Pug, Jimmy, Or? on Golden State School of Theology

Before being accepted into Mt. Zion I had to write a biography on my salvation, Christian experience, and reason why I felt I should be accepted into that school. Plus, I had to have written testamony from four or five different people,(not including family) on my character as a Christian and my strengths and weaknesses.

While Mt. Zion isn't accredited, and wasn't seeking to be at the time, it is a fairly rigourous undergrad program. In fact, it is only undergrad. Since it is chaired by David Wilkerson, who is fairly well known, it commands a certain prestige in certain circles.

I truly wish they would seek accreditation. Good classes, a library, etc... It's only real downfall is that there is no programs for tuition assistance or loans. They are fairly new, being established in 1994. They may yet achieve accreditation.

As far as rigour, I found the classes challenging. Bill, you even made comment on my knowledge for only being an undergrad. I owe a lot to my Mt. Zion experience for that knowledge.

I said all of that because I am trying to compare your ideas for learning and other aspects you have discussed with what I have seen, in my own educational journey thus far.

I agree that it is important to have a creed. One needs to attend a school that knows what it believes. However, it is important to not pin down a person with a creed that is extreemly narrow. One goes to school to learn, so it would be bad if only those who "had all things correct" could get in.

Also, I heartily agree with the need for good interaction with the instructors. Case in point, when the subject of Armenianism verses Calvinism was discussed keyed upon the OSAS(once saved always saved) doctrine it was required for us to define what we believe and to be able to defend it. Not just with list of Scripture, but with historical and grammatical defence as well. Now, this is undergrad, and wouldn't be on par as grad or post grad, but nevertheless, I saw the good it did to have this approach you are talking about. Note that though the school is inherently Armenian, they were interdenominational and would except others with differing views. Of course that would all come out in the wash, so to speak, during class and assignments!

When talking about the importance of critical thinking, especially in the grad or post grad levels, it can't be stated enough. At this point one must be able to reason and conclude based upon their own findings and be able to stand to scrutiny those areas in question. If a school, whether DL or bricks and mortar, doesn't teach this then they have failed, IMHO, and have only produced carbon copies rather than origionals.

When I do finish my Bachelors and enroll in a DL Masters program, I want to accomplish a goal. Yes, the awarding of the degree, but that's not enough. I want to truly be able to give a reason for the hope that is within me. I want to be able to effectivly communicate truth, and know why it's true. I want to be able to accurately and clearly be able to define, as well as defend it. This is going to take much more than text book style work.

Moreover, I want to be able to correct some of the Calvinist heresies I see on this site! lol (just kidding)

Good posts, Bill

 

Inch pesses, Kevin: Arminian, not Armenian.

Thanks for the interesting post.

The observations on vetting would-be seminarians are quite trenchant.

I used to wonder about Jebbies and new "recruits": didn't anybody check them out anymore? Once standards fall apart, it's tough to put them back into place. Arrupe wrecked things, and all Kolvenbach ever did was dither. And, once standards fell, numbers plummeted.

So if that's what happens in a tradition with some intellectual heft, how much the more necessary it is in a tradition establishing its intellectual and moral heft to screen rigorously.

Screening processes can be abused, certainly, but they need to be there. Otherwise, schools, especially seminaries and most especially nondenominational seminaries, are at the mercy of any nascent ecclesiastical mountebank who sees them as an easy mark on a road to Elmer Gantry glory.

I cannot believe that odd grads are exclusive to GSST, anymore than that GSST grads are exclusively odd!

 

<<Are these GSST "departments" what AABC means by "particular fields"?>>

I'm not sure. My correspondence with Larry McKinney did not get quite that detailed. I was left with the opinion that Bible/Theolgy was a field, Ministry was a field, General Education was a field, etc. I'm not sure if they actually break down the fields into smaller fields. For example, I don't know if the AABC views English and Sociology as two different fields or if they group them both under General Education. I think much of it simply depends on the opinions of the agency when reviewing a school on a case by case basis. To make the question more interesting, what happens when two schools group the same courses differently? For example, Eugene Bible College (AABC) places their Greek courses under Bible/Theology. Briercrest (also AABC) groups their Greek courses under General Education. So, in the eyes of the accrediting agency, what is the correct credential to teach Greek? Is it an MA in Education, Bible/Theology, Biblical Languages, or some other degree? I've seen Bible classes all grouped under a master heading of BIBLE and I've seen them broken down into NEW TESTAMENT and OLD TESTAMENT. If a school separates their courses between NT and OT, what is the proper credential? Does one need an MA in NT Studies to teach NT courses and an MA in OT Studies to teach OT courses? What about the schools that don't group their Bible and Theology classes together? Does one need a MA in Theology to teach Theology and a MA in Biblical Studies to teach Bible courses? What happens if a teacher has a graduate degree in a broad area like Religion or Christian Studies? What is he qualified to teach? What happens if a school offers a degree in Christian Studies without a concentration in any one particular field? What is the correct credential in that scenario? Do you see how it can become very cloudy very quickly?

Pug

 

===


Yes. I can see how it could get confusing.

But I feel pretty confident in guessing that AABC would not consider Sociology as Psychology or Science as History! There is also a significant difference between in content "ministry" courses and Bib/Theo courses. IMO this difference warrants specific degrees.

I called AABC today but both administrators will be gone for more than a week. I also emailed. I hope to get this cleared up--at least to me.

I will observe this: TRACS will not condone the grad teaching of Bible/Theology by one just holding the DMin. One may have 60 sem units of Bib/Theo in his MDiv , then do the Dmin---NOT enough! TRACS wishes a PhD/ThD ; a Dmin will not cut it.

