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

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Bill Grover, May 7, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===


    I was never asked to affirm a creed at Linda Vista, Point Loma, Western, TTS, ACCS, or Unizul that I can recall. But if the beliefs of a student are not important, then is anything at all about a student important and if so why? Should, eg, an amoral student also be seen as "a great opportunity" for the Christian school?
     
  2. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Yes, I would think any student that they could get to study the Word would be a benefit. Of course, if a student were cheating, etc...they should kick him/her out.

    I have seen Bible colleges (undergraduate) that have made students sign a detailed statement of faith. More than likely the average freshman doesn't even fully understand the statement they are signing. If the school is to "teach" the Word, why should they expect students to already know whether they do or do not agree with the particular school's creedo?

    BLD
     
  3. mhl

    mhl New Member

    For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Barry. It's always struck me as somewhat strange that a school would require me to sign a doctrinal statment saying that I agree with them before they would admit me to their school so they could instruct me. You mean, I have to already AGREE with you before you will TEACH me? Wouldn't it be better to reach out and try to teach those who might NOT agree with you???

    Take as a case in point, Liberty University. If there has ever been a school that is FIRM in it's doctrinal convictions, it would be Liberty! I don't happen to agree with some of the doctrinal positions of this school. However, in talking with the folks there, they do not require students to sign a creedal statement. They will admit anyone, regardless of their doctrinal beliefs. Now, they make it crystal clear that the instruction will be presented from a Baptistic/Dispensational perspective, but they do not require students to agree with this perspective.

    It seems to me that this is probably the better way to handle it. At the same time, I recognize that if a school decides to push for doctrinal agreement on the front end, that is certainly their right. And if a student can't in all good conscience agree with it, then he/she needs to go elsewhere.

    Just one man's opinion. That and 50 cents... well, you know!

    mhl
     
  4. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    <<If the school is to "teach" the Word, why should they expect students to already know whether they do or do not agree with the particular school's creedo?>>

    Good point.

    <<Take as a case in point, Liberty University. If there has ever been a school that is FIRM in it's doctrinal convictions, it would be Liberty! I don't happen to agree with some of the doctrinal positions of this school. However, in talking with the folks there, they do not require students to sign a creedal statement. They will admit anyone, regardless of their doctrinal beliefs. Now, they make it crystal clear that the instruction will be presented from a Baptistic/Dispensational perspective, but they do not require students to agree with this perspective. >>

    Again, a good point. I'll go back to what I said in an earlier post in that this type of affirmation might be better at the grad or p-grad level.

    Pug
     
  5. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    As I said, not one of the Christian schools or UZ has required me to affirm the creed of that school. But I still think that there may be some advantage to , as The Evangelical Theological Society requires of its members, solicit affirmation of those nearing graduation to a very broad and general belief statement of basic Christian tenets.

    If I were a school administrator, an involved supporter by work or by donations, or an ecclesiastical overseer of a denomination to which a school is attached, then I would not want the graduates of that school teaching doctrines which were opposed to Christianity and listing in their vitae degrees from that school. Such degrees might be interpreted as endorsements of the teaching of a school's graduates.

    IMO degrees such as Master of Ministry and Master of Divinity and Doctor of Ministry should be conferred by Christian schools on individuals who minister to Christian churches not to nonChristian churches. I would not wish , eg, the priest of a satanic cult to list these degrees from a school with which I was affiliated . I think that by giving those degrees the school is saying that in its opinion that person is qualified to serve Christ's church. It would seem to me that here may be applicable Paul's exhortation to not lay hands suddenly on anyone.

    Also, when conferring such degrees as MA in Theology, ThM, or ThD. , it would seem to me that a school is saying that the recipient of such has achieved a certain proficiency in grasping the doctrines of Christianity. I am not at all convinced that these beliefs could be grasped well without a belief in them! So, when a ThD graduate of a Christian school teaches nonChristian doctrines, it seems to me that the school should be able to do more than simply shrug its shoulders and say, "Oh well, we knew he denied Christ , but we did our best to convert him."

    Therefore, while I might not see it that all students must agree to basic Christian teaching in order to take a course or two, it does seem to me that grads of advanced programs from a Christian school should adhere to Christian beliefs before a school qualifies a grad by a degree used to minister or to teach.


    In this regard I think Graves and I see eye to eye. It just seems to me that programs of study in the Christian ministry and in Christian Theology should require of its students not just an experience with curriculum but an experience with Christ.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2004
  6. kansasbaptist

    kansasbaptist New Member

    Shouldn't that depend on the mission of the school. Is the purpose of a Christian institution of higher learning really evangelism? My undergrad work was at a Mennoninite Brethen School and we were required to have 3 references (one had to be a pastor), a 10-page autobiography (also used to evaluate writing skills), and an interview. They were very strict about who they admitted, ensuring students were all of "conservative" theology. A statement agreeing with the school's theological positions had to be signed.

