Why start an online BB ministerial academy?

[Plain Old Bill]

I think the Pastor should be trained in at least 2 years of greek so it would be mandatory for pastoral study students.
All students should know how to use concordances,lexicons,commentaries,Bible dictionaries, and other study helps.
What do you all think?

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
I think the Pastor should be trained in at least 2 years of greek so it would be mandatory for pastoral study students.
All students should know how to use concordances,lexicons,commentaries,Bible dictionaries, and other study helps.
What do you all think?

It depends on what you mean by "2 years." How many hours are we talking about here?

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by StefanM:

My only real concern about the theology classes is keeping it at institute level. The students in the program will be non-traditional students, and the program is at its highest level equivalent to a college sophomore's education. If the classes are too deep, they'll go over the average student's head, and none of us want that. [/QB]

===

Here's my last word on it:

I've given my view that increasing the number of units does not increase the difficulty because more time is given to each topic. Less time means less exposure to important issues! So, I would keep all the important issues in by increasing the exposure to them and not give up what is important .

I taught learning disabled secondary students for 35 years, so neither do I wish to overtax a student's ability to grasp. But IMO we should not underestimate the potential for learning in our students. That is just as criminal as is expecting too much. We should lead them to meet great goals in small steps.

But look at the links. Read Warfield's The doc of the Trinity which there is provided. Read Athanasius on the Incarnation which there is provided! The concepts therein are NOT easy reads!

Is Athanasius right that the humanity of Christ is the LOGOS moving the body around? Is Warfield right that the Son is not eternally subordinate , but only temporally so? Are these not worthy topics along with scores and scores and scores of other worthy topics , the multitude of which cannot be done in 3 units ! It cannot be done.

If our students cannot be expected to understand such doctrinal specificities, then why have such a showy display of those resources?? If we cannot actually teach the understanding of the concepts in those resources, and they are beyond student ken, then why have them there at all?

As I've admitted, it is possible that my love for the subject affects my recommendations. It is possible that I think some things are vital when they are not. But if these things are not vital, why do our resources have representations of them as though they were important?

If all that is desired is a survey course on doctrine , then I misunderstand the aim of our school. What some other school does or does not affects little my thinking as that school may not have our purpose.

I recommended according to what I perceived our purpose to be, and what I think could and should be done on the basis of both my understanding of Theology and my 35 years of teaching public school.

But as said, I will help out in teaching regardless of the outcome of our curricular development if teaching is desired , and if I have the time to do that.

Anyway, I'm gone for the day. Others hash it out.

UZ

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I also think we should have a reading list that is not part of the core curriculum.Some suggestions would be:
The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter
Duties of the Minister of the Gospel by Thomas Coke
Books on Prayer by E.M.Bounds
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
A biography of D.L. Moody
A biogrphy of C.H. Spurgeon
A biography of Jonathan Edwards
Josephus
Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire

What are your thoughts?

 

[StefanM]

Couldn't we work these books into the curriculum? That way you'd be able to build off of the instruction in the classes, and you'd have an easy way to test their reading knowledge of the texts.

 

[StefanM]

Or maybe have a one hour reading course required every semester in which the students would read books and react to them. I'm just putting out ideas here.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

As we are putting some of these courses together,trying to keep costs down ,and using what we can find online,I would like to suggest we use:
The great Doctrines of the Bible by Evans for the Bible Doctrine course.
Dickerson's Notes on Theology for the theology course.
They are both online therefore they are free.

I would also suggest that we select several primary Bible versions for the student to use.They could be set up on E-Sword side by side to give the student rapid access for comparison.Also look at the other resources on E-Sword that could be used close by for Bible study.

What do you all think? These suggestions are just starters to help put some things together for future use.

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by UZThD:

I've given my view that increasing the number of units does not increase the difficulty because more time is given to each topic. Less time means less exposure to important issues! So, I would keep all the important issues in by increasing the exposure to them and not give up what is important .

Is Athanasius right that the humanity of Christ is the LOGOS moving the body around? Is Warfield right that the Son is not eternally subordinate , but only temporally so? Are these not worthy topics along with scores and scores and scores of other worthy topics , the multitude of which cannot be done in 3 units !

I don't think it's an issue of these issues being unimportant, but are they more important for servants of a local church than other things. By the nature of a degree program, if one thing is taught, it is at the expense of something else.

