Time for Religious Seminary Mills to end...

Your point about unaccredited religious degrees is valid as long as the earned degree is used solely within the confines of the church. We do sometimes see people using their unaccredited religious degrees in other ways though. We also sometimes see unaccredited religious schools offering non-religious degrees such as in business. Personally I find this less acceptable. It seems that most of our members are relatively willing to accept that religious schools are an exception in the universe of unaccredited schools. My own feelings are not quite so generous but that really isn't important. My comments above were not really in regard to unaccredited religious schools. As for your question about Jesus, I have to say, frankly, that I see it as being a bit of a silly question. You undoubtedly know more about Jesus and Christianity than I do but I'm guessing that he didn't attend an unaccredited school either. Neither did he drive a car, watch television or participate in online discussion forums. And yet you've chosen to do all those things. Jesus' non-attendance of a university, accredited or otherwise, is irrelevant to the point of this discussion. I'm glad that you degree is working well for you. In most cases that it the real test, utility.

 

There is indeed abuse of this type of degrees. University of Sedona is a clear example of this with degrees in Business Metaphysics, Metaphysical Psychology, etc.

In few words, people should only use this type of degrees for non secular jobs.
However, I doubt that most people do University of Sedona degrees so they can work for unpaid church positions. I must recognize that I am about the only graduate of my generation that actually use the unaccredited interfaith degree in a church setting, most graduates became counselors, healers, therapists, etc and use the degree to get business and this is wrong but the reality of unaccredited degrees.

However, the same can happen even with an accredited degree holder from NationsU. If a MDiv from NAtionsU use this degree to become a counselor, healer, etc is not any better than a holder of an unaccredited degree as he or she is practicing in a field for which he or she has no training.

As for Jesus. there were Universities at the time in Egypt, Greece and other nations where people trained in science, religion, etc. We don't know if Jesus attended a University but it does not matter as I doubt people cared at the time. The same can be said about preachers and ordained ministers in modern temples, I doubt anyone cares if a minister of a church has an accredited degree for practical purposes.

 

And who determines which ones are mills?

 

The problem comes from the fact that schools like the University of Sedona grant PhDs in subjects that are very close to secular ones (e.g. psychology, business, etc).
I doubt that most people that go to the University of Sedona really want to practice as a clergy in metaphysical churches. For starters, there are not that many metaphysical churches and if they exist, most clergy positions are non paid so the real motivator seems to be able to hold the PhD title for secular positions in business, psychology and natural medicine. Yes, it is attractive for professionals to legally hold a PhD for one thousand and few months of effort, think about a professional counselor that is already licensed with a MS but needs the PhD to get more customers (PhD in metaphysical psychology) or the CPA that wants to add the PhD title to his practice in order to increase its profile (PhD in metaphysical business).

The solution is simple, just change regulations so seminaries are only allowed to grant titles that do not match secular one such as licentiate of theology or just certificates.

I agree that many of these degrees require substantially less work than traditional degrees and it is not a fair game for those that went to accredited schools to hold the same titles. I am all for banning seminaries from granting degrees and just grant certificates but this would hurt business so I think these schools would fight back if effort is made to regulate them.

 

For those interested in an accredited interfaith degree, I found the school below that grants accredited degrees in India (UGC accredited) in spirituality. They seem to be legit and quite affordable:

Pragyan International University

An UGC accredited degree would be considered equivalent to an RA US degree.

 

Claremont Lincoln University has a Masters of Art in Interfaith Action. RA - Online for 15k.

 

Thanks, but as most interfaith positions are on a voluntary basis with no pay expected, I will stay with my unaccredited certificate for now.
Some interfaith ministers work as wedding celebrants but again, I don't think the degree will attract more customers for wedding celebrations.

The accredited degree might work for those interested in University teaching but not many faculties have interfaith studies so my guess is that the utility of the accredited is almost none as most interfaith churches will require you to complete their program even if you come with an accredited interfaith degree.

 

25,000 RS per year for a 2 year program would be $730 total. The PhD would be about $3064 total. That's insanely affordable.

 

Affiliate Status: Columbia Evangelical Seminary is an affiliate institution of the Association for Biblical Higher Education. As such, it participates in and contributes to collegial and professional development activities of the association. Affiliate status does not, however, constitute, imply, or presume ABHE accredited status at present or in the future. Columbia Evangelical Seminary is not Accredited.

Affiliate Association for Biblical Higher Education Membership may be extended to:

• Credible institutions of biblical higher education that do not hold accreditation by a USDE- or CHEA-recognized accrediting agency. Affiliate members must affirm ABHE’s Tenets of Faith, be licensed (or exempted) by the appropriate state or provincial higher education authority, conform to disclosure restrictions relative to non-recognized accreditation, and be vouched for by an accredited ABHE Commission on Accreditation Member institution.

