Religious Exemption Proposal

Most denominations have little or no money to pay a minister, because this is a volunteer career in many cases, many denominations are just happy to see a certificate or any degree as many use ministers with no background. Some are just happy to take anyone who does not have a criminal record or an addiction problem, the unaccredited degree would be very welcome as it is proof of commitment.


The use of these unaccredited degrees, is basically for those individuals that create their own ministries and are associated with small denominations with no budget. Many of these ministers make a living as naturopaths, counsellors, wedding officiants, etc. The degree is just to market your self. One can argue that you dont need a degree to minister but people identify with degrees when it comes to professionals. It would be easier for me to say that I am Christian counsellor if I have a PhD as people identify with this. I could also call my self John Doe DD Christian counsellor but very few people know what is a DD so some schools just sell the PhD as it is more known.

I agree with Rich here, as long as the degree helps the individual to perform a job, the fact that is non accredited should not matter as they are practicing a non regulated profession that does not require an accredited degree. If the person purchases the degree with the intention to deceive someone to perform a regulated profession such as psychologist, licensed counsellor, etc, then this unethical.

There are places where the use of unaccredited degrees is illegal. At least in Canada, there is no law that prevents me from using an unaccredited PhD as long as I dont call myself a Doctor. In other countries, it is against the law to use an unaccredited degree in public and this can punishable by law.

 

I neither said nor implied that. My comment was about the PhD and whether it could be credibly awarded by unaccredited schools.

To address your point specifically, I do think institutional accreditation matters a great deal, even in the circumstances you describe above. I also recognize that there have been exceptions to this over the years, but those exceptions have been disappearing.

Further, I think advertising one's self as having a PhD when it was not properly earned is fraudulent, even in purely religious settings. (More so, but that reflects my expectations regarding religion and ethics.)

Luther Rice Seminary (now Luther Rice College and Seminary) is a good example. They operated for decades without institutional accreditation. In fact, the were regionally accredited just a couple of years ago. (It was accredited by TRACS in 1988.) Yet the school enjoyed a pretty good reputation before becoming accredited. (It doesn't award the PhD, but does award the DMin.)

But there are tons of bible schools set up by churches that sometimes award quite secular degrees without the academic recognition that comes though accreditation, nor with processes sufficient to legitimately produce the outcomes they stake. These are unfortunate. Some may feel they cause little or no harm since their use is largely (but not exclusively) limited to their religious environs. But even there these degrees help perpetrate a fraud by permitting religious leaders to evoke titles they never really earned in situations where persuading others--helped along by that status--is key to their success, and can cause harm to those swayed by ersatz credentials.

 

These options are only acceptable for those people that subscribe to Orthodox Christianity. There are people that subscribe to Gnosticism, Metaphysics, Buddism, Islam, New Age. Spiritualism, etc, etc. For these people, these traditional seminars are not an option.

There are even some humanistic groups that do not subscribe to any theology or God wordship.

As Religion is a personal matter and it does not subscribe to any particular body of knowledge, the idea of unaccredited makes sense to me. If government agrees not to allow people to use PhDs to avoid confusion when it comes to these subjects, then it should be regulated as such. However, with so many problems in the world, I don't think this is a priority to the government so I doubt they will care if a reverend from any little denomination uses a PhD title to sell wedding services.

 

I started thinking about University of Metaphysics and University of Sedona as I read this thread. I've been considering attending their seminary for years despite being a Secular Humanist / Atheist. The University of Sedona branch offers several PhDs which are religiously exempt with many people using them for secular careers as metaphysics is so broad and has a overlap in secularism, spirituality, and religion. The University of Metaphysics branch has Doctorates but with religious modifiers that are not misleading. This school has been discussed in depth over the years but its been awhile since it has been mentioned.

Part of me while considering this school for the past 8 years has decided that since I am working towards a secular and accredited PhD anyway, there will be no need to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) from University of Metaphysics or University of Sedona since I will have the Dr. title in the near future. Ethically, I could not see myself pursuing a Sedona PhD because of how it misleads the public as I agree that this is a research degree that should only be awarded by appropriately accredited universities. I would instead select one of the religiously/spiritually modified doctorate degrees with the Doctor of Metaphysical Sciences being one of the most likely choices.

 

Congratulations for your PhD in Education from Azteca.

Congratulations for your PhD in Education from Azteca choice. If you are more interested in the humanistic side of spirituality, there is the EdD in Metaphysical Humanistic Science from The Institute of Metaphysical Humanistic Science. The program is more humanistic and the denomination might suit you.

 

While I'm unpersuaded that a PhD from an unaccredited institution necessarily "misleads the public," what vocational goals do you have that would be aided by a Doctor of Metaphysical Sciences? As an aside, how would you rate your experience at Azteca?

 

Both my Azteca Doctorate and if I decide to do a Doctorate from University of Metaphysics are more or less for personal enrichment. I would rate Azteca about a 5 out of 10. What I mean with misleading the public with a PhD from UoM/UoS is the fact that it is unaccredited and some pursue the degree as a way to trick the public as a psychologist as there are specializations in psychology at the school. I may still do a PhD from Sedona despite my PhD from Azteca but some are tricked in seeing the PhD from Sedona as identical to a PhD from an accredited university.

 

Thanks! I'm still waiting on my thesis to be graded. I've actually looked into IMHS school a few years ago. I might pick it over Sedona but Sedona is ultimately my first choice because of the longevity of the program.

