Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

I apologize. I didn't mean for it to be counsel. Occupational hazard, I guess.

I understand anger, righteous anger. But I don't think Jesus resented the money changers, I don't think Paul resented Peter's errors or authority, I don't think he resented falsehoods and ignorance. Righteous anger, yes; resentment, no.

Righteous anger is resolved. The very word resentment implies no resolution. It means "to feel again," time and time and time again until the anger turns to bitterness and that bitterness becomes deeply rooted within.

Not being able (or wanting too) to let go is not good. Sooner or later you have to realize not everyone sees things as you and there will always be those who take the easy way out. This is a fact of life. We have several choices in dealing with life. We can deal with the realities of life constructively (resolve the anger) and we can adapt to change (self, attitudes).

I don't always agree with some of the schools you mentioned insofar as their statements, accreditation claims, rigor, etc. But, the fact remains they exist and some choose to "study"there. You cannot change this, Bill. This is one of those realities you will have to constructively accept and deal with. They exist, there is a market for them, and many independent churches and denominations accept their graduates for pastoral ministry.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

I don't doubt you prayed and searched your soul, Bill. You are a very sincere, spiritual, studious man of God. You are to be commended and I commend you.

But I think you are too narrow. For instance, if I enroll in the M.Min. program at Temple Baptist Seminary (TRACS) should the Earlham School of Religion (ATS) M.Min. graduate be "angry" or "resentful" that my program is not so rigorous as his at ESR?

Should the M.Div. student at ESR be "angry" or "resentful" that his program is more rigorous than Temple's? No, because choices were made. The ESR student chose his program and the Temple student chose his program.

Another example. I have three friends (Yes, I actually have three!) two of whom graduated from the graduate counseling programs at Eastern Illinois University (Charleston) and one from the University of Illinois (Champaign). All three graduated with at least a 3.5 GPA. Both of these RA schools have excellent counseling programs. Do you think they should resent me for obtaining the same degree as they when mine came from Bethany?

 

Feeling your oats--or not

Jimmy, if you enroll at Temple Baptist Seminary your curriculum will be substantially more rigorous than that of Earlham School of Religion for the same MDiv/MMin degree--and in this case it doesn't matter a hoot that TTU-TBS is TRACS and ESR is ATS.

 

Re: Feeling your oats--or not

You really think so? I would not have thought so. I base this on my own enrollment in the M.Div. program (six courses) 20-plus year's ago that ESR would be much more rigorous.

I am 99% sure I will enroll in Temple so I will let you know.

Thanks!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

I apologize. I didn't mean for it to be counsel. Occupational hazard, I guess.



I understand anger, righteous anger. But I don't think Jesus resented the money changers, I don't think Paul resented Peter's errors or authority, I don't think he resented falsehoods and ignorance. Righteous anger, yes; resentment, no.

====

Could you explain why my anger cannot be righteous anger? I disagree; I think that Paul did resent false teachings and error.

====

Righteous anger is resolved. The very word resentment implies no resolution. It means "to feel again," time and time and time again until the anger turns to bitterness and that bitterness becomes deeply rooted within.

====

IMO while possibly you are right in some technical sense in your definition of resentment, the dictionary simply defines it as anger. That is how I use it. Resentment which is not durative yet is real in the time it is felt. If something is resolved between two angered parties, that doesn't mean the resentment was not real before agreement was made.

=====

Not being able (or wanting too) to let go is not good. Sooner or later you have to realize not everyone sees things as you and there will always be those who take the easy way out. This is a fact of life. We have several choices in dealing with life. We can deal with the realities of life constructively (resolve the anger) and we can adapt to change (self, attitudes).

=====

I do realize that not everyone sees things as I do. However, my way of seeing them pretty much is the way accredited schools and schools whose graduates are successful in accredited doc programs see them. So, I guess I'm in pretty good company.

=====



I don't always agree with some of the schools you mentioned insofar as their statements, accreditation claims, rigor, etc. But, the fact remains they exist and some choose to "study"there. You cannot change this, Bill. This is one of those realities you will have to constructively accept and deal with. They exist, there is a market for them, and many independent churches and denominations accept their graduates for pastoral ministry.

======

I agree that I cannot substantially change these things. But I don't think that I ,therefore, should keep quiet about them.

======

But I think you are too narrow. For instance, if I enroll in the M.Min. program at Temple Baptist Seminary (TRACS) should the Earlham School of Religion (ATS) M.Min. graduate be "angry" or "resentful" that my program is not so rigorous as his at ESR?