ABHE is an accrediting body recognized by the US Department of Education. ABHE deems Columbia Evangelical Seminary (CES) to be credible; therefore, it is credible. The real issue is that distance learning has come along farther and faster than higher education anticipated. The vast majority of theological schools with accredited distance learning programs are also attached to brick and mortar campuses with vast library holdings. As someone has shown, CES does not have such and does not need such. The school can be effectively run remotely. More importantly, students can produce stellar work and never set foot on campus. I was an affiliate faculty member at a Jesuit university for 15 years. I taught religious studies for 5 years on campus and 10 years online. I also designed distance learning courses for delivery on an asynchronous learning platform. My students accessed books, peer-reviewed articles, and periodicals remotely and, if necessary, had them sent to their public library for pick up. The accrediting standards have not caught up with that reality. I'm convinced that Columbia Evangelical Seminary desires to make quality theological education as affordable and accessible as possible.

 

As a Christian minister and university educator, I definitely agree that religious education diploma mills should be shut down as soon as they are identified. However, one must be careful not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. Regional accreditation bodies have not revised their standards to validate distance learning schools that are not attached to brick and mortar institutions with libraries. Neither have accrediting bodies brought into the fold schools that teach metaphysical theologies that parallel Christian thought but do not embrace the Trinity. Instead, such theologies are misassigned to the New Age theological trash heap and left unexamined. Yet, the last 20 years have shown that the number of New Thought adherents is growing significantly. Obviously, I believe accrediting bodies should embrace more than traditional Christian thought.

 

You are making it sound as though these unnamed institutions are being turned down by accreditors because of what they teach. There is no evidence to believe that this is the case. It is much more likely that these institutions have not even applied for accreditation. It is not the responsibility of the accreditors to "bring schools into the fold." It is the responsibility of the schools to meet the standards of the accreditor so to enjoy the benefits of accreditation.

 

Sure, let's close anything that is not orthodox Christian including Buddhism, Stinky new age, Metaphysical crap, Non Orthodox Christianity, Gnosticism, Islam and anybody and anyone that does not agree that the bible is the only word of God.
I believe there is something that is called "freedom of belief" that is protected with by the constitution. Schools have the right to teach anything they want and people believe anything they want.
This OP sounds like the Spanish Inquisition. I think he or she forgot that this is 2019.

 

Welcome to our new shill for CES, who necromanced a thread that hasn't had a post for over two years to make his first post a puff piece for Columbia. You can't buy this kind of advertising.

But seriously, Columbia is a degree mill. Always was, always will be.

It occurs to me that I did not post, previously in this thread, my rationale for calling CES a degree mill, even though I have been doing so since they were founded as Faraston Theological Seminary. Therefore, I'll quote myself from 20-something years ago by printing what I wrote about Faraston in NIFI:

QUOTE:

The good news: Rick L. Josh Walston, the president of Faraston, freely admits that the seminary is not accredited and that it operates under a "religious exempt status" in Washington. Faraston's catalog is open about the nature of accreditation, and the school includes a summary of the ramifications of enrolling in a school accredited by a bogus association. On the down side, many on the seminary's faculty hold their credentials from other unaccredited schools. Their tuition for each thirty-two semester hours is far less than at accredited schools. Unfortunately, you also get what you pay for – also far less than at accredited schools. Their course descriptions include a list of "suggested textbooks" used, and most of these are credible. However, Faraston is granting far more credit than is normally given for graduate courses that require minimal work. For example, three-semester hour independent study courses at the graduate level generally require as much as 1,500 pages of reading. Faraston offers a four-semester hour course titled "Apologetics I" for which the suggested text is Paul Little's well-known book Know Why You Believe, a 150-page pocket-size paperback. A course titled "Apologetics II," which carries an additional four semester hours credit, uses Henry Morris' Many Infallible Proofs, which is 381 pages long. No Faraston course is worth less than four semester hours, yet several of their recommended texts are even shorter than these. Additionally, the catalog indicates a heavy potential for "double dipping," that is, using the same work to earn credit in more than one course. For example, Norman Geisler's book Christian Apologetics is used as the text for two separate four-credit courses titled "Philosophical Apologetics" and "The Apologetics of Geisler," which means that a student could earn eight credits for reading one book. (This practice is universally frowned upon. It would be similar to doing the same work to earn credit for one course titled "Nineteenth Century American History" and another course titled "American History 1800-1900." Cute, but no cigar.) Walston is a former educational consultant and served for eight years as an Assemblies of God pastor, and much of his faculty appears to be evangelical in orientation. However, several of the school's faculty members hold or are currently pursuing degrees through the seminary itself and from Walston's own doctoral alma mater, Greenwich University (also listed in this chapter). Walston has sought "mentors" for his faculty by advertising in Christian publications, and a few credible scholars have joined the school in an adjunct capacity. (Paradoxically, Walston has required that Faraston's mentors have degrees from accredited schools, and makes it clear that he considers "accreditation" to be from a legitimate agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and CORPA [now CHEA].) Faraston Theological Seminary may have been a sincere effort at creating a credible non-traditional education program, but at this point in the game it's a degree mill, period. Advertises or has advertised in Charisma, Christianity Today, and Pulpit Helps.

