Suspect Credentials and Phony Degrees in the Church

I much agree with Rich.

Frankly I'm weary of having Luther Rice preaccredited ThDs flounced across my logic scanner as evidence of the efficiency or utility of unaccredited docs. Recently on the Baptist Board discussion forum one , himself a DMin holder from LR who also has an RA PhD, stated that in former years LR would give ThDs for simply a compilation of pastoral sermons! It is my understanding that LR had to make significant changes to gain TRACS accreditation. That fact suggests that major deficits before existed at LR.

The issue IS NOT : CAN it possibly happen that UA docs are given to people who equal grads of accredited doc programs in competence ?

The issue is: CAN we expect UA doc programs will probably MAKE or REQUIRE those people to be the equals in competence of grads of accredited programs.

If any claim the latter to be the case, then, I think evidence beyond just a few successful grads needs to be presented! Why should it be expected that CES or a preTRACS LR would require their docs grads to have competence equal to grads of accredited programs?

Then follows the question : in the case of a White or Olford, indeed two very competent guys, did CES or LR REQUIRE or MAKE those grads to be the equals of grads of accredited programs OR did something quite distinct from that education make them so?

Neither do I buy the logic that ministers should be able to claim whatever degrees they want since religion is excluded from state control. Control is not the issue ; the issue is respectability!

In the case of ministers, they should have the respect of those outside the Church (1 Tim 3). If , therefore, ministers claim academic degrees, then IMO, those degrees should be such that those in academe ( if Rich will allow me to use him as example) recognize as being substantial and rigorous.

But IMO ministers should also have the respect of theological academe-their own brethren. So , when ministers get docs from substandard institutions which have far less substance and require far less rigor than accredited ones, such ministers are claiming the VERY SAME credentials and qualifications as those who finished accredited programs requiring the normal expectations who struggled, and sweated , and spent themselves to finish. THAT IMO IS DECEIT! IT IS NOT HONEST! IT IS NOT CHRISTIAN!

Neither is the issue that Moses or Jesus or Paul did not have doctorates. They did not claim such . These were inspired individuals (IMO). THAT is what gave them competence.

But we are not! SO , if we feel led , we should do substantial and rigorous work to try to understand the inspiration of those . We should not try to take shortcuts which lack substance and/or rigor. The prize is IN the learning, NOT in the diploma!

Substance and rigor are the adjectives that guide my evaluation of UA doc programs: Are such programs as substantial and rigorous as accredited ones?

Then follows the question, NOT are White and Olford good guys, BUT are their docs good docs? To evaluate that question one must know whether or not what was required of them to earn those ThDs is the genuine equivalent of what is normally is required. That is the true academic question, not whether White and Olford are successes.

Did they do a dissertation which was evaluated by a committee of qualified professors holding earned accredited doctorates in the area of the dissertation and were these dissertations judged to genuinely contribute to the knowledge of the field of study at the level of true doctoral research? THAT is the criterion by which the degrees of a White or an Olford should be measure---NOT their later successes.

 

I'm so sorry for the repitition. It wouldn't go through (I thought). Sorry!

 

Re: Re: Re: Suspect Credentials and Phony Degrees in the Church

This is an interesting thread. Here's some comments on various things that have been said:

I kind of agree. RA applies if a school follows the traditional Western academic model, but it's probably possible to defend different models.

There's a CA-approved religious school that I like (its dean is one of my old professors) that follows a practitioner model and seeks to combine a Western university degree program with traditional monastic disciplines. WASC was uncomfortable with that and suggested that this school seek accreditation from a religious accreditor. But no religious accreditors exist that would be appropriate in this case.

Another good point. Why are religious leaders so determined to parade around their academic credentials? Isn't the real point in religion something else entirely?

Personally, I like several non-credit non-degree things that I've seen, a couple of which seem to be me to be operating at the highest academic level, but which emphasize what they teach, not the titles that they (don't) bestow. There's a purity in that.

Religious exemptions are a fact of life and they probably aren't going to go away anytime soon. But a case could perhaps be made that degree-granting is a separate function from clergy-formation, and that religious exemptions should only apply to the latter. I wouldn't really argue it though, since religious exemptions of degree programs doesn't bother me a whole lot.

Even with religious exemptions in place, we are still free to criticize schools. There's no suggestion that a "pass" has to be given.

Except that there's less agreement on what that prescribed body of kowledge should be. Religion seems to be shattered, broken up into a host of little solitudes, incapable of justifying itself to outsiders.

There might even be questions about whether something really is knowledge in the first place. My example above includes excellence in practice in what it teaches. Perhaps that's what Western universities mean by knowledge, perhaps it isn't. The Pentacostals seem to emphasize charisma, calling and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. How do you institutionalize that?

Many states' religious exemption laws require precisely that. In Kaleefornya (formerly California) exempt schools are only allowed to grant specifically religious degree titles, such as M.Div., Th.M., Th.D., D. Min. and so on. (Some schools invent their own.) They are specifically forbidden from granting generic degree titles like M.A. or Ph.D. (Unfortunately, this law is seldom enforced and there are many violations.)