=======

No Earlham should not unless Earlham has evidence of great deficiencies at Temple. But Temple has submitted its programs and faculty qualifications to a CHEA approved accreditor. Andersonville has not, neither has LBU! Therefore, I have reasons to assume that Temple requires genuinely rigorous l work supervised by genuinely qualified faculty. And I have reasons to think that ATS and LBU in doc studies in Bible do not. My"narrowness" does not apply to accredited schools usually ; your comparison, therefore, is inappropriate.

=======
Another example. I have three friends (Yes, I actually have three!) two of whom graduated from the graduate counseling programs at Eastern Illinois University (Charleston) and one from the University of Illinois (Champaign). All three graduated with at least a 3.5 GPA. Both of these RA schools have excellent counseling programs. Do you think they should resent me for obtaining the same degree as they when mine came from Bethany? [/B][/QUOTE]

========

First let me say that I don't feel qualified to evaluate Counseling programs. Repeatedly I have in this and several related threads, as the Louisiana Baptist University one, tried to limit my remarks to doctoral degrees in Bible not in praxes.

I take the unusual, if posters in these sort of threads are any representative example, that unless I have accredited graduate degrees in a subject , then I am not likely qualified to say what indicates rigor in the graduate study of that subject. I keep my mouth shut about doc programs in counseling because I've not done one!

Second, let me point out to you that I think I never said that my anger was directed toward graduates of easy doc programs, but toward the choices they make and the availabilty of such programs. As an example, I am not convinced that Paul in Galatians 2:11 hated Peter or that Jesus in John 2 hated the money changers, but I think Jesus and Paul were angry at what they saw these individuals doing and the circumstances that allowed that.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

Unresolved anger need not turn to bitterness. One can use the energy and commitment that anger carries to fuel a campaign of change. My own experience is that most people stop far short of doing the things, waging the battles, of which they are capable. Frequently this is due to fear of some sort. Anger can overcome that fear and allow people to accomplish great things. The danger is in going too far and allowing courage to turn to recklessness. Bill does not strike me as being reckless. One commited person can make a difference in the world.
Jack

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

Could you explain why my anger cannot be righteous anger? I disagree; I think that Paul did resent false teachings and error.

I agree your anger could be "righteous anger." But you used the word "resent" and I think that implies a harboring of bitter feelings that never results in any type of resolution. If you are angry about a situation now, that is not bad; if you are still angry about it ten year's from now (resentment: to feel again and again and again,) ad infinitum, then there is a problem.

I do realize that not everyone sees things as I do. However, my way of seeing them pretty much is the way accredited schools and schools whose graduates are successful in accredited doc programs see them. So, I guess I'm in pretty good company.

True, but one doesn't see accredited schools on a constant tirade about schools whose programs are less rigorous. Accredited schools simply acknowledge the schools you don't like exist and go about the business of educating their students.

I agree that I cannot substantially change these things. But I don't think that I, therefore, should keep quiet about them.

And do you honestly think you can effect change in these situations? Aren't you wasting valuable time, energy, and effort that could be more productively and constructively used teaching, writing, and lecturing about the Bible, faith, Christianity, Philippians 2, etc.? Wouldn't those in the captive audiences profit more from this course of action than the constant tirade against substandard schools, degree mills, and fraud?

First let me say that I don't feel qualified to evaluate Counseling programs. Repeatedly I have in this and several related threads, as the Louisiana Baptist University one, tried to limit my remarks to doctoral degrees in Bible not in praxes.

I commend you. I need to stay out of areas I either have limited or no knowledge. Actually, this was, forgive me, a set-up question. You sly devil, you didn't fall for it. My three friends, all with RA graduate counseling degrees from two of the finest schools in Illinois, and all who had at least a 3.5 GPA, and I took the National Clinical Counselors Mental Health Exam in Springfield a number of year's ago. Passing this test was essential for licensure as a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor. They failed; I didn't.

Second, let me point out to you that I think I never said that my anger was directed toward graduates of easy doc programs, but toward the choices they make and the availability of such programs. As an example, I am not convinced that Paul in Galatians 2:11 hated Peter or that Jesus in John 2 hated the money changers, but I think Jesus and Paul were angry at what they saw these individuals doing and the circumstances that allowed that.

I agree, they were angry. But, after Jesus ran the moneychangers out of the Temple, he didn't stew (resent) on it for minutes, hours, days, or years. I am afraid you will still be on this kick in five or ten years from now with no efficacy. As an example, your letter to the Higher Learning Commission about Trinity was futile, was it not?

Sometimes in life, Bill, we just have to let things go. As a Calvinist, I wonder how you reconcile the existence of such programs.

