Bethany Divinity College and bad "press"

I hope people interested in theological distance education pay close attention to this thread.

DG

 

You're likely referring to Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Bill. I have a good friend with MDiv and ThM degrees from the school, and he's now pursuing a PhD in New Testament at DTS.

I should note, however, that CBTS is now pursuing regional accreditation. They've recently lost some well-credentialed faculty members to The Master's Seminary and Northwestern College, but they still have a cadre of highly qualified professors.

 

Now notice the difference.

The Dallas guy can post calmly and factually; the Bethany of Dothan guy impugns the intelligence and character of other posters. What does this say--not about stellar Dallas, which does not inhabit the same universe (dispensation?) as Bethany of Dothan--but about the unaccredited sem whose degrees have been accepted as prereq's at Dallas? Simple. It says that that unaccredited seminary does not need shills and screamers, and that it can prepare students for the rigor of an academically first-rate school.

Perhaps Ed can enlighten us more specifically on why CBTS is the rare exception--and maybe even why in DTS' view Bethany of Dothan isn't.
_______________________

Furthermore, I have always found Alan's posts to be aboveboard and welcome his contributions. He does not engage in special pleading or try to scare people by loudly rattling the skeletons in his closet, nor does he demand carte blanche for, um, creative assertions. Maybe we'd all stop talking about Bethany of Dothan if it quit engaging in shilling, whining, fake repentance, and phony accreditation stories.

 

Sorry for the duplicate posts.
Better duplicate than duplicitous.

 

(Finally, have not been able to post all day--75 second problem again)

Now, what's your point here? I had no trouble reading or understanding this as I am sure Drs. Sherman and O'Donnell could. I don't agree with everything in the article. That's the problem with looking at the "original" Greek. Everyone has a different interpretation of what the words mean. For instance, "Gehenna" and "Hades" are not interpreted as "Hell" by all. "Oinos" and "Gleukos" don't share a singular interpretation by all. "Pneuma" does not have the same meaning by all interpreters. A knowledge of Greek does not particularly mean sound exegesis. As a matter of fact, there is more eisegesis than exegesis in Biblical interpretation. Why do you think there are so many denominations?

You use John 1 a lot in your remarks that a knowledge of Greek is essential to Scriptural interpretation. Naturally, you have an excellent understanding of this as this is, I believe, the topic of your dissertation. In an example of preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative construction you state people with doctorates would be embarrassed if a Greek student asked them about the lack of an article (theos en ho logos). I seriously doubt many in ministry today with doctorates would be able to answer this. Robert Schuller probably could not. Perhaps Lloyd Ogilvie and James Kennedy could but they are scholars. Does this mean those who cannot are incompetent?

Also, how about other Biblical languages? Would most accredited doctoral holders know what the Latin "masculorum concubitores" in First Corinthians Chapter Six means? Would they know what the Aramaic words "zanaya" or "malakas" in this verse mean? Would they know the difference in Chapter Seven between "glaz" and "gnaz" and how that changes the meaning of 7:5?

How about the differences between "nehstvon" and "methawon" in Matt. 18:19 and how these words change the meaning? What about "miltha" in John 1:1 and how it compares and contrasts to the Greek "logos"?

Would it be right to condemn a D. Min. with a concentration in pastoral counseling because he cannot describe, in detail, the patient-placement criterial of ASAM for the addicted populations? What about the criteria of CIWA? Would it be wrong to condemn the same for not being able to compare and contrast the pastoral counseling methods of Clyde Narramore, Jay Adams and Larry Crabb?

What if he/she cannot discuss the theory of inner conflicts as proposed by Karen Horney or discuss her ideas of this in conjunction to theology? What about discussing, in detail, Howard Clinebell's wholistic approach to counseling? Do all pastoral counselors with D.Min.'s in pastoral counseling know how to execute an emergency detention? Do they understand the Cycle of Violence Wheel? Can all of them discuss the reconstrutive/constructive theories of memory or even discuss Elizabeth Loftus's ideas on repressed memory and compare and contrast it to Charlotte Prozan or Reinder Van Til or even discuss his "hermeneutics of suspicion?" If not, does this disqualify them from helping people via pastoral counseling?

See how absolutely absurd and ridiculous this is?

No, just because someone doesn't know what you or some others know, doesn't mean they received a poor education. Everyone is not equally educated. Not every D.Min. or Th.D. or Ph.D. (all from acccredited institutions) knows what the other does. The Harvard graduate The Rev. Dr. Forrest Church, All Souls Unitarian Church, NYC, could walk circles around most DTS, ACCS, LRS, Fuller faculty. Does this mean they are poorly educated?

 

I wanted to take a look into the Bethany forum to see how beat up I am getting over there, and it is now open again to the general public.
If you would like to see the original comments that triggered this discussion, you can find them under "Utility of Bethany Degree"

 

You are not getting beaten up. Don't flatter yourself.

 

Agreed!

 

Sounds like an excellent program. Wish I'd known about it when I lived in Detroit for two years. Oh for the "shoulda, woulda, coulda's" of life!

