another reason for TRACS?

=======================================

But for two issues: MANY DMins teach bib/theo AND some schools offer DMins IN bib/theol!!!!!!!!!!!

===========================================

 

I think that the answer is clearly yes.

First of all, a number of the TRACS schools don't confine themselves to teaching Christian theology or Biblical studies. They teach degree programs in everything from history to biology, mathematics to business. I wonder about the propriety of teaching history exclusively from a Biblical point of view.

If we restrict our scope to theology, I seriously wonder if church history can be effectively taught while excluding the Roman Catholic and Orthodox contributions. I suppose that these things are taught, but if it is required that they be taught through an evangelical/fundamentalist lens, then they will inevitably be distorted.

I wonder about Biblical study that constrains acceptable answers to what the Bible is, how it developed, and how it is to be understood, before study even commences. Students' understanding can certainly grow, but only to the point that it fills the a-priori mold provided by mandatory faith commitments.

And I wonder about offering programs in broader 'religion' or 'religious studies' that exclude more than 90% of human religious experience from serious academic consideration.

Admittedly, TRACS isn't the only offender in these things by any means. It's not only an evangelical, a Christian or even a religious problem. "Political correctness" is a secular version of the same desire to predetermine the limits of acceptable inquiry.

And I will also admit that if we are talking about preparation for the clergy, about M.Div.s and D.Min.s, there is a legitimate concern that a denomination's clergy reflect the beliefs of that denomination.

But if we are talking general education at the bachelor's level, you have a real problem. And if you are talking more scholarly M.A.s and Ph.D.s, I think that pre-determining what that the possible bounds of inquiry must be before inquiry even begins is an intellectual and academic offense.

 

Hi BillDayson:
The humble Carpathian peasant, whom once more his betters have attempted to improve, figured that if he was going to quote the apostle Paul, he had better do it in Romanian so as not to offend his betters, who had already taken offense at his use of their language.
I regret any inconvenience my evasive maneuver caused you, and I appreciate your thought-provoking posts on the issue in question on this thread (whatever it is). Now that Dr Levicoff has arrived, I am sure that the boiars can fight their noble fight and we humble peasants can dung our gardens, as the King James Bible puts it, in a modest simulacrum of peace.
May your glass of tuica always be full and your porkpie hat always be slightly too small, my friend.
Janko

 

Hi Bill Grover:
Hau! My question wasn't rhetorical.
I was wondering if the demands of/for orthodoxy might be different in the case of a DMin than in the case of a ThD or PhD, since (I think) a DMin is more of an extension of seminary training and not a research degree in the way that a ThD or PhD is.
Ancient Carpathian blessings to you too, my friend.
Janko

 

=======================================

Actually Bill, I think in religious dissertations this predetermining is often required both by the space which no restraints would require, and by the qualifications of the candidate, and by the dictates of the Supervisor.

Frightening the way I agree with many of your points!

 

Dr Levicoff,
Thanks for the extended post. I wonder if ATS really escapes the establishment question. Even though it is not pervasively Christian, it is by definition religious as opposed to non-religious.
Could there be a problem still?
Janko

 

=====================================


Hi friend Janko: Neither was my answer rhetorical. While the requirements of the PhD/ThD would be different from the DMin, my response was that both the content (ie Theology) and the ulitarian outcome (ie teaching theology) could be identical.

Therefore, a doc level class in theology, regardless of whether its members are DMiners or ThDers to be, needs to expose its students to variant views using the relevant primary literature for the research even if some authors fall out of the boundaries of conservativism.
BTW,

A theology text used by a TRACS school says 'monogenes' (eg Jo. 3:16) means 'begotten' so eternal generation is thus proven and so without eternal generation " God would not be God." Really????????? So, if I wish to research the usage of 'monogenes' in the Septuagint ---or see how that liberal Jew Josephus used it --- or use a lexicon of the LXX by a liberal, I will. And if I need to examine the meaning of its Hebrew counterpart 'ehad' in lexica by liberals I will. And if that theology text is a bit narrow and its claim not evinced, well then, I reject it! (and already have!) And SO should a Dmin student too!

The rain falls on the "just" and the "unjust" and if I seek juicy exegetical apples, and one is in a liberal's orchard, I will pluck it!

Xaris to you my friend,

 

okie dokie

I give up: what's the text and which school uses it?

 

==============================================


The eternal generation of the Son, ie, that the Son receives His Personhood or deity or some might even say essence from the Father, based on such as Ps 2:7, Jo 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jo 5:18; Heb 1:6, has been expressed in Nicaea, Chalcedon, Augustine, Arminius, the Reformational creeds as Westminster and the 39 Articles , typically in Eastern orthodoxy, and in modern divines as Shedd, Hodge , Lewis and Demarest, Wiley,
Grudem, and in...........

...........the text of your question: J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology. (used for Theology 6033)!