 

Janko: "...if you enroll at Temple Baptist Seminary your curriculum will be substantially more rigorous than that of Earlham School of Religion for the same MDiv/MMin degree--and in this case it doesn't matter a hoot that TTU-TBS is TRACS and ESR is ATS."


Very true. I have looked closely at TBS, including requesting some of their course syllabi. I think they are a very solid school, with particular strengths in the Old Testament, mostly due to J. D. Price. While I don't agree with them on everything, I think they merit wider attention than they receive.

Those separatist baptists in Chattanooga take their doctrinal position quite seriously, i.e., I doubt they admit non-Trinitarian students.

 

Yes, they are very strict. The founder, Lee Roberson, founded the Southwide Baptist Fellowship which is further to the right than the SBC.

As far as their admitting a "non-Trinitarian," I think you must have missed my post of several weeks (maybe months) ago wherein I stated I have changed my position on this issue due to some very serious research.

I came to the conclusion anti-Trinitarians really don't have any substantial scholarship to support their positions and the Trinitarians do. The anti-Trinitarians support their position with Biblical verses taken at face value (and eisegesis) but without any serious exegesis.

Anyway, I have applied and if accepted, I will enroll.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

I agree your anger could be "righteous anger." But you used the word "resent" and I think that implies a harboring of bitter feelings that never results in any type of resolution. If you are angry about a situation now, that is not bad; if you are still angry about it ten year's from now (resentment: to feel again and again and again,) ad infinitum, then there is a problem.[/b]


===

As said, my working definition of "resent" is " to be angry. " That is my dictionary definition. You are, of course, allowed to define it differently from how I use it. But I think my feelings or the possible outcome of them should be based on my definition of those feelings since they are mine.
===

True, but one doesn't see accredited schools on a constant tirade about schools whose programs are less rigorous. Accredited schools simply acknowledge the schools you don't like exist and go about the business of educating their students.

===

But I am not a school. I am an individual posting on a discussion forum.

It seems to me that some here are as equally constant and fixed and vocal in their own " defense mode " of less than wonderful programs as I may be in my "attack mode" of the same. Do you think it has ever occured to such that if they'd just quit incessantly posting about the imagined virtues of lackluster schools, then , perhaps I would stop attempting to refute the claims that they continually attempt to establish?

===

And do you honestly think you can effect change in these situations? Aren't you wasting valuable time, energy, and effort that could be more productively and constructively used teaching, writing, and lecturing about the Bible, faith, Christianity, Philippians 2, etc.? Wouldn't those in the captive audiences profit more from this course of action than the constant tirade against substandard schools, degree mills, and fraud?

===

Thanks for caring about how I use time.

I tried to make the point in my first post that I see sort of a "mission" in doing this. I admitted that I could be wrong.

Feel bold to deny that this is a "real" mission. Don't allow humility either to prevent you from saying my position is fraught with the danger of pride. Also continue to spend use your time to confidently tell me that I am wasting mine.

Please remember that I managed to finish my doctoral dissertation while doing the very posting that you suggest might detract from my wise use of time.

Also, presently I am preparing a four hour lecture to be delivered in Sacramento and have also requested to present a paper in April to "my" Theological Society --all while continuously carring on my venomous and incessant chatter about unworthy doc programs in Bible here.

So do you think perhaps that I can both discuss the Bible and Bible schools?

===


I need to stay out of areas I either have limited or no knowledge.

===

yep

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

As said, my working definition of "resent" is " to be angry. " That is my dictionary definition. You are, of course, allowed to define it differently from how I use it. But I think my feelings or the possible outcome of them should be based on my definition of those feelings since they are mine.

I will accept your viewing resent and anger as synonomous. I am working from the Jay Adams Nouthetic approach. Adams sees resentment as not within the context of Biblical character. He sees resentment as revealed by inappropriate amounts of emotions attached to an issue. He also see those who resent as people who are not seeking solutions but being concerned about "making points, proving themselves right and the other wrong..."

But I am not a school. I am an individual posting on a discussion forum.

But Bill, you brought up how you are in good company with accredited schools.

Thanks for caring about how I use time...Please remember that I managed to finish my doctoral dissertation while doing the very posting that you suggest might detract from my wise use of time...

But didn't you state earlier you could have finished sooner had you not been engaged in such?

yep

I see you are now getting irritated. One should be able to discuss issues without allowing emotions to cause such ire. Anyway, I think we have both belabored this subject away too much. Thanks for the challenges. Please don't forget to send me a copy of your dissertation. I will glady pay postage. Good luck on your presentation. I would like to be there.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Schools

But Bill, you brought up how you are in good company with accredited schools

===

Yes. In a different context!

