distance schooling

[gb93433]

The seminary I went to was accredited. Having taught at a college and high school I see great value in accreditation. The accreditation committee had the teachers and administrators fill out information they had requested. The commmittee evaluated each program, the teachers, the administration and then wrote a final report. They also came into my classroom and observed me at work and interviewed my students.

In one school I taught at the morale was going down. The accreditation wrote in their report what they saw as the cause of that problem. The report contained information showing the strengths and weaknesses of the instituition.

In one case the institution was given a short time of accreditiation and given a time period to clean up some issues. The issues stemmed from a lazy administration. All the administrators have left since that report. That report put the school on notice that it was expecting the school to come to a higher standard. If they did not, the school would lose its accreditation. If it loses its accreditation then students who graduate have a degree that other schools may not accept. Those students may not be elgible for any scholarships as well.

Accreditaion can affect many areas of the institution. The final report reveals the strengths and weaknesses of instruction and administration.

The accreditation report is a document that is available to the public. So if you want to find out about a particular school ask them where you can find a copy of the last report.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Moody Bible Institute in Chicago has a correspondence division--while not a Bible college by and for Baptists per se, there's a very strong fundamentalist Baptist presence there.

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School does something similar at the post-grad level, as do Reformed Theological Seminary and Bethel Seminary (Baptist General Conference).

All four schools are fully accredited.

You might also wish to check with the undergrad Bible school run by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

 

[TomVols]

Accreditation is in a state of flux right now. ATS, once the 600 pound ape of seminary accreditation agencies, made the mistake of trying to go belly-to-belly with the SBC's seminary after the conservative resurgence. ATS threatened to pull its accreditation. SBC threatened to pull its six seminaries and its then 4,000 plus students from ATS ranks. This, with other factors, helped to weaken ATS and give it a respectability far lower than the regional agencies now.

TRACS, once considered a second rate accrediting body for diploma mills, is now fully recognized by USDOE.

Regional agencies are now beginning to accredit strictly non-resident schools.

And I've held many jobs since college/seminary. Not one church, college or secular employer asked if my schools were accredited. Not one. So accreditation is good if you can get it, but don't sell your soul for it.

 

[Dr. Gerald Click]

Here is a recent news article on the ongoing debate about Christian vs. Regionally Accredited schools:
Austin - Today, in the case HEB Ministries, Inc., et al. v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, et al., the Austin Court of Appeals ordered that Tyndale Theological Seminary must pay a fine of $173,000 to the state for issuing 34 degrees in the Bible and Theology without first getting the 'approval' of the state.

"This is an outrageous decision. The state has now been given control of all seminaries across the state and can now dictate the education of the pastors and their churches," said Kelly Shackelford, Chief Counsel for Liberty Legal Institute. "If religious training for all theological degrees has to first be approved by the government, then religious freedom is dead."

In 1999, Liberty Legal Institute filed suit on behalf of the Tyndale Theological Seminary, based in Fort Worth, after the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board told the seminary that it would be fined as punishment for issuing theological degrees without a certificate of authority from the state and for using the word 'seminary' in their name without seeking government approval.

The Hispanic Bible Institute in San Antonio and the Southern Bible Institute in Dallas joined the suit because the state's prohibition of their issuing theological degrees was hurting their ability to operate as seminaries. "We lose students all the time because we cannot give out theological degrees," said Dr. Gordon Mumford, president of the Southern Bible Institute, which was founded as an African-American seminary.

Liberty Legal Institute is defending Tyndale Theological Seminary, the Hispanic Bible Institute, and the Southern Bible Institute, and will continue to fight the battle to defend religious freedom and uphold both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.

"We will not stand idly by while the state attempts to take over our seminaries," said Shackelford. "If they control the religious training of the future religious leaders, then they would control all our churches and religious organizations.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Apples and oranges. The Texas situation is NOT dealing with regional accreditation.

It is dealing with corporate laws in the State which the "schools" evidently violated. Every state has the right to establish perameters for schools or businesses, so that they operate within laws and rules.

NOTHING to do with accreditation or interference with the "school" functioning. We have to incorporate within the state and follow those rules. If I think I am ABOVE the law and because I'm "religious" the law doesn't apply, that is called "antinomian" and is condemned in Scripture.