Perhaps the best way of approaching this would be to ask pastors of local churches (maybe on the BB), both those who have had extensive education and those who have not about whether they believe indepth analysis of these issues would be the most beneficial thing for ministry.

I mean no disrespect by this, but certain things are far more important for seminary professors and academics than they are for the average servant in the church. Maybe the institute needs ad hoc pastoral consultants to figure this out?

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by StefanM:


I mean no disrespect by this, but certain things are far more important for seminary professors and academics than they are for the average servant in the church.


---


Already I break my word and post again about Theology:

Absolutely not ; I know no disrepect is intended.

But your ongoing comments re Theology and our clear and great differences on what is important to know have managed to give me a new perspective!

Maybe you're right. Maybe what I'm interested in teaching , what I really feel called to teach in whatever years I have left, simply does not match what this Institute is all about.

We all have our particular callings and there is nothing wrong if what I am hearing as my calling does not fit what may be the "voice" of this Institute. We all have the need to find places to exercise our talents and express our views and interests. Especially that is true when these views or talents or interests become a consuming crusade to clarify the church's Christology. To me nothing is more important for me to do, and I must do it quickly as I am old and so need to avoid that which is distracting to that passion.

If it is true that my interests and what I really deem important , like who and what Christ is and doctrines cognate to that, fit only "seminary professors and academics," as you claim, then I am hardly fitted to this Institute as you see it.

About anyone can teach Introduction to Doctrine and steer to the right or left when any of the tougher issues are encountered, you don't need one who would rather struggle with those tougher issues than even eat and who thinks it wrong to allow students to avoid them too.

IMO my project, my little booklet on Christolgy distilling my dissertation , which is intended for Adult Sunday school teaching and personal use by nonseminarians, will have more substantial stuff about the Person of Jesus Christ than will the survey of doctrine you suggest.

We'll see. Design your outline of theology based on what pastors think , let someone begin teaching it, and we can then compare our Christologies.

Stefan: We simply do not see eye to eye. And that's OK ; as I say, we all have our own callings and must attend to them.

No disrespect intended!

 

[StefanM]

Ironically, you're discussing one of the issues which I think does deserve more attention than most other issues. In fact, I would not object to have a theology class just on Christology--IMO, it is one of the things that is quite important both for pastors and professors.

I may have misunderstood your previous posts. Do I think we need a class on the Depravity of Man? Not really; I think a session or two could cover that. But the nature of our Lord? If you want to put even a 4 hr class together on that, then by all means do so!

I'm not saying to do a surface level study of doctrine; I'm just trying to say that it doesn't seem feasible to do an indepth study of all the doctrines of the church--though it would be wonderful, the mission of the institute doesn't seem geared toward that. Now, we MUST do an indepth study of some things, Christology being one, and, UZ, since that is your passion, you could definitely fulfill that ministry. All I was suggesting is that we should prioritize the most important doctrines to study intensely, then perhaps structure the program accordingly, especially since we only have two years to educate. The remaining (less controversial) doctrines could perhaps be presented in a different fashion.

I did not intend to make it sound like your studies and calling were irrelevant--I see how it could have sounded like that. I guess I should have worded my response a bit differently .

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by StefanM:
[QB] Ironically, you're discussing one of the issues which I think does deserve more attention than most other issues. In fact, I would not object to have a theology class just on Christology--IMO, it is one of the things that is quite important both for pastors and professors.


===

What exactly did you think my referent to Athanasius on the Incarnation and Warfield on the subordination of the Son were about EXCEPT Christology?

These referents were the springboard for your comment about some things only being needful for academics and Sem profs.

It will be better for others to define the curriculum.

Then, if something is there I feel good about teaching, and if it desired, I'll do that.

As an aside, Christology must be taught to interface with doctrines which cohere with it as the nature and attributes of God, the Trinity, and even objective soteriology , and must be based on exegetical exercises of the relevant texts..

 

[StefanM]

I wasn't saying that the specifics you listed weren't about Christology, and I never said that certain things weren't needful for non-professors and non-academics. I just said certain things are more important to profs and academics, which is true.

I guess your citations just spooked me a bit. I wasn't consciously responding to the Christology issue so much as all theological issues. My intent with the post was to try to establish what exactly are "important" issues. I think we can both agree to the fact that certain theological controversies are not as important as others. The student in me just had his life flash before his eyes--I saw a class in which every single doctrine, weighty or light, we discussed had about 30 different controversies--and I saw confusion and fear. Now that I've gone back and reflected on your posts, I see that was not your intention, so I apologize for incorrectly interpreting your statements.