 

Well, the Detroit Baptist TS is sure a cut above Bethany of Dothan as far as faculty credentials are concerned. They're a mix of RA, NA, and BJU, with a heavy representation from Grace TS in Winona Lake, Indiana. Not my theological cup of tea a-tall, but they're certainly genuine credentials and evidence of a solid program with real integrity. Good for them!

 

Well, it appears Mr. Easton's alma mater, Briercrest, has some faculty members with unaccredited doctorates, including the Chancellor.

 

The curriculum at Central Baptist Theological Seminary is quite rigorous. Students I knew in the program were required to study both Hebrew and Greek for three years in order to earn the MDiv. To enter the ThM program, one must have completed a 96-hour MDiv with a GPA of 3.0 or higher, and possess a working knowledge of both Hebrew and Greek. As for faculty, Central boasts research doctorates from DTS, Grace, Westminster, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Over the years, MDiv graduates of Central have done quite well in the STM and PhD programs at DTS. Central thus established a solid reputation that smoothed the way for its graduates to enter on the same basis as students with accredited graduate degrees. This is true of a few other schools, as noted by Alan.

I think Bill hit the nail on the head when describing the academic standards he outlined as common knowledge. They truly are common knowledge. These standards are not held by a few extremists on DegreeInfo; they're adopted and upheld by the overwhelming majority in biblical and theological studies. This is true regardless of denominational affiliation or theological leaning. When such standards are not maintained in the world of nontraditional education, the delivery method is blamed and legitimate nontraditional programs are hindered in their efforts. That's why I think threads like this--and others evaluating certain dissertations--are immensely relevant to this forum.

 

Thanks very much, Ed.

As one of the cautious defenders of the utility of certain (few) unaccredited schools and programs, I am delighted that this Central Seminary is a strong enough school to merit favorable consideration from Dallas. Certainly the rigor you describe is worlds removed from schools w/o any worthwhile requirements, genuinely qualified faculty, or institutional integrity.

I would assume, also, that graduates and/or employees of this fine school would not feel the need to promote imaginary institutions, make creative assertions about real institutions, devise creative lists of degrees held, or sling mud at thoughtful exponents of DL.

I would assume yet further that graduates of this fine school would consider it morally wrong to do such things, and would not care to justify such actions behind a smokescreen of "repentance"..

Notice again, chuckwallas, the Dallas guy posts a coherent post with a credible explanation.

Notice yet again, chucks, the Bethany of Dothan guy gets ornery and trips over his own, um, fundament attempting to display knowledge.

And, yes, I do know what the Latin and Aramaic and "Aramaic" but really Greek words mean. And, no, I do not hold an accredited--or any other--doctorate. These terms populated low-grade theological bawdy when I was an undergraduate doing pre-sem.

Why does the Bethany of Dothan guy give these examples of his foreign language erudition? They do seem to run to a particular category. If he is applying them to other posters, he may well be in violation of the TOS. If he is applying them to himself, well, I can't imagine an explanation.

There is, my chuckwallas, a wonderful book if you are intrigued by the Bethany of Dothan guy's little list of ancient "dirty words." It is called "The Latin Sexual Vocabulary" and I seem to recall that the author's name is Adams and the publisher is Duckworth in the UK.

I concur with other posters about the invaluable character of this thread for anyone considering distance theological education. Wittingly or unwittingly, wittily or witlessly, the case for ironclad quality control is made to devastating effect; similarly, the results of the absence of quality control are eminently displayed.

 

I don't think anyone here would claim that knowledge of the biblical languages guarantees absolute certainty at every point in the biblical text. But it should ensure the ability to identify the legitimate interpretive options.

One without training in the biblical languages is not privy to interpretive options, and is relegated to the realm of uninformed ignorance. Such a person doesn't even know what he doesn't know. That's hardly preferable simply because differences exist amongst those proficient in the languages.

 

Ed, you are far more skilled in the Biblical languages than I am, since my ancient language ability (?) runs mostly to classical Latin and Greek. Tell me, is it a mark of erudition in Biblical languages to accuse others of ignorance for not knowing how the Peshitta translated various Greek words into Aramaic, or to accept the Peshitta as the original from which evil (sic) Hellenizers (sic)translated (sic) the NT into Greek?

Sorry, I almost forgot to ask about this.

 

You're most welcome, Uncle Janko.

Incidentally, it is not only DTS that accepts Central's unaccredited graduate degrees for doctoral work. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School has as well, as indicated by the credentials of the current chairman of the New Testament department at Central. This at least suggests Central's success is owed to more than a cozy arrangement with DTS. I think it's also significant to note that neither DTS nor TEDS--unlike Central--are fundamentalist schools. Central stands on its own academic merit, as all schools should.

 

An incomplete version from the early fifth century? Methinks extant Greek New Testament fragments predating the Peshitta pose a slight problem for this view.

 

Briercrest

I think the discussion was about if Bethany had any faculty members with accredited advanced degrees in their Bible/Theology department, was in not Jimmy?
Seems to me you fail to notice and/or mention that Briercrest has quite a number of those with accredited advanced degrees in their Bible/Theology department, including several with academic doctorates. Funny you fail to mention that!