Seminary Entrance Requirements

Pastor Larry,

Sadly, I have to agree with you, especially in the seminaries getting away from things.

I understand that in the story I am about to share, the young man obviously was not a Christian, but it tells as much about seminaries as it does about the young man.

A wonderful Christian woman went into seminary to study missions. While there, she met a young man who said he was called to the ministry. He seemed to be a strong Christian. He "did the right things," as far as behavior. He "said the right words." They married.

During his seminary experience this young man hit a professor who taught the bible is not inerrant. One day the boy came home, and told his wife that he was dropping out of seminary and church because he'd realized it was "all a hoax." The professor had managed to convince the young man that Christianity is a myth.

Now - had a godly Professor had that same unChristian boy in his seminary class, he might have lead the boy to Christ instead of turning the boy away from the church totally.

Now, the woman stays with him and prays and prays and prays for God to change her husband. They have three children who are not growing up in God's house.

The seminaries MUST get back to God.

 

Don't like what you are finding out there in these seminaries? Why not do like a lot of churches you and I both know about....start your own! That's right.

Just work up a catalog of a few courses. Make some copies on your Xerox, issue a couple of honorary doctorates....don't leave out the pastor..., print up some diplomas on your computer, and you are in business.

Make your own rules....hire you a stable of local pastors to teach a class or two a week in your Sunday School classrooms. You will muster up a half dozen students, and you will be in business.

Believe you me, this scenario is not too far from what often happens.

 

OH WOW- look at what I just found online!:

http://www.edudegree.com/

I especially like the part about getting virtually any degree (including a Ph.D!) within 2 weeks after acceptance, and without any of those pesky classes & coursework that other schools require!

 

You said:
So, should seminaries let in people who did not graduate from college?
What about people with 1.1 GPAs?
What about people who are convicted child molestors?

Truth is, seminaries have to make judgment calls on some people because many churches do not.

==No offense, but that is not the issue at all. Each school can have its own admission standards. My complaint is with schools trying to dictate to churches what degrees should be used for what ministry (etc). The schools should offer the degrees and let the churches determine how those graduates will be used. That has nothing to do with the things you mentioned above.
Martin.

 

You said:
It is unbaptistic for a seminary to decide who to enroll in their school, but it is baptistic for you to tell them who they can enroll?

==I never said who they should/should not enroll. I said that they should not have degree programs where they try to create ministers for certain jobs. The seminaries should offer the degrees to all qualified students, that degree should be no endorsement for ministry, and it should be left to God, the minister/student, and the local church what he/she will do with their education. Seminaries are there for education. Not to determine who can/cannot be a minister, missionary, etc.
______________________________________
You said:
A seminary exists for a reason: to train pastors. If you are training pastors, and you believe divorced men are disqualified, why would you admit them?

==Seminaries do more than train pastors. Missionaries, authors, teachers, lay people, and pastors attend seminary. Secondly there is nothing in Scripture to support the idea that a divorced person cannot study the Scriptures in an academic setting. The local church determines who they will/will not allow to be ministers. And, in most seminaries, the local church can determine not to endorse a person for seminary training. That is the place of the local church.
______________________________


Martin.

 

You said UnBiblical. If the person has been forgiven by God who are these pharisees to hold their past against them. ... the MDiv should be open to everyone. ... Again I don't believe it is the place of the seminary to determine who can go into what degree program. That sounds a lot like telling them who they should let in or not.

Isn't it obvious that they believe they are? If they are training pastors, and they believe that the only people qualified to pastor are undivorced men, then they are offering degrees to all qualified students.

Some do ... but not traditionally. Seminary has been for pastors, and those those training to train pastor.

I don't disagree, and I don't know that a seminary would. A seminary is not the only academic setting in which to study the Bible.

And a seminary determines who they will/will not allow to be a student.

 

==


My Hebrew prof at Western CB Seminary in Portland , Oregon was a woman who had her ThM from Western.

 

You seem to think they are wrong to have their standards, but you are okay to have your standards.

===

IF I say, "They cannot have their standards, but I can have mine," that WOULD be inconsistent.

But I am not saying that! I am saying that I disagree with their standards.

By their position they express disagreement with my position , and by this post I express my disagreement with them. There is no inconsistency in that .

And who is trying to "force" them to change?

 

SWBTS has a woman Hebrew professor http://www.swbts.edu/faculty/sklouda/
and another at http://www.swbts.edu/faculty/mlawson/

I guess they only teach boys.

