a GSST doctoral dissertation

My understanding is that Dr. Kenny Rhodes holds a Doctor of Religious Education, and that the Online Theological Library was his doctoral project for this degree. The Online Theological Library can be found here. I will refrain from comment and leave it to others to decide for themselves whether they think it is worthy of a doctoral degree.

 

Hi Bill,

I think this is the second or third time you said this. Is there a chance ACCS will not? If not, why?

 

Well, dollink, now that my character, calling, and judgment have all been denounced by you, I feel much better. You keep displaying that combination of belligerence, equivocation, evasion, and insult which is popularly known as millspeak, with the toplofty addition of religious invective. Charmed, I'm sure.

This thread started with a link to, and comment upon, someone's dissertation (or diss in progress) at GSST. Since I am not a holder of the degree toward which that writer is working, I wondered what those with relevant experience thought. The results were fairly negative; the writer's piety was applauded but his writing level was questioned. What happened next? Poor, ubiquitous Dr Clifton turned up. Conflicting statements about your school's involvement with DETC were made or quoted. It was observed that when Dr Graves and Dr Clifton make logically exclusive statements, one of those statements must be false.

Then you began, dollink, to demand in effect that we choose between believing you (who art not to be questioned because you are "religious exempt") and believing DETC. While impugning the religious character of myself and other posters, you try to claim that no one should "judge" you. You have tried to garner reflected glory from, among others, Walter Martin, R C Sproul sr, James White, Norman Geisler, and Ravi Zacharias. Well and good. Given the tenor (countertenor?) of your posts, perhaps you will be able to complain to a future in-house audience how you were persecuted for the faith, just because your belligerence and obfuscation failed to impress us "lesser breeds without the law."

Here is the faculty credentials page from the GSST website:

http://www.goldenstate.edu/staff.htm

These gentlemen offer the D.Min., the D.R.E., and the Th.D.

 

Awright, Gus, I did use the link to Dr Rhodes' project. Now I have a question: in the line of computer stuff which appears at the bottom of the screen, why do the initials ACCS keep appearing?

 

===

Jimmy

It is my understanding that at the last TRACS review ACCS did not pass muster and that the school has until Nov to do so. I wish ACCS the best and have prayed for its success. You may wish to search here for ACCS as I posted the info in a thread about 4-6 mos ago.

regards,

 

I looked at Dr. Rhodes' project and have a couple of observations.

First, from the perspective of a ministry student, I find the content extremely useful and well organized. The sections on "historical studies" and "creationism" appear to be thourough, though maybe not completely exhaustive, IMO.

From the perspective of an IT analyst (just to establish some credentials -- I have been in the computer/application design business for over 20 years, including 2 as the managing director for a web/portal design company), the site is lacking in quality of presentation. It seems basic and unorganized.

The challenge is to seperate the content from the presentation. I would ask, if a professional web-development firm were to "redo" the site in an aesthetically pleasing and professional manner, would the research, effort, and organization of the content warrant the awarding of a DRE. (If in fact, one is "allowed" to evaluate the content seperate from presentation in this context)

 

I looked at Dr. Rhodes' project and have a couple of observations.

First, from the perspective of a ministry student, I find the content extremely useful and well organized. The sections on "historical studies" and "creationism" appear to be thourough, though maybe not completely exhaustive, IMO.

From the perspective of an IT analyst (just to establish some credentials -- I have been in the computer/application design business for over 20 years, including 2 as the managing director for a web/portal design company), the site is lacking in quality of presentation. It seems basic and unorganized.

The challenge is to seperate the content from the presentation. I would ask, if a professional web-development firm were to "redo" the site in an aesthetically pleasing and professional manner, would the research, effort, and organization of the content warrant the awarding of a DRE. (If in fact, one is "allowed" to evaluate the content seperate from presentation in this context)

 

http://www.onlinetheologicallibrary.org/

The above link from the ACCS website answers my question. It may well raise others.

 

Hi Michael:

Thank you for your post. I understand that it's sort of apples-and-oranges (a religious degree and a website design), but is assembling a website the equivalent of doctoral-level work? I know nothing about your professional field, and would be interested in your assessment.

By the way, the degree nomenclature MMin is normally (in ATS terminology) a rarely used equivalent to MDiv--a three year or 3 year plus intern year degree. It has been employed by schools that find the term "divinity" objectionable as presuming beyond our mortal station; at least one (RA/ATS) school at one point offered its graduates the choice of either nomenclature.

I concur with Bill's advice to you, and wish you all the best in your studies. Please do not settle for any lower standard in matters of theological education than you would accept in your highly technical "computer" work. It's easy to develop mistaken impressions when new to DL--I certainly did, and was corrected by the information freely presented in this forum and by Dr Bear's books. Your time, your money, your efforts, and your religious commitment are too important to be trifled with by substandard programs or self-serving rhetoric.

Janko

 

Thank you, Bill,

I do remember reading some of the posts but was not aware of any recent developments. I appreciate your response because I know you are busy.

