S T A Y A W A Y from Saint Regis Univ

No harm done Unc. I knew you were referring to Dennis's earlier post. Now I don't suppose you have a dog that has been ordained by ULC?

 

The most beautiful wedding I have ever attended was conducted by a ULC minister (my next door neighbor) on a bluff overlooking the Pacific ocean at Montana de Oro state park. I was moved.

A-priori, I have as much respect for ULC ministers as I have for any ministers. No more and no less. A-posteriori, my assessment of any clergyman depends on my impression of the individual concerned.

There's a divine-relationship aspect, but that's a matter between each individual and his/her god. I can't really comment on that. I can only comment on the visible effects of that relationship on an individual's life.

There's an personal aspect that's probably required in anyone who acts as somebody else's spiritual director. A fundamental centeredness or something. But that's an individual thing, a judgement call. Some have it (sometimes) and others don't. Being a clergyman seems to have little to do with it. My neighbor had it, at least on that particular day.

There's a legal aspect, and the courts have ruled that ULC ministers are legitimate clergymen in the eyes of the law.

Finally, there's an institutional aspect. This is the place where the ULC really fails. It definitely isn't the place to go if you want to affiliate with an historically established religious tradition.

Rather, ithe ULC is the place to go for free-form, do-it-yourself, open-admissions religion. Everyone his own priest. Personally, I think there's a valid place for that.

Bottom line: In religion, the only recognized accreditor is God. And nobody on Degreeinfo is Him.

Laugh all you want about ordained dogs, but not a single one of you can say that a dog doesn't have it's own relationship with God. Dogs can teach us things that clergymen can't.

My (now departed) dog never played any games with our heads and was always there for us, every day of her life, until we had to put her down to prevent her suffering in her terminal illness.

No minister can say that.

I'll remember her always, with love.

It's all right there in front of us. We only need the eyes to see.

 

Thanks for reminding those of us who believe of that precious truth.

 

The same position many take regarding schools which award degrees for no work.

 

Does someone deserve to have the title of REVEREND without attending several years of Bible College?

I have to agree with Russell. Any organization that awards degrees without study cannot be taken seriously.

 

I too submitted an online evaluation and just received the good news that I do indeed qualify for the Ph.D. in Educational Leadership. Note the following excerpt from my evaluation:

"Please send us your academic and prior work experience certificates by fax at X-XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once we recieve the documents, we will send you login information to view the documents online that you would be receiving from Saint Regis University after fulfilling the financial obligation of university. (Italics mine)

 

If ULC ordinations are analogous to degree mill offerings, then presumably they fall short of some objective standard.

What standard is it, and why should every clergyman be judged by that particular standard?

What if that individual doesn't believe that his/her religious path is to be found in that direction?

Why must all spiritual direction be restricted to a certain kind of clergyman, who must have studied certain things, even if those things are irrelevant or tangential to his or her own practice?

The ULC model doesn't purport to teach any esoteric doctrines to its clergymen. It simply recognizes that the status of religious practitioner has certain legal benefits, and that these benefits shouldn't be restricted to those who fit a single procrustean bed. The courts agree.

I'm more inclined to agree with you regarding degrees than ordinations.

There's an interesting dichotomy here between religious practice and scholarship, between Jerusalem and Athens as Tertullian's phrase puts it.

Religion involves our relationship with whatever it is that we consider divine. The relationship has a transcendent term, and objective and pursuasive standards of success or failure would seem to require divine and not human judgement. Our own intuitions of success and failure in this area are among our most personal and subjective feelings.

Scholarship involves the application of accepted scholarly method to a body of data provided by an historical religious tradition or by empirical observation of people's religious behavior. Standards are public and can be entirely human in origin, deriving from the integrity both of the historical tradition being studied and of the methods that are brought to bear upon it.

 

Quote by BillDayson


"What if that individual doesn't believe that his/her religious path is to be found in that direction?

Why must all spiritual direction be restricted to a certain kind of clergyman, who must have studied certain things, even if those things are irrelevant or tangential to his or her own practice?

The ULC model doesn't purport to teach any esoteric doctrines to its clergymen. It simply recognizes that the status of religious practitioner has certain legal benefits, and that these benefits shouldn't be restricted to those who fit a single procrustean bed. The courts agree." (end quote)

I agree with you that an individual should be allowed to pursue their own religeous path. However, a point has to be made that there is an assumption that an ordained clergyman/woman will use that ordination to lead and to teach people. Now if that teaching is to say a personal group of adherrants fine. If, however, that person is going to teach a particular established religion then there are bound to be problems.