 

[Jim1999]

To my mind, we, in the churches, have gone beyond the point of training men and women for ministry and we have joined the world of academia. In that world, we must abide by the rules set by government.

We should have stayed with Bible colleges and institutes and been content with simple diplomas. The type of diploma does not limit the learning, but leaves the jurisdiction in the hands of the college's Board of Directors.

What is our hangup with "doctorates" anyway. I still maintain they are not important to a pastor. They are only important to one who has academic interests and intentions to work in the academic field. My degrees did not make me a better pastor or preacher, and they didn't impress anyone in the community because I never allowed a church to display my degrees on any adverts. The only place I ever used "Dr" was in the university setting and then I insisted the students call me Jim.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Dr. Bob]

From 1970-80 I went by "Pastor Bob" - using a formal title as pastor with the more casual diminuitive of my given name.

Since earning my D.Min I go by "Dr Bob" - same title of respect with the casual.

To each his own. Think we need to feel comfortable with whatever we are called.

BTW, I answer best to "hey, you, time to eat!"

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
To my mind, we, in the churches, have gone beyond the point of training men and women for ministry and we have joined the world of academia. In that world, we must abide by the rules set by government.

We should have stayed with Bible colleges and institutes and been content with simple diplomas. The type of diploma does not limit the learning, but leaves the jurisdiction in the hands of the college's Board of Directors.

What is our hangup with "doctorates" anyway. I still maintain they are not important to a pastor. They are only important to one who has academic interests and intentions to work in the academic field. My degrees did not make me a better pastor or preacher, and they didn't impress anyone in the community because I never allowed a church to display my degrees on any adverts. The only place I ever used "Dr" was in the university setting and then I insisted the students call me Jim.

Cheers,

Jim

So are you saying a little knowledge and a little ignorance is better? A few weeks ago I was talking with a 25 year old man and he told me her had visited some chruches inthe area and most of the pastors of those churches know nothing about the historical background of scripture and literary genre. That was coming from a man I was witnessing to.

I do agree with you some though. Some degrees are not worth the paper they are written on.

I have dealt with three pastors in the area who have come to me asking what I believe. They are ignorant of the background of the scriptures. They were taught to just read it. The imagery that the Bible often uses requires a study of the background of that time.

I find it hard to believe that you learned absolutely nothing while in the schools you attended?

Perhaps you know Martin Luther had a doctorate and led a huge movement. Paul in the Bible studied under the best man around. he had the equivalent of a Ph.D. today and more.

It's not all about academuics nor is it only about the practical. It is about both. We must be sharp academically and sharp practically.

Would you desire to have heart surgery by someone who has seen a lot of bodies such as a undertaker or by someone who is skilled in heart surgery. We ought to be better skilled than any heart surgeon. We are dealing with people'e souls which effects their mind and body.

What I learned in seminary in three years I never learned in 20 years in a church. I can interpret scripture so much faster than ever before. I don't spend hours and hours like I once did just trying to solve problems. My studies in seminary gave me tools to better interpret and translate. There are things I would have never studied on my own nor would have I, unless that degree was hanging over my head. I would have never taken church history. Today I use it all the time.

When I was in Greek in seminary I watched students come in who had taken two years of Greek at a Bible school or college and be way behind the first day until they caught up. All we had was one year of elemenatary Greek at the seminary.

The professor I had for Greek is at http://www.cranfordville.com/GWUclass.htm

He is now teaching at an undergraduate school because of all the nonsense in the SBC.

That professsor has been discipling people for years. He was also a pastor until his health went down some.

 

[Jim1999]

gb, I make no excuse for ignorance. As has been intimated, I have four degrees, and from reputable universities, including general academics and theology.

The point I was making is that we can be so degreed that we miss the focal point of ministry. I have never stopped learning, but I have always sat where the people sit. If you had students who had studied Greek and were incompetent at seminary, then I suggest those students were incompetent in themselves. Either one learns the language or he doesn't. There is no inbetween.

Then, the Greek and Hebrew I learned, never helped the parents who were mourning a lost child, or the troubled soul who was seeking counsel for life's troubles. You get my point?