N.B. A few additional comments are in order regarding Faraston Theological Seminary. Rick Walston is the co-author of Walston & Bear's Guide to Earning Religious Degrees Non-Traditionally (adapted largely from John bear's previous books). Because his book is, for all intent and purpose, Name It & Frame It's competition, I've tried to be fair in the past to my fellow traveler in the wacky world of non-traditional education. At this point, however, there are several factors that concern me. First, Rick holds unaccredited degrees himself, including doctorates from Bethany Theological Seminary and Greenwich University (of which John Bear is a former president), both of which are listed in this chapter. This indicates that he, like Bear, would tend to value unaccredited degrees more than I do (actually, I don't value them at all). In fact, of the eight institutions they've recommended as the best unaccredited schools, seven of them are listed in this edition of Name It and Frame It as degree mills. Second, because Walston serves as president of Faraston Theological Seminary, there is a potential conflict of interest vis-a-vis his impartiality. Now, lest I sound like I'm attempting to "trash the competition," here's the other side of the coin. I recommend Walston and Bear's book, though with many reservations because a person's choice of higher education is such an important item that I encourage you to get a perspective in addition to my own. Walston's collaboration with Bear is worth reading, though with lots of discernment. When it comes his school, however, I believe that Faraston is a Mickey Mouse school all the way (with apologies to Mickey Mouse).​

UNQUOTE

Now, ProudUSNVet appears to have a couple of good credentials from U. Detroit and ITC, but it appears that he is already attempting to justify a poor decision - going with Columbia Evangelical Seminary for his doctorate. Well, PUSNV, get used to it - if you earn a doctorate there, you may find yourself trying to justify it for the long haul. If you feel a school needs to be defended, it's best to move on and find another school.

Oh, a postscript: ABHE, the accreditor cited by PUSNV, is the old AABC (American Association of Bible Colleges). Traditionally, they have specialized in accrediting undergraduate programs, not grad programs (back in my teaching days, their accreditation only covered undergrad programs). And, indeed, affiliate status means squat in terms of being a credential. It's meaningless with regard to CES. I suggest that if PUSNV is purporting to practice any of the spiritual gifts, he focus on discernment.

 

Which brings up an interesting question. Is it ever legitimate to deny a degree based on what is being taught or is anything acceptable as long as it is rigorous?

 

Legitimate to whom? Acceptable to whom?

There has been much discussion here on DI over the years of the differences between legal and legitimate. Legitimate is in the eye of the beholder. Period.

So, is it legal to deny a degree based on what is being taught? Absolutely. Bob Jones U. and the Mormon Church pulled it off for years by discriminating based on race. The Roman Catholic Church still pulls it off by prohibiting female priests.

University of the Cumberlands, the darling of the doctoral shills here at DI, has not only denied degrees but expelled students for being gay. Liberty U. had a case several years ago because they expelled several (traditional residential) students for preaching the oneness doctrine (i.e., denying the trinity).

The legal term for religious institutions is pervasively sectarian. And, even when discriminating against otherwise protected groups, they can be as pervasively sectarian as they wish. If you don’t like it, avoid them. But kindly don’t interfere with their right to act like whack jobs.

As we have oft seen here at DI, rigor is also a term that is open to interpretation. I have demonstrated how CES lacks rigor, but others may consider their curriculum rigorous. Again, it’s in the eye of the beholder.

Who is the ultimate arbiter of what is legitimate? I am. Why? Because I said so. Those who disagree are taking themselves – and me – far too seriously.

 

Steve,

Degrees grant opportunity and prestige (to various degrees). Something without value is rarely counterfeited. So what is be in counterfeited? I think rational inquiry (think enlightenment) and intellectual rigor. These lines can sometimes be grey but I think we may be able to agree on certain examples that might fail on both accounts.

