; the second for the third. The range of academics is broad and covers a lot of territory. The third year looks really cool. Over all I like this program the best of all programs I've seen. The atmostphere, if that's the right word to use, of OTC is, however, slightly calmer, perhaps cooler than LST; LST has a brick-and-mortar college, which I think tends to liven the "feel" of the distance learning courses--one might feel more connected to a college with LST than with OTC. OTC is, as I understand it from others, not quite as evangelical as LST and will, as time progresses, probably move even further liberally away from evangelicalism, as I'm told. Well, that's OK with me, because I've already had the years of personal study to know the difference. For others, who aren't aware of modern, liberal scholarship, this might be a tad unexpected and more challenging than expected. (Oh, and one last thing...you can order all the first-year courses at the discounted price of 99.00 pounds (not dollars), which is a great price. This price will be available for about a year. Anyway, I hope this helps, Brad. Good luck, Starkman
I too am seriously considering OTC. In fact, I have already bought a book and started reading for the first class(Exploring the Old Testament). It looks like a real good school. It is also open to everyone. As far as being liberal, I disagree. They seem to be soundly evangelical in their beliefs but they do take on postmodernism and look at some of the new ways in which people interpret scripture. I have been looking into postmodernism and the emerging church quite seriously so I think this degree could be in line with where I want to go. Schools like Moody seem a little too rigid with where I am right now. If you are looking for a school which is evangelical and follows the historic christian faith, but is not scared to look at things in a fresh way and to help us reach this post-modern and post-christian world in which we live. I think this would be a good school for you. BTW - The introductory price is 90lbs/class, which works out roughly to about $165/class. This is a great price! There is an admission fee to each level of 110lbs. Peace, Travis
Yo, Unc, What I meant was (in reference to the "Women in the church" matter) is that for me, personally, I'm trying to catch up in church history, systematic theology--all those basics to fill in the gaps due (or is it "do"?) to a lack of formal education. I think the course on women in ministry would be great, but first things first for me, and OTC seems to offer more of that than LST. Hey Travis, A very reliable source told me that OTC is not as interested in being or staying as evangelical as, say, LST, and it is anticipated that OTC will move further away from evangelicalims as time goes on. Furthermore, a former student of OTC I talked with said that the some of the courses do present postmodernism and some source criticism as viable options, in that the cirriculum appeals to these concepts without, however, enforcing them upon the student. If this is true and OTC continues in this direction, they won't be able to maintain an evangelical claim. Now, I'm a little confused by your statements about the cirriculum, but I think I might have misunderstood it. Were you saying that OTC is moving along the direction of Postmodernism or that they simply bring it to the students attention? I do agree that Moody is rigid in its conservatism, and that's one of the reason why I like OTC. But I don't think OTC can continue to claim being evangelical if they're moving into a postmodernistic framework. Finally, listen, let's talk more about this. I've PMed you my e-mail address. It would be great to get more folk interested in a cyber connection regarding studying at OTC. Thanks much, Keith R. Starkey
Yo (?) Starkman. I know what you meant. Give the old clerical fart some credit. You also made a very funny, if neanderthal and sexist, unintentional pun. (Notice my utterly unmeant politically correct disclaimer.) I wish you well with your educational plans. Now go and sin no more.
[QUOTENow go and sin no more. [/B][/QUOTE] "Hail, Mary, the Lord is with thee...do pray for me, I beseach thee...and be quick about it!" Thanks Unc, Starkman
Oh, I agree, but it's not the first of importance either. I think a sound Christology, a sound understanding of Systematic Theology, etc. are more important for me at this time in my studies. Here's OTC's third year cirriulum that I'll be doing: Deuteronomy and Ethics The Theology of St Paul Advanced Hermeneutics* The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the NT and Today The Theology and Practice of Worship Christology and Atonement in Historical Perspective Mission Theology in Context Dissertation A study of women in the church is surely very important, but I've just got to go through this kind of stuff first in preparation. I agree with you. Further, I find that if there's any hierarchy to discuss in I Cor 11, it is God, Christ, man and woman in context to a much bigger picture than women's roles. Yes, I agree. I'll have to get to them, and other studies, as soon as I get the other stuff out of the way. I have to start somewhere. Oh, yes, Bill. I searched and searched out there for something, anything, with "Open" in its title! (Say, brothers can smack each other upside the head once in a while, can't they? )) Seriously, though, I found OTC through LST. I just wondered, though, what the hek "Open" meant. Yeah, the Open View did come to mind at first, only because I couldn't think of anything else "Open" could have meant...I mean, what, open to people? Duh! It was just one of those moments, you know! Starkman
Over all, yes, but on the other, how are we supposed to talk about gender roles in the Deuteronimic Codes if we first don't understand hermeneutics or even know that there is a Deuteronomic code or Pauline Theoloy. When all is said and done, the two (gender roles and the others) must be read and studied together--that's a given--but when specific attention is given to the role of women in the church, as is the course offered by LST, that is what creates the separation. You know what I mean, don't you? Starkman
Bill, you said: "Exegetically the role of women also is made a principal hermeneutic as that issue is pivotal in defining Christian worship as in 1 Cor chaps 11-14 or family living as in Eph 5, or ecclesiastical office as in 1 Tim 3, and is basic even to the very interpretion of the effects of salvation in such as Gal 3:28. Here the cross is seen as doing away with the hierarchical effects imposed by the fall. These effects, the roles of women and men, are not seen as creational but as the results of sin. So, as salvation removes the guilt , it therefore, removes, many think, the effects of guilt as hierarchical role differences between genders. You can see, then, how central the problem of women in Church and family is becoming. Even more significantly , The issue is inextricably now mixed in too , dangerously I think, with issues of the historical background of the texts as , eg, the NT writers just being influenced by the societal norms and familial codes of the day and bending to these rather than to any divinely imposed permanent norms for family and church life. Paul, eg, is said to be representing his own views , mirroring his culture, when he comments on the role of women, not God's dispositions." The Quakers believed that 350 years ago. In this and many other things, they were ahead of the times.