You first said that "There will always be those who take the easy way (to get doc degrees in Bible). The context of my comment was in response to that. I said that I was in the good company of accredited schools. That is, neither they nor I like students to take easy ways (to get doc degrees in Bible).I no where said that accredited schools go on tirades about lackluster schools as you say I do.

Two things can be alike in one way (desire for rigor) and not alike in other ways. I don't have classrooms ; I'm not approved for veterans , and I am vocal about substandard doctoral education in Bible .

IMO it is incorrect to cite out of context.
====


But didn't you state earlier you could have finished sooner had you not been engaged in such?

====

I may have said that, I don't recall. I like to do more than one thing. As said, I see a correlation between doctoral Bible study and opinion formation about doctoral study.

====



I see you are now getting irritated. One should be able to discuss issues without allowing emotions to cause such ire.

====

You really are a unique psychologist. You diagnose a state of irritation and ire from a simple "yep" of agreement with what you yourself said. Then , further, you presume to correct what did not need fixing in the first place.

I am not irritated at you.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian Charity and Criticism of Christian Sch

No, no, no, just a simple mental health counselor and clinical social worker.

Not just the "yep," but the entire post seemed to be penned by an irritated person.

You don't have to be irritated at me to be irritated at the content of my posts.

Okay, time to move on to the next topic.

 

I have a good deal of respect for Steve Levicoff, who I esteem as an intelligent man. However, Dr. Levicoff and I disagree as to the abilities and motivations of Walter Martin. Dr. Levicoff seems to have a high opinion of Martin as an apologist, albeit one who made a serious error in the selection of his doctoral institution.

The main problem with Walter Martin was not his unaccredited degrees, but in his dishonesty in how he represented his degrees and other credentials. He claimed consistently that his two bachelors degrees from Shelton College and his doctorate from California Western University (later renamed California Coast University) were accredited when they were not. In his books and promotional literature, he routinely listed his high school diploma among his “degrees” and claimed degrees from two schools at which he had attended only one semester.

Martin claimed publicly that Cal Western U. was “not a correspondence school at all”, that it was fully accredited and that his CWU doctorate was in “comparative religion” (or, at other times “theology”). The fact is that CWU’s license (reproduced by Brown) was issued specifically as a correspondence school. In its 30 years of operation, CWU/CCU has never achieved accreditation and it was never authorized to offer degrees in theology or comparative religion. Martin’s “dissertation” was, in actuality a book on Jehovah’s Witnesses that he had written nearly a decade earlier.

Martin’s dishonesty did not stop there, as he claimed throughout his career to be an “ordained Baptist minister in good standing” with the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Convention. It turns out that his only ordination was revoked in 1953, two years after it was issued. Testimony by Martin’s two ex-wives (both of whom sued successfully for divorce based on “extreme mental and physical cruelty”) suggest that in his private life he was not a very nice person either.

Having experienced Martin writings, teachings and methods first-hand in the 70s and 80s (I grew up very close to his headquarters and taught bass guitar to one of his disciples), and having read the subsequent research by Robert Brown (who, although not an academic, has produced a series of four well-researched books, “They Lie in Wait to Deceive”), I can only come up with two possible assessments of Martin. Either he deliberately wrote things that he knew were not true and knowingly manipulated (and fabricated) data or he was totally devoid of competence as a researcher. The abysmal quality of his anti-Mormon writings suggest no other explanation.

While James White’s anti-Mormon works are also unimpressive, his training in ancient languages brings a level of sophistication far beyond anything that Martin possessed. Although I am no more impressed by White’s ThD that Steve Levicoff is, at least White’s B.A. and M.A. were from good schools (Grand Canyon U. and Fuller Seminary).

Tony

 

Incredibly interesting and contains info I had never heard or read. Thank you! I never liked Martin. You mention spousal abuse. In my counseling experiences I have witnessed those who are severely critical of others have histories of physical or emotional or sexual abuse, all three, or any combination of two.

 

I don't think that Steve's point about Martin and White was meant to be taken that far (he can certainly defend that better than I). It is difficult to compare Luther Rice, which eventually became TRACS accredited with CWU/CCU and CES, neither of which has ever been accredited.

Several friends of mine are practicing ministers with ThD or DMin degrees from non-RA schools. They are quite good and successful at what they do. Of course, they generally have MA or MDiv degrees from good RA schools such as Dallas and Fuller. Credible is as credible does (my apologies to Forrest Gump ). For example, John Ankerberg, (another Luther Rice pre-accreditation graduate) is extremely successful, yet his "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Mormonism" is one of the most ineptly researched and poorly written books that I have ever seen. Although I cannot dispute Ankerberg's success, I certainly can question his credibility and, perhaps, the quality of training that he received at Luther Rice.