 

Who is the judge of what is legitimate or not? In the case of the religious degree, it is the denomination that is hiring the priest. reverend. rabbi, etc that says what is acceptable or not.
The group here takes it too seriously, if I have an MBA and the decided to go for a PhD in Theology from an unaccredited school, the person using this degree in a CV for a finance job is not going to be hired because the PhD. If I want to use this PhD to teach, no accredited school is going to take it seriously. If the seminar has low credibility, I might not even be able to use it to minister in a church.
So technically I can call myself PhD but it is a degree that has no use other than boosting my ego which is many times the reason why people get this type of degrees on the first place.
In my experience, most people get the unaccredited degree to open a practice in a profession that requires an accredited degree such as counselling or psychologist but many times is either non regulated in the province or state they operate or many times protected by law because they hold a reverend certificate from a church that only exists in cyber space.

 

You are confusing doctrine with academic rigor. ATS accredits seminaries across the denominational spectrum. How can one agency accredit schools that teach Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist and Mennonite theologies? Because ATS isn't evaluating the "acceptable" nature of the theology being taught, it's evaluating the academic rigor and practices of the school to ensure that it is offering a baseline of service.

That means financial requirements. That means faculty qualifications. That means you are expected to turn in work that isn't a 12 question multiple choice test. That means the school's academics, regardless of the particular doctrine it teaches, are what one should expect for academic coursework and administration at the bachelors, masters and doctoral level.

That's kind of how a number of seminaries are regionally accredited. Middle States doesn't care about your take on the filioque, they care that the person teaching your take on the filioque is qualified to be teaching religion and that the coursework at each degree level is appropriate to those degree levels.

If I start the Neuhaus School of Theology for my own brand of Neuhausian thought then who better than Neuhaus to say what Neuhausian ministers should be taught and be teaching? I'm fully justified in awarding any diploma or certificate I want to my acolytes. But if I'm going to award academic degrees, to include religious degrees that use the same verbiage as academic degrees, it is not at all unreasonable that I have to meet the standards of academic institutions.

Your church can teach whatever it wants. It has that right. Even Texas, as we know the heart of atheism in America, cracked down on unaccredited degrees from supposed seminaries. Because religious freedom reaches pretty far but it, like every other constitutional right, absolutely has its limits. Awarding academic degrees willy nilly is one of those limitations.

 

I think that it can sometimes be the case. TRACS certainly wouldn't consider a school that isn't hard-core fundamentalist Protestant. (Their accreditation standards include teaching a literal 6-day creation etc.) ABHE wouldn't consider schools that aren't 'Biblical' (its in their name). That Orthodox Jewish accreditor is only going to want to accredit Orthodox Jewish schools. Even the otherwise big-tent ATS limits itself to accrediting Christian or Jewish schools. (Though it interprets 'Christian' pretty broadly, since they accredit the two UU seminaries.)

True. But sometimes the regional accreditors make it difficult. Their standards of institutional and financial soundness might be very difficult for very small schools to meet.

And while they might not be directly judging unorthodox religious content, if a sect's theology is essentially 'anything goes' (which would seem to be the case with those "metaphysical" schools and the "new age" in general, it's going to be awfully difficult to discern whether the material is being taught well or whether the dissertation research conducted in doctoral programs meets any standard.

Having said all that, I do think that WASC (for one) is making a conscious effort to open up to the smaller religious schools. They accredited University of the West (formerly Hsi Lai University, one of my California-approved favorites back in the day) and then the even smaller Dharma Realm Buddhist University (another favorite - FTE enrollment 33). The even-smaller Institute of Buddhist Studies in Berkeley (yet another favorite - FTE enrollment 8) is currently a candidate. So I think that WASC is really trying.

The small religious schools need to reach back and make the effort to meet the accreditors half-way. With most of them it's never gonna happen, since there's too little academic credibility there.

 

Good points but if Neuhaus School of Theology has a very rigorous PhD that requires 4 years full time study, a rigorous thesis that requires three publications in top journals and it requires mastery of Physics, All major religions, Psychology, Philosophy and Neuroscience. However, your school cannot make the accreditation standards because you only have one faculty member (yourself) with no accredited PhD and you have no financial assets nor large amounts of cash and only 100 members registered in your church that teaches philosophy of mind, quantum mechanics and advanced history of religions.
Accreditation cost money, if you are a small denomination you cannot charge thousands of dollars for your degree because members complete your program mainly for personal reasons.
You have the option to offer your program as a certificate but you know that if you do this, you have almost no chance of success because your competition offers a PhD for the same kind of work.

In the metaphysical churches, there are few unaccredited schools that are rigorous that are recognized. These schools would never make it to be accredited by ATS because they do not teach orthodox Christianity and have little resources but yet they want to grant degrees so people recognize their members as experts.