Have we gone beyond the need for what we are doing most of the time?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[TomVols]

The point is well made that a school cannot operate without some recognition on the part of the state. If the state has not approved the school as a degree granting institution, then that's much more telling than a school's accreditation. Still, each state sets its own standards, so the Texas situation may be a little different.

 

[swaimj]

And the requirements that states put on schools can have a significant impact on the educational quality of the school. There are states which harbour "degree mills" and there are other states in which such mills CANNOT exist. Northeastern states in which Ivy League schools are found have an interest in making sure that fly-by-night schools cannot operate. If one chooses a seminary in such a state, the quality of the education is apt to be high because the state has minimum requirements for the educational level of the faculty and they have minimum requirements governing time spent in the classroom as prerequisites to the granting of degrees. In such cases, one can be reasonably sure of a quality education even if the school in not accredited.

Another observation: While I am sympathetic to those who insist that one attend an accredited school and I find many of the arguments valid, I do note no small incongruity in the arguments for accreditation. In our churches, we say that we are self-governing and that a church which has proper officers (pastor(s), deacons), the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit has all of the spiritual tools it needs to do God's work. Yet, when it comes to training future pastors/teachers/missionaries we adopt a secular model (the academic model) and accept the authority of/seek the validation of accrediting agencies which do not accept the authority of God, Jesus, or the Bible--and are not Baptist in the least. While I don't think that adaptation of this model means that we ARE compromising the truth in what we are teacing in our seminaries, it does seem that we are utilizing a model of accountability and a measure of value for our schools that is quite foriegn to any model that we would use or accept in our churches. Have you thougt about this?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by swaimj:
And the requirements that states put on schools can have a significant impact on the educational quality of the school. There are states which harbour "degree mills" and there are other states in which such mills CANNOT exist. Northeastern states in which Ivy League schools are found have an interest in making sure that fly-by-night schools cannot operate. If one chooses a seminary in such a state, the quality of the education is apt to be high because the state has minimum requirements for the educational level of the faculty and they have minimum requirements governing time spent in the classroom as prerequisites to the granting of degrees. In such cases, one can be reasonably sure of a quality education even if the school in not accredited.

Another observation: While I am sympathetic to those who insist that one attend an accredited school and I find many of the arguments valid, I do note no small incongruity in the arguments for accreditation. In our churches, we say that we are self-governing and that a church which has proper officers (pastor(s), deacons), the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit has all of the spiritual tools it needs to do God's work. Yet, when it comes to training future pastors/teachers/missionaries we adopt a secular model (the academic model) and accept the authority of/seek the validation of accrediting agencies which do not accept the authority of God, Jesus, or the Bible--and are not Baptist in the least. While I don't think that adaptation of this model means that we ARE compromising the truth in what we are teacing in our seminaries, it does seem that we are utilizing a model of accountability and a measure of value for our schools that is quite foriegn to any model that we would use or accept in our churches. Have you thougt about this?

I have been told that the NE is where liberalism abounds. Is that not true?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
gb, I make no excuse for ignorance. As has been intimated, I have four degrees, and from reputable universities, including general academics and theology.

The point I was making is that we can be so degreed that we miss the focal point of ministry. I have never stopped learning, but I have always sat where the people sit. If you had students who had studied Greek and were incompetent at seminary, then I suggest those students were incompetent in themselves. Either one learns the language or he doesn't. There is no inbetween.

Then, the Greek and Hebrew I learned, never helped the parents who were mourning a lost child, or the troubled soul who was seeking counsel for life's troubles. You get my point?

Have we gone beyond the need for what we are doing most of the time?

Cheers,

Jim

I agree with you in so many ways, I really think we have lost sight of the need for spiritual development and mentoring others making disciples. I see men al the time who want to get a degree just to get a better church or look better. Those men should be holding a pick and shovel. Whenever I have met with pastor search committees I have seldom been asked about my devotional life. I have been most often asked about numbers and how much the church grew. It's not about numbers at it is about how many grew and how many helped others grow. My expectations are what any growing Christian ought to be doing--making disciples. If they can't make disciples they have no business running a church. That is the condition of many of our churches. I have found that those who are actually discipling others are the best leaders because they understand how difficult leadership is at times. .

 

[swaimj]

There is plenty of liberalism in the NE, but there is no monopoly on it!