Since I'm a Christian, I'll limit my example to the Christian faith/Church. If a minister comes up and either preaches something in direct opposition to or misinterprets the meaning of a particular text or texts it will cause confusion and misunderstanding. So, therefore, I think schooling should be mandatory for a minister because they are in essense teachers. If I'm clueless about the Latin language then I'll be a rather poor teacher of Latin. Even if I'm interested in Latin, but never had formal training to teach it the same problem would occur even if to a lesser extent. Heck, I have enough trouble with my grammer as it is in English, and that's my native language.

People trust their ministers to teach the truths of the Scriptures and to lead in the way the Scriptures teach. This is true, I'm sure, for other religions as well. If I teach something that is in error, I do great injustice to the people I'm speaking to. I am a Bible School grad and I've both preached and taught classes quite a few times. For me to go up and wing it or hope that I got something right without studying and being schooled properly I'm bound to teach a bit of heresy.

I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions to the rule. But I must truthfully say that as "knowledgeable" as I thought I was I was in for quite a few supprises and lessons in humility when I found some things I believed and even told to others wasn't entirely true but was stuff I picked up a long the way. Many of those things I heard from ministers.

Again, on an individual basis I agree with you, as well as agreeing with you concerning a lot of the "extra" classes that don't pertain to my studies. Do I need Calculus to be a good preacher? Naaaa, I don't think so! Should it be required? In my opinion, NO!!! This goes for others as well. I just used Calculus as an example.


Kevin

 

If a religious organization/fellowship chooses to bestow ordination upon a candidate, regardless of the candidate's education/training/experience, etc., this is indeed their prerogative to do so. When this entity ordains a candidate it is basically placing its "stamp of approval" upon the ordinant.

When one can go to a website, key in the name of a dog (dead for six months) and the dog is immediately ordained, no questions asked, well, ummmmmm.......something seems rather amiss.

Now:

The "courts may agree." Of course, the courts also ruled in favor of the person who spilled the piping hot McDonald's coffee. And the courts also said that OJ was innocent. The courts also ruled that..........

 

Maybe, maybe not. My dog gave me a great deal, and I will always treasure it. No clergyman has ever done as much.

If we treat something as a joke, it will appear to us to be a joke. If we treat it as an opportunity for beauty and subtlety, then it will shine forth with beauty and subtlety.

Precisely because it admits all comers, the ULC is like a religious Rorschach test. It means nothing in itself except a formal legal status. There's nothing there, except the things that we project.

The state is in no position to define the standards for legitimate religious practitioners. To do so would be to dictate matters that are essential to the free practice of religion.

A great many individuals out there have their own free-lance religious sensibilities, quite apart from any formal church membership. The ULC simply provides them the opportunity to take advantage of the available perks, such as they are.

 

I'm beginning to see the light, Bill. All I need now is a '69 VW van, plenty of flowers, a little hallucinogenic therapy and a ULC Ph.D. with which to philosophize about the deeper things in life.

 

Bill D.

I too have loved my dogs. The last six were Great Danes, a noble breed. The third dane we had, Jake, was a "boston"...looked like he had a tux on. He was the sweetest dog. The whole family loved him. He went on trips to BC and Calif with us. But one day after catching a limit of trout I forget and left the fish sack on the fence, a trout must have been in it and spoiled. Jake apparently ate it. A day or two later he was sick. I took him to the vet, but it was too late. I cried, just breaking out with uncontrollable sobs , for weeks. Eventually I got a pair of brindle twin puppies, but each dog I've had was in its own way special and not replacable. My current boy, Tonka, is very large,37'' at the shoulders, and is a Harl, (black with white splotches). He helps me in my attempt to control diabetes by pulling me up the hills when we walk. He too is very dear to me , so much more than just a pet! I think I understand your love for your dog!

 

It might be as effective as any other road to God, who knows?

In the immortal words of the Firesign Theatre: "We're all bozos on this bus".

 

For all the SRU alumni who read this board, I have documentary evidence (from SRU email addresses/personnel) to substantiate all claims made in this initial post of this thread. I am happy to provide it to anyone.

 

BillDayson: "Bottom line is: in religion, the only recognized accreditor is God. And nobody on degreeinfo.com is him."




How do you know.

 

I have to admit, I've wondered about Steve Levicoff.