Since many denominational seminaries are unaccredited (usually by their own choosing), and their graduates are becomin successful in the ministry, it appears that there is a high degree of acceptance of non-RA degrees in many religious circles.

Tony

 

I used to watch Ankerberg when he was on television back in the '80's. He was on an anti-Mason kick for a long, long time. Some of his statements were absurd.

I have had friends and family in the Masons and I never heard anything like he portrayed. Granted the Masons are secretive but I think my family members and friends were fairly representative of the Lodge.

 

I fully agree with Tony's evaluation of Walter Martin, who was often led more by his ego than by anything else . . . The only things Walter had going for him was that he was an outstanding lecturer (in terms of style) and that he tapped into the so-called counter-cult market in the popular sense better than anyone who preceded him (like Anthony Hoekema) or after him (like Hank Hanegraaff). Ultimately, Martin created many headaches for CRI, which he founded and whih had to constantly defend his credentials (which, I'm sure, they will do for Hanegraaff now that Hank is trying to steal Tim LaHaye's Left Behind market with new interpretations of Revelation).

By the way, I had forgotten about Martin's proclivity toward spousal abuse, which was also well documented by the Browns - I checked their original research at the Orange County Law Library in California, and found that they represented Martin's divorces quite accurately.

I have never been impressed with James White. I think it's important, though, to remember that his doctoral alma mater (Faraston/CES), is a one man show on the part of Rick Walston. Indeed, one of the best exposés I've seen of CES is on another Mormon apologetics site which showed photographs of CES's two-room office - you can find the photos at this link.

A quick note on Russell's comments: I have never considered Luther Rice Seminary a full-blown degree mill, but placed them on the borderline. Certainly, many prominent theologians have graduated from Luther Rice - especially in the Southern Baptist sphere - but I think it's important to remember that the success of a school's graduates is not a criterion for the school's credibility. I can think of lots of schools that don't measure up to LRS, but that doesn't mean that I would recommend LRS (before or after theri accreditation by TRACS, an accreditor with which I have never been impressed). Nonetheless, unlike Walston's CES (which is an outright joke), Luther Rice Seminary is not a one-man show.

 

Tony

I'll have to get Robinson's and Blomberg's book. It sounds good.

I disagree, though, that I'd be bored with your definitions of LDS doctrine. What I was thinking of was a book that covered basic tenets as: Revelation, God, Christ, Creation, Angeology, Man, Salvation, Church, Death, and, Last Things. I did not envision a debate, but an explanation only of perhaps 15 pages from each of us on each doctrine, just explaining the positions of our respective religious groups. You seem like a forthright, upright, right-on guy with whom it would be fun to do such a book.

But I'll look at the other one. Why do two of the same?

On a related topic , perhaps Martin's Alma Mater instead of courting DETC should simply make the claim that Louisiana Baptist so shyly makes:

"On the basis of its academic standards...(LBU) is comparable to other FULLY ACCREDITED (caps mine for emphasis ) universities." (p.14, 2003-2004 Catalogue).

To LBU's credit, however, I do notice a fantastically huge increase in the ratio of UA "profs" to "accredited" when comparing my 01 catalogue with my o4 catalogue:

Of course ALL the administration as Dean of the seminary and Dean of Biblical Studies, both of their assistant deans, the Dean of CE, and the Director of curriculum development too still do their job just as well as their counterparts at RA schools with, in EVERY single case, unaccredited docs from, you guessed it, LBU!

Still, this does not really matter since LBU's standards are " comparable to other fully accredited universities." This would have the logical effect that a Dean of Seminary or a Dean of Biblical Studies or a Dean of Curriculum just doesn't need an accredited doc. His doc is just as good.

The big difference, between 01 and 04, however, in the number of faculty with accredited docs, is in the "Personnel."

Here in 01 (if I count rightly) there were 31 docs 7 of which were accredited --a very modest 22 %!

But, (hold on to your seat now) , the 04 catalogue (if I count rightly) shows 36 docs with a whopping NINE of these accredited for a mind boggling 25% oif the faculty have accredited docs..

From 22% to 25%!!!

And, in only THREE years too



But I blather on, unable to change anything, impotent, inefficient, and totally self-serving

--sigh--

so unlike those humble grads who labored at Andersonville those long , looonnnnng 8 months to earn the coveted title of Doctor.

Well, not "coveted," that would be wrong.