    They made it clear that their mission was to build leaders in the church, not establish new lines of theology. Our references were checked and during the interview we were asked specific questions about the positions we took in the biography.

    If accepted, you also had a to sign a life-style statement governing your moral behavior, both on and off campus. Several students "left" the campus for violating the agreement. A student without Christ, a supportive church and family, strong will, and a dedicated prayer life would not succeed. (Although I must admit that basketball and football players seemed to have received more than their fair share of "warnings"). I did not ever feel like I was being told what to think, but our research and analysis was always within a specified "sandbox".

    If the school wants to play an evangelical or outreach roll, more power to them.

    It appears GSST is trying to be in the former, not the later -- which is why I am concerned about the theology of some of its graduates. I think it has been said here before, GSST is certainly free to go where God leads and do whatever it pleases, but some clarity and consistency would nice.

    Just my two cents.
    In Christ,
    Mike
     
  7. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    <<Therefore, while I might not see it that all students must agree to basic Christian teaching in order to take a course or two, it does seem to me that grads of advanced programs from a Christian school should adhere to Christian beliefs before a school qualifies a grad by a degree used to minister or to teach.
    >>

    Agreed.

    Pug
     
  8. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===

    Any results yet?
     
  9. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===

    You and I on the thread here titled DL Doctor of Ministry did agree on the observations that at time, about a year ago, the GSST on line website and/or catalogue said that GSST did not seek accreditation because accreditation might require GSST to abandon some of its principles. Then the website/catalogue also said that it was OK to be unaccredited because even Harvard was not accredited. That incorrect comment much surprised you.

    So, such a freely given admission by GSST of not being accredited of not being accreditated rather than being an admission of any deficits might be seen from a certain perspective as faithfulness to the GSST principles or even , by that steadfast faithfulness, be seen a superiority to accredited schools which instead cave in to the whims of accreditors.

    Or, would it? I wonder how accreditation would require a Christian school to give up its principles?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2004
  10. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Bill,
    I'm not sure I understood that last paragraph???

    I did contact GSST about the "Harvard" comment and they changed it immediately.

    BLD
     
  11. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member


    ===

    Do you know how it would transpire that the GSST catalogue or its website would make such an obvious error about Harvard, in a context which attempts to justify unaccreditation by the example of an unaccredited Harvard , without investigating any facts pertaining to that statement?

    What I am asking you, or anyone, in the last paragraph above [sorry I got blurred}, is this: when a school with GSST's obvious limited facilities , as noble as its purpose or as improved as its future may be, suggests that it does not seek accreditation because that would require giving up valued principles, how that statement should be weighed?

    Is the motivation behind such a statement in line with the facts about the school's ability to be accredited and accreditors demands that a school give up its principles.

    Or is such a statement just a subterfuge?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2004
  12. BLD

    BLD New Member

    The statement showed sloppy research (if any) and a desire to acquire students that normally would not enroll in an unaccredited school. While it obviously doesn't rise to the level of claiming fake accreditation, I would agree that it is disingenuous at best.

    BLD
     
  13. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    <<<<So you are saying that SOME of the GSST Theology faculty meet AABC standards as they have accredited grad degrees in Theology . Which ones?>>


    <<As far as which faculty/mentors have the appropriate credentials, I don't know. I will look into it.>>

    <<Any results yet?>>

    Bill, you and I exchanged private emails regarding your question. The email I sent to you, which I asked to be kept confidential, contained the answer to your question as well as some additional information that clarified difficulties with regard to continuing the discussion publicly. I now find myself questioning your agenda. You seem intent on painting a clouded picture in this forum even though I have provided you with information privately and in good faith, that should have silenced this issue, at least for the time being.

    As it stands now, about 5 or 6 of the GSST faculty/mentors have accredited ministry (or related) degrees that, due to their Bible/Theology concentrations, would qualify them to teach Bible/Theology as a second subject by AABC standards. The following is not a quote but I believe the jist of what I said was something like, "if GSST were to apply for AABC accreditation they would likely be granted Candidate Status based on their current faculty qualifications. They would also likely be required to either 1) have one faculty member persue a graduate degree in Bible/Theology or 2) change the Bth to a BMin with a concentration in Bible/Theology, 3) change the BTh to a BCS (Bachelor of Christian Studies) with concentrations offered in Bible/Theology and/or Ministry."

    Pug
     
  14. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===


    Thanks.

    I really have appreciated the honest comments in this thread by former or present GSST students.

    IMO being critical is NOT being condemning!

    If my dissertation Promoter is critical, he is not trying to boot me out ; he is trying to help me out!

    To improve requires an honest acknowledgement and understanding of what remediation is needed.

    In this regard my diabetes and hypertension are analogous to my critism of GSST : These conditions criticised my inactivity and my gluttony.