Yes! Exactly. Religion is supposed to be about ethics, spirituality and people's heirarchy of values. So when I see religious leaders, those who take it upon themselves to teach and to lead, unable to handle their own personal egos, and driven by that uncontrolled temptation into serious ethical breaches, then it's not only sad, it's dangerous.

That's why I see a purity in those high quality non-credit non-degree programs that teach for teaching's sake.

Rich is quoting scripture!!!

 

I cannot speak to Oldford, but the infomation avialable on White is that the only member of his "committee" was Rick Walston, whose dissertations (both accredited and unaccredited) were, if I recall correctly, exegeses into the New Testament passages on spiritual gifts.

Tony

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Suspect Credentials and Phony Degrees in the Church

 

Ah, the aroma of snake oil!

There are a few dubious rabbinic studies programs out there as well, though I don't think that a bogus rabbi has QUITE the earning potential of a bogus Th.D.

What IS it about religion that it attracts such NUMBERS of charlatans?

Come to think of it, a bogus rabbi or minister who immerses in a lake or river had best be careful...all (snake) oil slicks MUST be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Suspect Credentials and Phony Degrees in the Church

 

Some schools refuse accreditation based on church-state issues. Agree or not, that's their theory. Some schools shun accreditation because of their study model. Some shun the accreditation due to the cost factor, given that the prospective students (ministers) are not the most financially well-off people in the world. There are some very good unaccredited seminaries out there, but there are more lousy ones.

If the schools require work, honest-to-goodness academic work, then it's up to the church or other entity as to the degree's acceptance. As an ordained minister I feel I can say with some gravitas that too many men of the cloth just want "Dr." in front of their name.

 

Hi Tom,

I agree with most of your post. Mind if I ask what denomination you are ordained in? I am Christian churches/churches of Christ. Our church web site is www.disciples.web.com Thanks!

 

I am Baptist. Southern Baptist. Reformed Southern Baptist.....I could go on :-D

 

Thanks!

 

My church, The Orthodox Church has a school in Pennsylvania called St. Tikons that has just received TRACS accreditation. The school offers the M.Div. degree and has been around since the 1920's. They have been accredited by TRACS this year. I believe this change has made the student body able to gain access to federal student aid such as Stafford loans etc... Most students in the past had struggled mightily to get through without any form of financial aid despite the relatively low cost of the school. The mindset over the past decades has been something like this: "Accreditation!! What is this!? Was accreditation thing practiced in 19th century Russia or 11th century Byzantium?!! Did St. Simeon the Pillar Sitter go to accredited seminary? NO! THIS 'ACCREDITATION' IS HERETICAL WESTERN CHRISTIAN MODERNIST OUTRAGE!!"

Since the school was designed to train clergy "in house" for preparation for the Orthodox priesthood then operating a schhol without accreditation was seen as appropriate to its limited mission. The only persons attending would be men wanting an M.Div prior to ordination to the deaconate or priesthood. However, the need for student aid and many priests wanting to go on for additional academic work made accreditation necessary. Yeah, I can see the point that an "in-house" degree, for use within a religious institution, does not really need accreditation. However, these accrediting bodies help to ensure academic rigor. OF course, if all this new fangled accreditation thing catches on next thing you know we of the incense and icon set will adopt the Gregorian Calender! IS OUTRAGE!!

 

But you posted here anyway.

But you posted here anyway.

By the way, I agree with Bill Grover in his post... er... wait... okay, maybe it was the next post. Okayokay... I agree with Bill Grover in his pos... wait... maybe it was the next one. Let me see... okay, okay... wai... alright.... okay... I agree with Bill Grover's third post when he wro... er... wait a minute...

The hope that credibility will automatically attach...

...sort of like what George W. Bush hoped would happen when he became president.

Didn't work there, either.

 

What a novel idea!!!!

And as a result of posting those topics, answers were provided.

It was quite a novel idea of mine, eh??? I see that you liked it.

Stick around, kid.

 

Umm...money?

How about loot? Religion is an industry in America, and like all industries, credentials are required to advance.

If the Charles Stanley's, Chuck Swindoll's and Benny Hinn's of the world were paid on an equal scale with Jesus (exacly nothing), then the religion industry would be chock full of good people who truly believe what they are teaching. And people like me wouldn't automatically disqualify a religious doctorate from credibility. No offense intended to those members here with religious degrees (really), but in many parts of America, religion is an industry on par with used car sales (IMHO) and one needs to be very careful around those who wish to intervene to the almighty on ones behalf, especially once they tell one that the price of admission to this club is their eternally burning soul.

It's funny that people in A.A., many of whom have practically wrecked their lives, can be some of the most spiritually pure folks on the planet once they "get it". But many, many Christians would cross the street in busy traffic to avoid tangling with these folks before they get cleaned up.

Ok, this might be an inappropriate rant, so I'll shut up now. Thanks for not flaming me too bad. I hope...

 

One can find charlatans in nearly every profession, especially in the fields of nutrition, alternative medicine, and alternative therapeutic techniques.

 

Fortunately, Jimmy, there are none to be found within academe, law, political science and the military. Only within the discipline of religion............