 

Assembling the website (creating the actual HTML code to present the information) is a mundane task at best. The work would be rooted in researching the internet and weeding through the endless wasteland of information to extract what is valuable, pertinent, and worthy of analysis. This effort could be substantial. I am certianly not qualified to judge what is or what is not doctoral level work in this collection process, I will leave that up to more qualified individuals.

I do think more care should have been taken in the presentation, the elementary format detracts from the quality regardless of the nature of the content.

Not sure what idea you were expressing here, but GSST offers a MMin in OT, NT, or Bible History. This is the degree program I am completing. I am not working on an MDiv or MTh. I hope I have not misunderstood.

It may surprise you, but I could not agree with you more. I would NEVER attempt to argue the utility of a UA degree; I do not intend to transfer the credits. I am in school simply for self improvement. I chose GSST for three reasons. (1) I wanted to study Bible/Near East History in a conservative christian environment (one of few I found), (2) the program was 100% DL (this was a must), and (3) courses were only $125 each (reasonable).

I have three teenagers, all enrolled in private, christain colleges and one in a state college. Perhaps after they graduate, I can afford an RA institution that provides the course of study I am interested in. For now I simply want to learn and a definitive course of study with completion criteria provides me a much needed incentive.

 

Many of the GSST faculty have a "DMin (c)" from ACCS. What does the "(c)" indicate?

 

==

It signifies that they are only candidates not yet graduates. I hope what it means is that all course work is complete and only the nine hour project is left undone.

 

Hi Bill: My point is that schools offering the 1-year MMin are guilty of willful confusion with the standard 3-year MDiv aka MMin. Obviously, anybody can call anything anything--and many disreputable schools do just that. I did not want Michael fooled into thinking that a one-year "MMin" from GSST was somehow equivalent to the standard 3-year ATS-accredited MDiv aka MMin. He seems clear on that, which is what I wanted. I am sure from his posts that his intentions are honorable; since he knows the difference, he won't exploit the understandable confusion. However, schools that play this sort of nomenclature game are behaving badly. Remember Evansville?

 

===

One evidence of the GS unevenness with some other schools and the GS degree nomenclature being out of the mainstream is that the GS ThM program but parallels in prerequisites and duration the school's MDiv. But typically the US ThM is a four degree as at Dallas TS not a three year program. In schools which do offer the MDiv too, DTS does not, that three year MDiv is the prerequisite for entering the ThM , as at Western. Even The Master's Seminary , which has been claimed in this thread as being receptive to GS transfers, has the MDiv as a three year degree and the ThM distinctly as a four year advanced degree. There the MDiv is the prerequisite for ThM studies.

This is one more example of GS doing things in ways differently than accredited schools. But these different ways so far seem not in a direction which equals or surpasses RA/ATS accredited schools. Curiously, the 2001 Trinity, of Indiana, catalogue also reduced the normal requirement for the ThM. One way, IMO, for unaccredited schools to demonstrate their worth is to toe the line on requisites and rigor and by that evidence no mannerisms of being less than what they claim to be equal to.

To take out of context a statement of one of my heros, "Avoid all appearances of evil."

 

I have been following this particular aspect of this thread and did some comparisons of various degree programs at some of the best seminaries around. I notice Earlham School of Religion, if I am reading it correctly, offers the M.Div. and M.Min. and both require three years. Meadville-Lombard and Thomas Starr King seem to be a little different from other program offerings at other seminaries. It looks like even accredited seminaries vary among themselves. I do see GSST requiring 90 units for the M.Div. and 39 units for the M.Min. This aspect of this thread has been particular enlightening and enjoyable. I don't think anyone doubts or questions state licensed and/or approved Bible colleges and seminaries are less stringent than accredited ones. Of course, even among accredited theological schools stringency varies. Compare the M.Div. at ESR to the M.Div at Starr King. Also, check out the price of the Starr King M.Div., wow!

 

The MDiv/MMin at ESR are one and the same program. There is no "both". The alleged variance between SKSM and standard ATS MDiv programs is nugatory; the portfolio and conference components comprise the same amount of work as an additional six hours. ML's only unusual feature is the intensives allowing UU students at other seminaries to integrate their work at ML.

Besides, if the point (assuming there is one) is to show any coherence between GSST and accredited seminaries, why pick three most liberal schools (two Unitarian Universalist and one Quaker) to serve as points of comparison to an ostensibly fundamentalist outfit like GSST?

Do seminaries differ? Sure, or, if you prefer, duh! Do accredited seminaries use fairly consistent nomenclature, expect their faculty to hold accredited terminal degrees, present their websites in standard grammatically correct English, and NOT spew endless obfuscation about what their NON-accreditor did or did not do? Why shore! Do ethical non-accredited schools follow the same pattern, if often--not always--at a lower intellectual level? Why shore!

Here is a simple test for the decency and competence of a seminary: do its officials and students fudge about what goes on there? (This is a yes/no question; essay answers will be presumed to come either with or without walnuts.)