But unless AABC held to "lower" standards, which I doubt, if a prof of grad Bib/The according to TRACS needs a doc in Bib/the to teach grad courses , then it would seem logical that a prof of undergrad Bib/Theo would need a masters in Bib/The.

Hopefully I'll get [for myself at least] a decisive answer in a couple of weeks.

 

Bill,

Let me know what you find out regarding credentials. For now, here is a portion of a letter that I recently received from Mr. McKinney on this subject:

"We state in our current criteria that a faculty member should possess at least a master’s degree in their primary teaching field from an institution accredited by an agency recognized by either CHEA or USDE (American) or by the appropriate provincial government (Canadian). Faculty members teaching in a secondary area should have a graduate concentration of at least 15 hours in that area. Faculty members teaching advanced courses must possess at least a master’s degree in the appropriate field. Exemplary institutions will have a sizeable and growing proportion of faculty with earned terminal degrees from accredited institutions."


Pug

 

Hi Bill: OK, the Jesuit principle of subsidiarity notwithstanding (that if you ignore something long enough someone else will fix it) I can bear this no longer.

You make a distinction between "ministry" courses and "Bib/theo" courses.

Would you mind terribly amending the latter term to "Bib/theo/CH" (for church history)?

 

<<By that interpretation of the AABC standard , one with a masters in Forest Management from Oregon State plus only 15 units in general Bible studies from a TRACS accredited MDiv program could teach such GSST undergrad courses as:

BI 411 Hermeneutics
CR411 Intro to Cults
CR 420 Major World R eligions,
Th 312 Apocalyptic Literature,
OT 480 the Intertestamental Period,
CR483 New age Cults,
Th 214 Apologetics, and,
Th 212-213 Survey of Theology!

Mind Bending!

I know GSST would not want do that, but the AABC standard nevertheless would allow GSST to do that . Is that right?>>

Bill, I suppose if one was to take a very strict interpretation of Mr. McKinney's letter, then yes, I guess the example you provided would be theoretically accurate. But I certainly didn't get that impression from my correspondence with him. The impression I was left with was that the AABC expected a school's teachers to be qualified, period. I think you would be hard pressed to convince the AABC that a degree in Basket Weaving with 15 hours of Bible electives qualified one to teach Bible to undergraduates. But I think the AABC would likely approve of a MMin teaching Bible to undergraduates if the MMin had a 15 hour concentration in Bible.

<<You make a distinction between "ministry" courses and "Bib/theo" courses.

Would you mind terribly amending the latter term to "Bib/theo/CH" (for church history)?>>

Uncle Janko, most of the schools I have looked at or been involved with group Church History as a General Education class.

Pug

 

One thing we're missing in this whole thing is the school's desire to police itself. The vast majority of schools seeking and/or obtaining AABC accreditation have done so because they want to improve themselves. I've yet to find one that attempted to do the "bare minimum" in regards to staffing, etc... While in theory you might be able to do as Bill suggested, most schools would not want a teacher with that little experience because they are wanting their students to receive the best education they can.

BLD

 

===

Absolutely. I would add Church History to that. GSST lists CH under yet a different Dept- History.

My niche, Systematic Theology, were texts on that discipline exemplary, relies on Bible exegesis from the evangelical persuasion, but also on some grasp of Church History, Historical Theology, Dogmatics (as in formulas) Philosophical Theology, and Logic .

 

===


Barry

No I wasn't leaving that out! I clearly said above, "I know GSST would not want to do that." !!!

While schools would , one would think, always wish "their students to receive the best education they can," some schools do not acquire profs who in the eyes of accreditors can provide the best education. That is one reason ACCS lost accreditation! In the case even of undergrad studies, by AABC standards, an accredited masters degree is NOT the "best." It is only the bare minimum! The best is an earned, terminal, accredited doc.

 

<<IMO, if one took a one year MMin degree with a focus on ministry, as in how to preach, how to run the SS, how to plant churches, how to do pastoral counseling, and such, and also took 15 hours in Bible, that 15 hours should not qualify one to teach Bib/Theo courses as Systematic Theology, or Intertestamental Literature, or Apologetics or Hermeneutics. One does not primarily learn to exposit Scripture or define difficult doctrinal concepts by learning how to counsel or how to plant churches. They are not the same!

Similarly, if one earned his MA in Systematic Theology , but also took 15 units in Pastoral Theology, he is not by that ,IMO, qualified to teach homiletics or Pastoral counseling or Christian Ed. or church planting. 15 units is not enough! They are not the same!

In contrast, if one has a three year 90 unit MDiv which is accredited and in that program , as is typical in many MDiv programs, he takes 50-60 units in Bible, Theology [AND Church History], THEN I can see such a one qualified to teach undergrad Bib/Theo . Were that one also an experienced pastor, then I could see that one alsp teaching ministry courses. As to actually teaching CH, I think one should have a specific concentration in History to teach that.

To me, 15 means 15.>>



Bill,

The AABC has its written standards, but like any other agency, I have to believe they still look at things on a case by case basis. I know TRACS has its writen standards, but I also know they look at things on a case by case basis and make exceptions, special provisions, etc.

Pug

 

Thanks, Bill. Me happy now.

Back to GSST...

 

===

Yep. Both do. They make exceptions because there are exceptional people and exceptional circumstances. The AABC site ,eg, as I recall says only 97% of the faculty of its accredited schools have accredited masters--not 100%.