 

I am not sure what the relevance of a woman teaching anything is.

 

Lawson is in the school of Educational Ministries - there are other women in that school as well, if you ever have any of them for class you will be blessed by thier teaching as well as thier scholarship

Dr. klouda teaches Hebrew and does it very well - she is not teaching preaching nor does she believe that women should preach.

dont really know what point you are trying to make gb. Just that SWBTS has women on faculty, or that women should not teach men in a seminary setting, or that women should not go to seminary or a combination of the three.

 

Didn't Patterson state when he first arrived at SWBTS that women should not teach men? Isn't that the reason given for Dr. Karen Bullock to not be given tenure and given one year to leave. Klouda was hired later though. Doesn't that seem kinda like speaking out of two sides of the mouth. Then later along came Lawson.

Don't know about you, but I got a lot more out of the Hebrew and Greek classes than I did on Sunday.

 

===

The relevance is that this gal first rec'd her MDiv. That degree at Western was a prereq to doing the ThM. That is how some seminaries do it: first get an MDiv before you do a ThM or PhD.

So, in her case seminary training was not for the ministry. Likewise, a divorced man, as my friend whom I here referenced, may seek to enter a PhD to teach, just as that woman did by getting her ThM..

Suppose the NT does preclude a woman or a divorced man from pastoring. Does the NT also preclude a woman from teaching Hebrew grammar or a divorced man from teaching Church History?

But if teaching requires a ThM or PhD and those degrees (oft) cannot be done w-out an MDiv which is a seminary degree, why is it right to deny MDiv training for those who wish to teach ?

 

Lawson has been there several years prior to Patterson coming on - as have the other women in the School of Educational Ministries, Patterson had a bias (unfounded) against Bullock before he got there.

Bullock is putting together a PhD in Leadership at Dallas Baptist University, they will have thier first students in the fall. Credit dr Gary Cook - the president of DBU, for knowing talent and a heart for the Lord when he saw it. Cook put his institutions needs ahead of politics - good for him.

As for Klouda, the word is she is an excellent professor - I hope she survives

 

Bullock had already been given the boot by Blaising before Patterson ever mounted his horse to head west.

PP may have had some unfounded concerns, but so did a handful of knee-jerks on the board.

I used to attend church with two of them. One of the two has even admitted to a mutual friend that Bullock wasn't "liberal," but that they wanted her out because in her courses, she wasn't completley uncritical of everything that has happened since 1979.

 

I heard last week that Klouda will not survive. she is not tenured and her contract is not being picked up for next year. PP made a big point of not ever firing anyone - guess that is true, he just doesnt renew contracts of those he does not like.

 

Several who left SWBTS have been paid hush money. Of course all under the watchful care of Patterson. Doesn't that just sound really ethical to cover the truth so they can portray a good image. "Gotta have a good image" like Peter Lord once said.

Hemphill tried to cut out the retirees insurance benefits, etc. of those who had been critical
several years ago.

Of course many remember the liars at the time Dilay was fired. The trustees told the media Dilday was doing great and then fired him the next day. All because they were afraid of the media attention. I suspect they got a little more than they bargained for. They also wanted to pay Dilday off with some hush money. Gee I wonder what those good ol' boys have to hide? Could it be something they don't want others to know?

 

I think what GB is referring to is that SWBTS continued to pay Hemphill's salary for a year when he "resigned" went to the Kingdom focus

 

Rhetorician,

I can't speak to the "hush money" to which gb refers, but I would think that retirement packages often include clauses about not saying things publicly against the particular institution. Not sure its all that big of a deal or that it betrays a lack of integrity, regardless of which party is in control.

By "Hemphill tried to cut insurance benefits several years ago," he is referring to a letter Hemphill wrote several retired faculty who had participated in a full page ad highly critical of SW and encouraging BGCT messengers to cut seminary funding. In the letter, He reminded the gentlemen that the seminary is still quite generous to them financially, even in their retirements. If I'm not mistaken, the letter included language hinting that their expensive medical packages might be among the things cut if the BGCT plan prevailed and seminary finances got bad enough. Sure, it was veiled threat, probably intended to "strongarm" them a little. (Incidently, it worked for the most part.) But to say he "tried to cut insurance benefits" implies some sort of formal action and is quite a leap from the reality of what transpired.

That being said...all is not well on the hill at present. But the problem isn't the corner office in Scarborough nearly as much as it is 1) the corner office in Flemming, and 2) a vocal handful of board members like I described in the above post.

[ June 08, 2005, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: RandR ]