=== I think I know what you mean. But I look at studies systematically as all being interconnected. So, I don't see one as excluding another or causing a separation. I see instead synthesis. Western Baptist College has a whole division on Women Studies , yet that school as an organ of the GARB is not egalitarian. But anyway, best wishes in your studies,
350 years ago the Quakers believed (and did) a lot of bizarre stuff. Most of it they got over, and nicely, too, thanks to a few leaders (Penn, Barclay, but not necessarily Fox) who understood that "there's a difference between being a prophet and just being a jackass"*, known to later schwaermerologists as the Balaam Determinant. *Credit where credit is due: This phrase originates with William Sloane Coffin, Jr (betcha never thought you'd hear me quote him).
Besides being pioneers in the spiritual equality of women, Quakers were also pioneers in prison reform, mental institution reform, abolition of slavery, just treatment of Native Americans, religious freedom, peacemaking, etc. All this while Magisterial Protestants and Catholics were persecuting and murdering them and other Dissenters. One of the early Quakers, James Naylor, did some bizarre stuff, but no Quakers murdered others in the name of Christ, as the Magisterial Protestants and Catholics did--and that goes way beyond "bizarre."
=== You're right. Where is their willingness, those who persecute others, to follow Paul's requirement to LOVE as expressed in 1 Cor 13 and 1 Timothy 4 ?? Oh, see the pioneering Quakers! Yet, I suppose no denomination is free of the evils of its own membership. It is my understanding, eg, that it was quite common for some Quakers in the colonies to not oppose slavery but to in fact themselves own slaves. ** Probably I could find some in mainline churches who at that time were abolitionists. But I wouldn't conclude therefore that Northern Baptists were superior to Quakers! Also some of the more nationalistic might find it inappropriate that Quakers supported the King's sovereignty to levy taxes and whatnot, and support not the colonies independence, in the years leading up to the revolution. But then the King had been nice to them, so why not? Let Washington find followers elsewhere to fight his fight for freedom and not among the Quakers. I would like to clarify that evangelical complementarianism as taught by such as Grudem is not saying that women are not "spiritually equal." They (we) are saying that the New Testament (as well as the OT) teaches that the requisites for some ecclesiastical offices require that men hold these positions. I would not say that a consequence of this is spiritual inequality salvifically any more than is one spiritually less because he or she is not gifted in a certain manner. Not all are apostles, not all are prophets, not all are teachers BUT all are baptised by the same Spirit! I cannot contentedly replace Scripture with conscience and throw out those texts which teach complementarianism any more than I can those which require the sacraments! But I suppose if one feels bold enough to scrap even the sacraments, as do the quakers, then, hey, the little matter of Pauline directives about eldership should be of small import. Where is their willingness, those who deny THE SACRAMENTS AND THE MINISTRY, to follow 1 Cor 11-14 and 1 Tim 3 ??-- Oh see the pioneering Quakers! **historical observations from " Gausted, A documentary History of america, vol 1.
Some of the early Quakers in the colonies did own slaves, but thanks to the witness and preaching of John Woolman and others, the Quakers as a denomination oppopsed slavery and rid themselves of same long before anyone else did. The Quakers were pacifists; they said they would have no part of pulling down any government. Some Quaker bodies came to practice water baptism and the Lord's Supper; however, the Quakers do not deny the sacraments OR the ministry. They simply held that the sacraments were spiritual and that the outward elements were thus unnecessary; as for the ministry, Quakers had recorded ministers (preachers), elders, and overseers; further, to the charge that they eliminated the clergy, they responded that they rather had eliminated the laity, looking instead on all Christians as ministers. As for "Pauline directives," would you, Bill, require that women wear a head covering in church? if not, I would then ask you which Pauline directives should we accept as unalterable and which might we discard as being only for him and/or his times, and how may we know the difference?
=== Good questions: michael Just had a psychiatric crisis as I type with one of my sons --I will meet you on on offtopic in a day or so.