Frequently attached to this view is a functional subordinational system of eternal trinal relations wherein the Father is the Monarche of the trinity and the Son and the Spirit are busy from eternity going about attending to the Father's will . This extension of the doctrine of eternal generation is the topic of my UZ dissertation. The newness in my thesis is the method I'm using to challenge it.

Not that my opinion is new, for that doctrine is rejected somewhat by Athanasius, vehemently by Calvin, repeatedly by Erickson, and as well is tossed aside by Warfield , Buswell, and Belizekian, and Bess!

So, how does such an expressed dogmatism as "God would not be God without this eternal generation" (page 93) find acceptance? Well Rodman evinces his view with the article in TDNT by Buschell on 'monogenes.'. TDNT is a 10 vol lexical set edited by Kittel of Tubingen whom I bet was not "evangelical." Certainly some of its contributers as Rudolph Bultmann is not! I much use TDNT too, it's great, so I see no problem. But the school which uses Rodman's text, my school, ACCS, says, "Unless specified in your class the student should use mainline evangelical sources that uphold historic Christianity." (from Writing Research Papers For American Christian College and Seminary). Understand, the theology text DOES, but the student should not, hmmm?

Well, I don't think, I cannot imagine, that this means a doctoral student, a full member of the Evangelical Theological Society cannot take advantage of the erudition of even non evangelicals when it contributes toward establishing tenets which fall within the borders of evangelicalism. But I'll let you know after my first course grade! Something always comes up;doesn't it? Just like when I candidated at a church which was losing members to the AG down the street and listened to the cessationist elder teach his adult SS class that 1 Cor 13:8-10 means no gifts today! Of course your friend FATMOUTH began his sermon with, "Hmmm I disagree with that!"

Apologies to those not interested in theology;this does however do with learning and distance learning.

 

Kittel was a stinking Nazi, unlike his father.
Compare the Delitzsches, father and son.
Same thing. Schweinerei.

 

================================
There you go again with that colorful language!
================================

 

Dr. Levicoff has arrived? Where??? (I've always wanted to meet the guy. I hear he's hot.) But I digress . . .

Anyway, the chapter I wrote on church-state issues in my 1994 book on TRACS was written in the specific context of TRACS.

The same arguments, of course, could be used to discuss other pervasively sectarian accreditors such as AABC or the Association of Advanced Rabbinical & Talmudic Schools.

ATS, of course, is not as pervasively sectarian because they do not focus on doctrinal issues. Ditto ACPE (which accredits clinical pastoral education programs), since CPE tends to avoid doctrine in the interest of accommodating all religion, thus their focus on training chaplains (who, by nature, do not evangelize per se).

The more direct answer to your question, dear Uncle, is that because of the structure of the First Amendment, we are sometimes caught in a delecate balancing act between the areas of Establishment versus Free Exercise. On one hand, to governmentally accommodate anything religious can be construed as a violation of the Establishment Clause. But, on the other hand, not to accommodate anything religious could be construed as a violation of the Free Exercise clause. (Note that I specifically used the term accommodate rather than endorse.) Thus, teachers in public schools cannot lead students in prayer, but students can pray together in an after-shool club that is student-initiated and student-led.

My argument on church-state issues regarding TRACS was merely icing on the cake in the book. In fact, I saw (and still see) TRACS as a duplication of efforts - a bunch of renegades who wanted to do the same thing that AABC, ATS, and even the regionals were doing in terms of accrediting programs. TRACS was, and still is, a back door to accreditation, historically claiming that the other accreditors would not recognize their programs. In fact, the others would always have recognized those programs if the programs were up to par.

In terms of the church-state factor, it's the old caught-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place scenario. For the Department of Education to approve TRACS implies an endorsement of their pervasively sectarian standards, but not to approve them would have implied hostility to religion (notwithstanding that DoEd had already recognized AABC, ATS, etc.).

 

Thanks. (Can I say that?)

 

[
"Acum dar ramin aceste trei: credinta, nadejdea si dragostea; dar cea mai mare dintre eie este dragostea."--Pavel [/B][/QUOTE]

=========================================

Janko, Uncle Janko... I, I, think I am experiencing glossolalia, or the interpretation of same, but, are you not citing 1 Cor 13:13??



If I'm wrong, don't bother telling me!

============================================

 

And your pastor was Tim LaHaye? (This is where a big-grin smiley would normally appear.)

 

==============================

Steve, even then I was elected to eclecticism

 

Buna seara, Bill.
Well done.
Janko

 

If this is in reference to Russell's comment again then don't you think you have gotten enough mileage out of that. Russell is a Pastor & expressed an opinion. He seemed to have been under the possibly mistaken belief that you were also a pastor of some sort. I do not remember you saying you were or that you had any sort of call on your life in that direction.

You have posted some interesting perspectives and I look forward to continuing to read them.

North

 

"Russell is a Pastor and expressed an opinion."