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

Bill (Grover), out of curiousity, do you really think it's possible for a school to know whether a student is being sincere in their admission application with regard to their adherence to the tenets of faith? Don't you think schools graduate students all of the time that hold different views than those of the school? How could this type of thing ever be completely regulated?

Pug

 

OK, maybe asking Dr Graves isn't opportune.

Coming from a "tough" confessionalist background, my initial cynical reaction was to say that these statements of faith on the part of nondenom schools are just so much eyewash and that these grads prove it.

However, I think that Pug has a good point. Weird grads are not really the fault of the school. Also, the statement of faith problem requires a little more nuanced look.

If the tradition/s behind a given school (with or without formal denominational connection) are not really propositionally rigorous, then applying propositional rigor to that school's statement of faith may be both reasonable from a normal-language-use standpoint and wrong in the matter of fact.

Some traditions are tougher-minded or just plain intellectually more responsible toward their own standards than other traditions. Some may be sterner in demanding experiential conformity, say, born-again experience, glossolalia, etc. Some may just be slobs. Will I say which I think are which on this forum? Nope. Some of that assessment is in the eye of the beholder, but I still think it's true.

Now a student or staff person outright lying or prevaricating to a school is unconscionable. Suppose you had an irresponsible and unethical person who viewed a school as a "soft target" for getting a coveted degree and that person just plain deceived the school. Unless that met with a knowing wink-and-nudge, that's hardly the school's fault. If somebody pretends the shoe fits, how's the shoemaker to know otherwise?

The worst of the problem, apart from the freak case of the occasional ecclesiastical pathological liar, is when administration and student alike, with all good intentions, are so woolly-minded that they can't tell whether they agree or not. And that, my chuckwallas, is where Bill's plea for rigorous standards for faculty and for admission to ThD programs kicks in with full intellectual and moral force.

 

Indeed! However, I was Wesleyan/Arminian when accepted into Erskine's program. After three years among professors, some of whom were more Calvinistic than Calvin himself, I retained a Wesleyan/Arminian position. Apparently, then, I am not among the elect.

 

Perhaps the issue of people graduating from a school that requires of students an affirmation of that school's creed when students do not really espouse that creed speaks to another issue here of prof-student interaction. Take the case of Father Curley.**

Curley's degree from GSST in 2003 was a ThD-Doctor of Theology. If you look at the GSST website you will see that the GSST ThD coursework is in Systematic Theology ie, "beliefs", "tenets", "doctrines." It requires these courses :Bibliology,Christology,Pneumatology,Soteriology,Ecclesiology. It would seem to me that in the process of finishing these five courses, were there much interaction going on between prof and student, then there would be occasions to question the responses of students which were out of line with the school's position.

Of course it is possible, I suppose, that one could experience all those courses at a genuine doc level and experience genuine rigorous interaction too with the several profs and yet manage to conceal his departures from thr GSST creed which would be taught as true in those courses.

Look Pug, I do not perceive my questions as attacks on GSST. But, you yourself say there is room there for improvement.





**I am not saying that Curley's beliefs are wrong or that he has no right to them. Neither do I necessarily feel it inappropriate for a Catholic to attend a Protestant school.

 

==

Perhaps both GSST and God give exemptions

 

Perhaps GSST, but if God gave exemptions wouldn't this nullify the systemic nature of Calvin's theology?

Of course, if indeed I am not among the elect, I do hope such an exemption exists.............

 

<<Look Pug, I do not perceive my questions as attacks on GSST. But, you yourself say there is room there for improvement.>>

Yes, I am of the opinion that there is room for improvement.

As far as "screening" applicants, DL schools, at least the one's I've been involved with, do just that. Briercrest requires a letter from your pastor, letter of church support, etc. I seem to recall (at the time I enrolled at GSST) having to submit a short biography and one or two letters of reference. It was a while ago but I think that's what happened.

Pug

 

I had to do the same thing -- almost.

I seem to recall I was required to write a short biography explaining my conversion experience, my service/relationship to my church, and a couple of other things. I don't recall having to provide any reference letters, but I could be wrong. I am also not sure if that was part of the acceptance process or during the orientation class.

I keep just about every email I ever receive, I should still have the information that was requested both for admission and during the orientation class. I will check to see what, if anything, was discerned about my belief system before acceptance.

Though, I also agree with Bill. It would take only one reading of my papers to determine my thelological positions on Christ.

Do people really attempt to "fake" their Christologcial position to complete a degree? What good is a degree from a school with whom you disagree? I would think that faking your belief systems would be extremely difficult in any discipline.

In Christ,
Mike

 

<<Though, I also agree with Bill. It would take only one reading of my papers to determine my thelological positions on Christ.>>

Agreed, same holds true for me.

<<Do people really attempt to "fake" their Christologcial position to complete a degree? What good is a degree from a school with whom you disagree? I would think that faking your belief systems would be extremely difficult in any discipline.>>

I don't know the answer to this question.