 

Hope to hear good things soon...as in PhinisheD. Dr. CAColeman.

 

Religions, fight and get exemption from standard accreditation so their schools can be recognized, fight gay marriage from being recognized.

Religions test my faith.

 

It absolutely, concretely, 100%-ly does. The concept of having a PhD includes it being issued by a recognized institution. When you say you have a PhD, you leave that impression, whether or not it's actually true. The question, however, is whether this misperception is material. That can be a highly individualized matter; context is key, and it is very much in the eye of the beholder.

I guess what it comes down to, for me, is whether or not the degree--the process, the scholarship, the support, the supervision, etc.--measures up. If it does, then I don't think the misrepresentation through nondisclosure is material. For example, the founder of polarity thinking, Barry Johnson, holds a PhD from the now-defunct International College in Los Angeles. International was a splendid concept, where learners were matched with eminent scholars and luminaries 1-on-1 to study for their doctorate. The masthead listed quite a few famous people, but it turned out that they took few (or no) students, and most students studied with, shall we say, lesser lights. But the work they did was good--Barry is certainly an example of that. International faded away as the nontraditional became more acceptable (and accreditable), but I personally respect a PhD done there, more so than one from a lot of other famous schools of that era (like Kennedy-Western, Century, Pacific Western, and Kensington, to name just a few.)

I attended the JFK school once for an executive leadership program. Could I tell people I studied leadership at Harvard? Technically, yes. But it leaves an incorrect perception, because people would infer that I did a degree there, instead of the much shorter course I actually took. It's not just the technical correctness, it's the meaning you leave in other people's minds.

 

Yes, they fight. "Onward Christian Soldiers" and all that. First time I heard that, I was 5 -in school. I was scared stiff. This was London, 1948 - I thought the War was on again.

God don't hate the Christians
God don't hate the Jews
God don't hate the Muslims
But they ALL give God the Blues.

Sung by Mavis Staples.

 

I think that is a respectable position, although not the one I take as it relates to theological education. Within the Christian tradition, the reputability of one's PhD depends upon the actual research undertaken and what that person has accomplished with that research (esp. as it relates to service to the church). Since there are myriad institutions (incl. many theological seminaries) with prestigious accreditation but are determined to jettison historic Christianity, credal Christians tend to care less about accreditation and more about education, research, and the education's vocational cash value. Again, you've presupposed accreditation = legitimacy and that not only makes accreditors (and by extension the gov't) the gatekeepers of legitimate education, but that sentiment gives evangelicals and other credal Christians the hives.

 

I would think Christians should be embarrassed by places like Slidell and a host of other exempt institutions staffed by faculty with milled or substandard credentials. There is a place for unaccredited/exempt institutions who maintain generally accepted standards for degree levels and who can point to faculty with credible credentials. Kind of like what Rich was saying, if someone can say I studied at institution x and my doctoral advisor was Steven Hawking, DPhil (I know I am stretching) and my PhD was done in Physics....I am going to give that person's degree respect. However, if someone has a PhD from Slidell and his faculty advisor has his PhD from Newburgh.......not so much.

 

I'm not sure embarrassed is the right word. Annoyed and disturbed are better choices.

I agree, and within my own tradition, there are a number of such schools. These institutions have good faculties and are well known for rigorous coursework. E.g., Whitefield Theological Seminary. The faculty is well known (at least in evangelical Reformed circles), properly credentialed, and the academic requirements are famously brutal. Numerous Whitefield research doctorates have been published by reputable academic publishers, and the alumni read like a 'whose who' in Reformed Protestantism. Hence, I don't agree with Rich's claim that these degrees mislead the public.

 

I would think that at the Masters and Doctoral level this sort of practice would lend itself to producing credible scholarship outside of an accredited program. When I say that I mean using UK style graduate and postgraduate level education where you are doing research under a scholar versus taking more taught classes. Probably has the potential to produce far better scholarship than the for-profit doctoral programs. I would think even more than accreditation, the caliber of the scholar you studied under might be more important.

I don't think this would work in a taught program or an undergraduate program. Accreditation is a very expensive and lengthy process and may not be necessary for some educational institutions and yet they potentially could pull off substantive scholarship.

There are certainly issues. One of which is that scholars often need/want tenure and the structure that comes with that.

 

Edit: Never mind - someone else made the same point in the thread.

 

I have no problem with letting employers decide whether to accept unaccredited religious degrees. Hospitals and government agencies have strict requirements for chaplains, so that's all that matters to me. Some churches have clergy without degrees, so if they want to hire someone who has a degree from an unaccredited school or even a diploma mill, that's none of my business. It's not like they're practicing something that relies upon empirical research or needs to follow standards and regulations.

 

You make a point that outside of the government chaplaincies and hospitals there is perhaps less need for regulation. However, shouldn't an entity with some sort of permission from the government (albeit an exemption) meet some sort of standards when they issue a bachelors degree or a doctorate? There is a tremendous amount of scholarship in true religious academic degrees involving a number of fields from literature, history, languages and philosophy. There is also the consumer protection angle. If I am getting some credential from an institution authorized by the government, shouldn't it meet minimal standards?

 

The consumer should read that the school is exempted from government requirements. Prospective students are being told that the school is unaccredited because it's allowed to be unaccredited.