I apologize for allowing the tone of the discussion to become antagonistic; I never wanted that to be the case.

I'll admit fault, brother. I see no point in trying to justify my responses any more; they've detracted from the purpose of this thread and distracted us from the task at hand. Forgive?

 

[StefanM]

I don't want to turn this into a clash of personalities. My input seems to have caused the process of formation of this institute to sour considerably.

For this reason, I am resigning as secretary for the institute, effective immediately, and I will no longer participate in discussions on this matter unless approached privately.

Sincerely,

StefanM

 

[UZThD]

Stefan:

No forgiveness is needed.

I could study Christology ten lifetimes and still feel ignorant about it.

When I used to diet stringently I promised myself a cream puff every week. That was my prize. How I relished the thought of that and longed for the week to end.

Now I can eat creampuffs all day long like His deity, His humanity, and His hypostatic union. I grow fat in spirit on the wonders of Christ, and I wonder how any Christian cannot like me hunger to know more.

If you are choosing to resign because of my passion, then, I think that's a mistake.

 

[StefanM]

I'm not resigning because of your passion. I'm resigning because it seems that I'm not on the same page as everyone else. The institute deserves a united perspective, and that doesn't appear to be possible with me as secretary.

 

[Rhetorician]

To all who have had an input on the type of course(s) and program(s) we should have.

LET ME SUGGEST (I KNOW NOT ALL HERE ARE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS--BUT!)

Please go to Mid America Baptist Theological Seminary's page, MABTS.EDU and look at their Associated of Divinity degree in their PDF filed Catalogue. It is a very good program. I am an MABTS diploma alum. It equips well for the pastoral ministry, evangelist, SS worker, church admin, etc. It would be very good for lay folk or people w/o much college. It might just meet the seen needs here.

I believe if we look at it, some perspective might be given to the entire discussion.

IMHO, except for "Spiritual Formations" it might be a paradigm worth considering.

If there are any other Associate programs that any of you know about please recommend them.

I only speak of what I know.

sdg!

rd

 

[UZThD]

Roger

Unless I misread, that program covers Theology in one two hr course. Is that your recommendation?

UZ

 

[StefanM]

I said I wouldn't post again unless approached privately, but since Rhetorician asked for all who have had input to look at the MABTS program, I will comment briefly.

I like the MABTS program, especially the computer requirement. I'm willing to withdraw my resignation if this kind of program is what the institute wants to do, and if the institute still would like me to help. If this is the case, then my reasons for resigning (not being of the same mind) would be non-existent.

 

[Rhetorician]

Hey all,

I am not recommending anything in particular. What I am recommending, however, is that we not "reinvent the wheel." If programs like Mid Americas has worked-and I know first hand that it does; we might want to look at it or something similar as a working modle/paradigm as a consensus builder.

We do have StefanM and UZThD both here with new posts. It appears to be working already.

UZ just wrote:

"Roger

Unless I misread, that program covers Theology in one two hr course. Is that your recommendation?

UZ"

I am not saying that only one or two course(s) or course hrs is enough. It is obviously not enough. What I am saying is that this target audience must have a "practicum heavy" and "theory (read theology) light" program.

For most of us who have an academic bent, we will have to pare way way back the courses that are to be taught. That is going to be very difficult for me. But, I can do it b/c I have taught some on the college level.

If someone has not taught before, it is going to be very difficult even strenuous to do. We may have to go back 20-30 years and remember what is was when we did not know any theology or theological terms. I have always studied theology so I will naturally "over teach" and constantly have to break things down for the students. And, even this will have to be done in a non-transcending manner.

The bottom line of what I am trying to get all to realize and understand is: if we take one of the programs like MABTS, Boyce College AA @ Southern Seminary, NOBTS' program, Moody's AA program (if they have one?), or some other big name BC it will help us define the beginning program that we want.

Try Philadelphia College of the Bible, try Bob Jones associate degree in Bible or ministry. I don't care!! But before we "fly apart" let us look for a program that we can all say is for the clientele that we will serve. THEN AND ONLY THEN, after we have given that a try should anyone think about leaving or resigning.

sdg!

rd

 

[StefanM]

OK, I'm willing to stay to get this sorted out.

I do like the idea of working from existing AA programs and modifying them to meet our needs.