Pug

 

If a DL school requires the affirmation of a creed, and if reference letters are required by DL schools for applicants to MDiv or Dmin programs, and such references are provided by people who actually knew the belief system of the applicant , which would seem the best resource for such letters, then I wonder if the senders of such references are actually contacted?

If they are not contacted, and if a school had experienced a history of being fooled by applicants who actually did not affirm the school's doctrinal position which it required of students, I wonder if not contacting the senders of recommendations is the best policy since why would senders of recommendations just be assumed to be trustworthy? Perhaps the letters are not by those they claim to be by or perhaps the letters misrepresent a bit the applicant.

Point Loma certainly knew of my Calvinism since I tended to be argumentative in our Arminian Theology classes, and Western knew that I held a nearly, but not quite, sacramental position on water baptism (compare with GR Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT) and was not a convinced dispensational as my ThM thesis was on that.

But these are not departures from the boundaries of Protestant Evangelicalism .

Anyway, I'm glad that GSST is meeting the needs of some people and that GSST is Evangelical in its doctrinal statement. I truly wish it and those involved with it well and God's success.

 

Hello to all,

After reading all these replies and seeing all this information being put out here on GSST, the question I would like to ask any body who is discussing GSST is this;

Would any body recommend taking a degree program from GSST, or should they look else were?

Just curious, Thank you,

Rich Hartel

 

<<If a DL school requires the affirmation of a creed, and if reference letters are required by DL schools for applicants to MDiv or Dmin programs, and such references are provided by people who actually knew the belief system of the applicant , which would seem the best resource for such letters, then I wonder if the senders of such references are actually contacted?>>

I doubt it. From personal experience I can say that my references were not contacted at GSST or Briercrest (NA) or Moody (RA).

<<...I wonder if not contacting the senders of recommendations is the best policy since why would senders of recommendations just be assumed to be trustworthy?>>

Yes. It seems like it would be a good policy depending on the position of the school. Does the school expect a student to abide by its tenets of faith or do they want to actually police it? That's really the question.


<<After reading all these replies and seeing all this information being put out here on GSST, the question I would like to ask any body who is discussing GSST is this; Would any body recommend taking a degree program from GSST, or should they look else were?>>

I am only going to respond regarding undergraduate studies. The answer is...it depends! It totally depends on the needs of the student. If an inexpensive UA degree would fit the needs of a student, yes, I would feel comfortable recommending GSST. I learned a good deal while taking classes with them. If the student needs an accredited degree or a foreign GAAP degree, no, GSST is not the right school for that individual.

Pug

 

Indeed, Mike. People have been known to fake exactly that in order to get a coveted degree from a soft touch school--and even to secure a staff position! Once a person embarks down the road of millism, not even his own "convictions" are sacred. The lusted-after degree, the brandishable credential, the inflation of public image and private ego simply drive out petty considerations such as, say, truth. This entire thread has been an attempt to disentangle the reputation of GSST from just such a problem.
----------
Hi Rich Hartel. I'd have to look elsewhere because I believe that there are academically better alternatives, and also alternatives of greater utility, than GSST. I do think that GSST can be an honorable choice, as other posters on this thread have clearly demonstrated. If they do embark on a program of steady improvements, they might well become more recommendable. In short: substandard, but not corrupt. I do respect the conclusions of others who will see GSST in a more positive light, however. This thread has dispelled much of the fog that surrounded GSST, thanks in substantial measure to those who actually attended the school, so balance their answers to your question against mine.

 

<<I don't think I would call it policing but verifying. If the student's word is just going to be accepted carte blanche, then why even ask for letters of recommendation?>>

Because most students will go about this with honesty and sincerity. For those that don't, well, that's between he/she and Him. I'm not suggesting that verifications of the initial application shouldn't be considered, but to require it might be over the top. I would be much more likely to agree with the verification of references at the doc level, or perhaps even the grad level.

Pug

 

I would be very cautious in recommending GSST. I think it is an honorable institution, led by honorable men, but as I have stated earlier in this thread, I am finding there is not much utility to the degree. If all you are seeking is a "learning" experience for self-improvement, it is sufficient. Again, do not expect to be highly challenged (at least at that Master's level), but do expect massive amounts of reading, writing, and answering questions.

My hesitancy is based on the fact that life situations change and though GSST may start as a great financial option, if your situation changes, it saves you nothing at all.

I learned much, did not spend a lot of money, but now I am finding I would like to teach so it is possible I am going to have to basically take the classes over again - so I really didn't save anything. My opinion is tainted somewhat by my personal situation.

That said, GSST serves a purpose, and I certainly do not believe it to be a mill, and I feel certain it is the correct choice for some people and has most likely served some very well. (but I sure would like some clarity around this one haunting issue of graduates who hold theological positions/practices in complete opposition to the GSST creed)

In Christ,
Mike

 

I've always found it quite ridiculous to make a student sign a creedal statement prior to enrollment. If the school is secure in their position you think they would view a student that was not in line with their creed as a great opportunity for them to prove themselves.

BLD