    Now, for the last six months, I daily exercise and watch what I eat. I've lost 47 pounds and have gone down two waist sizes. The other day I fit nicely into the suit pants I wore at my wedding in 1971 and am feeling more healthy and physically alive than I was before I learned of my health problems !

    Any changes leading to GSST improvement normally would require honest admissions that improvements are needed. That is why I so value the honesty that you, Mike, and Pug here show!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2004
  15. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    Bill - <<Do you know how it would transpire that the GSST catalogue or its website would make such an obvious error about Harvard, in a context which attempts to justify unaccreditation by the example of an unaccredited Harvard , without investigating any facts pertaining to that statement?

    What I am asking you, or anyone, in the last paragraph above [sorry I got blurred}, is this: when a school with GSST's obvious limited facilities , as noble as its purpose or as improved as its future may be, suggests that it does not seek accreditation because that would require giving up valued principles, how that statement should be weighed?

    Is the motivation behind such a statement in line with the facts about the school's ability to be accredited and accreditors demands that a school give up its principles.

    Or is such a statement just a subterfuge?>>


    BLD - <<The statement showed sloppy research (if any) and a desire to acquire students that normally would not enroll in an unaccredited school. While it obviously doesn't rise to the level of claiming fake accreditation, I would agree that it is disingenuous at best.>>


    Again, I have to question your agenda here Bill. I don't know the answer to your question regarding the old statements in the old catalogue. What we all know is that the catalogue has been revised and any incorrect or unintentionally misleading statements were removed or corrected. Why are you so intent on slamming away at the past when this entire thread has been about GSST's steady improvement in the present and the future? I don't get it. Wouldn't it be more productive and constructive to discuss current improvements and/or deficiencies rather than to dwell on past issues that have long since been corrected?

    Pug
     
  16. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Something belatedly occurred to me about the earlier concern of graduates/students being out of sync with a school's statement of faith or even lying about such matters in order to get the coveted degree from a soft touch school.

    There are plenty of seminaries which do not require adherence to their (or any) statement of faith. Most of these are RA/ATS. Why not go there rather than to a school where there are statement of faith problems?

    There are plenty of schools which offer graduate degrees in religion (not ministry prep). If one is interested in religion or theology but unprepared to accept a statement of faith, why not go to a grad program in religion?

    If a particular school is the desired school, and there appears to be a discrepancy on statement of faith, why not clear it up in advance? Why dissemble, unless there is a desire to get a degree by subterfuge?
     
  17. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    <<There are plenty of schools which offer graduate degrees in religion (not ministry prep). If one is interested in religion or theology but unprepared to accept a statement of faith, why not go to a grad program in religion?

    If a particular school is the desired school, and there appears to be a discrepancy on statement of faith, why not clear it up in advance? Why dissemble, unless there is a desire to get a degree by subterfuge?>>

    Good question.
     
  18. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===

    I'm sorry.

    I didn't somehow, negligently I guess, connect your email to this question since I above quoted from the AABC website that EACH faculty member needed an accredited masters, not just courses, in the area he/she taught.

    IMO pastoral theology is not Systematic Theology and counseling is not Bible exposition and how to preach is not church history. But, I guess I'm wrong about the AABC requirement. It is theirs, not mine.

    And now you suggest that by my questions I have bad motives, a mischievous agenda! I'm out to get GSST. Sorry you see it that way, Pug.

    I don't mind excusing myself from this discussion and raising no more issues about GSST in this thread. Perhaps that will suggest that I am not out to disgrace or denounce GSST.

    Sorry
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2004
  19. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    Bill,

    I don't want you to leave the discussion and I certainly don't want to stop discussing GSST, or any other school, as long as the conversation remains constructive. My comments to you were not intended to convey that message. I was questioning your agenda because I felt that I had addressed your question privately and offered information as to why it was tricky, at least at this point, to talk about it publicly. If you didn't make the connection I will take you at your word. You have always been on the "up and up" with me and I have been with you as well. This seems to have been a simple misunderstanding. Let's not let it hurt constructive dialogue in the future. No harm, no foul. :)

    Regarding AABC criteria for teaching: For each program offered by a school, one instructor is needed that has a graduate degree in that particular field. A graduate degree is not necessary for each area of study within the program. In other words, a Ministry graduate can teach a BMin program. He/she can also teach the secondary subjects within the program (Bible/Theology for example) if he/she has a specific number of hours within that field of study. I have this written clarification from Larry McKinney because I was confused as well.

    Pug
     
  20. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===

    The GSST website lists these depts in undergrad coursework:

    Bible
    OT
    NT
    CE
    Languages
    Past. Theo
    Missions/Evan
    Past. Min
    Chr Psyc
    Gen Ed
    Science
    Sociology
    Theology
    Systematic Theology

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

Share This Page