Pastor Larry, this certainly isn't an issue I wish to debate, and I am sorry that I stirred within you a vehement spirit of defense about this issue. I just read through your comments on accreditation, and there are issues surrounding the process that I don't think you understand. I have been heavily involved in several accreditation pursuits, and there are still aspects that I don't even understand. Each accrediting body functions very differently, and the rules change for each. My guess is that you feel an obligation to defend those who are either seeking or have obtained TRACS accreditation, and I appreciate that more than you know. I wholeheartedly support two particular institutions that are in presently in pursuit, and I back their decision to do so. I don't, however, support the market-driven decision to act as if there has been no compromise to our separatist position or to act as though a wonderful Christian accrediting association has surfaced that offers no compromise. There are no accrediting bodies that exist that do not present fundamental Christian institutions with an element of risk and/or concession. I am of the belief that the educational demands of our world dictate that we go as far as we can with a clear conscience toward God and man, but that we move forward with a forthright spirit of honesty at every corner.
My statement about fundamental theologians comes from the fact that many of the fundamental seminaries with which I'm familiar have been unwilling to seek TRACS, and view a lack of accreditation or regional as a better choice. That is all a matter of opinion. It is not, however, a matter of opinion that TRACS has theological moorings. Their requirement to sign a doctrinal statement demonstrates that, and they have faced opposition in their pursuit of CHEA recognation because of those moorings. They've faced a long battle to become a viable player, and I am delighted they have reached recognition status. I won't, however, allow my personal feelings to cause me to sidestep the facts.