Brewer Chrsitian College and Graduate School?

What I have noticed is that guys with earned Ph.Ds ask you to call them by their first name or introduce themselves that way.

I have also noticed, especially in fundamental Baptist circles, that if one has an honorary doctorate, he almost always goes by Dr. Jones and introduces himself that way.

Go figure.

I wonder who is trying to be like the world in that situation!

 

I thought I would sign my name:

Rev. Dr. Paul, B.A., M.Div., M.A., D.Min. (Ph.D. equivalent per the US government)

 

Have you considered rolling your D.Min. over into a Ph.D.? What I mean is that you will have completed most of the requirements which possibly could be bootstrapped into a higher degree. Even I can’t remember the exact scenario, I think I knew of someone doing just that.

Have you looked at Union Institute and University? It’s well known, established and RA. The thing is that they are very flexible and design the Ph.D. program around the individual’s strengths. It is, however, a secular school but you would have all your courses from Gordon. Just a thought.

 

Thanks.

Isn't Union Institute and University quite expensive?

Also, what's with the name?

I did check their site out the other day.

 

I would consider BJU if they weren't so dorky. But when you look at where their professors earned their degrees, its not good. They are all from BJU!

 

I believe the best rule to follow is that if you are in situations where people are referred to by a title (Mr.) then someone with a doctorate ought to be called (Dr.) or military person (Col), etc. That is respectful and equivalent. However, if you are in situations where everyone else is Joe and Margaret and you are calling yourself "Dr." then that is rather arrogant. Actually, I knew someone (EdD college professor) who went around and called himself "Dr." everwhere including to other parents in his kids band association.

When I earned my doctorate I did not suddenly start leaving phone messages and referring to myself as Dr. North anymore than I called myself Mr. North before.

I am also curious whenever I hear others doing it to see where there doctorate came from. Two I know of who do, one has a doctorate from FCU (??) the place where Fred Price (name it and claim it) got his from (unaccredited school) and another who got his from Universal Life. The problem is that many in the world at large would not know a Columbia Pacific PhD (unaccredited and closed down - John Gray got his degree from this school) from a Universal Life DD from a University of Phoenix DM (Doctor of Mangement). I would not hesitate to say that some would think the Columbia Pacific University degree was the legit accredited degree and that the University of Phoenix grad had the unaccredited degree.

As to the issue of others calling people "Dr.", Steve Levicoff told the story of his doorman whom he kept telling to call him Steve. After a while he realized that the doorman enjoyed calling him "Dr." It made the doorman feel good to know someone with a title. Human nature. I think Steve also said, if he Doctor called himself Dr. when talking to him then he would introduce himself as "Dr.".

And if anyone thinks we are bad....try Germany. Herr Dr. Professor Von Vertizblip, etc.

North

 

Then we are arguing about details to no purpose.

===

OR we are arguing or researching the finer points which go together to form the major points so that we can understand and apply the latter.

===
.


I agree, but in my circles I've not found many who base arguments on scholarly publications, except perhaps when doing undergrad work. At issue is the virtue of the reasons behind the opinions of the writers of scholarly works. Those reasons should be known and evaluated I think. [/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]As I said, a survey of the literature in the field is essential. However, we must make value judgments of the scholarship. All works are not created equal.

Yeah, but I didn’t say this.

===

No, and I neither did I say that say that YOU did!

===
However, you’re leaving out a very important concept—contextualization. Our context is far different from the KJV translators. We do not have their understanding of the English text but we have our own understanding from an environment of almost four hundred years of theology based on the English translation. This is our context. Likewise, we do not share the Koine or Hebrew context.

===

That's right. And that is why some explanations are to be provided by the experts to the common man of today because these experts can best reconstruct the original meaning. It is that original meaning which is necessarily God's Word, and not necessarily our interpretation.

 

Thanks, North. Ashland is a Brethren seminary. I found them on the internet one day as I was looking at DMin programs. Their formational counseling(F.C.) program is kind of unique. Dr. Terry Wardle was one of the main architects of the program. The idea for the model came out of a sense that traditonal Christian counseling was often not really getting it done. F.C. is psychology friendly and very biblical. It has 3 aspects: Spirit-directed counseling, spiritual direction and inner healing prayer.

 

Just curious, as a counselor, do you now introduce yourself to clients as "Dr. North." People coming for counseling may actually prefer a therapist who has a doctorate.

 

A sad detail is that some of the people who earned degrees from CPU actually worked very hard and did good enough work for a legit degree. Actually, CPU appeared promising in the early days of DE. They had generally reputable educators with traditional doctorates for the most part. The President, who was a psychiatrist, did some crazy things in the last days of the school. Clayton University, no longer extant, was another early DE school of innovation and promise.

CPU went downhill quickly after a certain point and began granting degrees to every crackpot for any harebrain idea.

 

Actually, other than pastoral counseling I do not do formal counseling. My secular occupation is in a social work/regulatory agency. Actually, my boss calls me "Doc" and one of my staff asked "What if we want to call you..."Dr". I think it had to do with the fact that there is another organization we deal with where the head has a PhD so they wanted to look equivalent. It will take some getting used to. It is like when I first became an officer after being an NCO. It took me while not to be uncomfortable having senior enlisted folks calling me "Sir" and saluting.

You are correct that in a therapeutic setting you may well not only give credibility to what you do but establish some initial confidence. What happens afterwards is dependent on many factors.

North

 

Yeah, they’re probably a little pricey—the same with Walden. They started as a consortium for several major state universities based on the University-without-walls concept. I think the universities did it to protect their accreditation when RA’s were not DE friendly. Also, it offered great flexibility. Like Walden, Vermont College, et. al., they were pioneers in DE.

The name was originally Union Institute, at least that was the short version, and I never did really understand why they added university. Sounds rather dorky to me.

Personally, I like UNISA, SATS, and UNIZUL—all good SA schools. They’re inexpensive too.

There is a possibility of a Ph.D. by publication from some European universities after you complete your D.Min. A couple of English universities do this. Don’t believe the guys who tell you it can’t be done—they just don’t know. Dr. van Harlaan of the Institute of Philosophy and History of Education at the University of Nijmegen (Netherlands) agreed to award a Ph.D. for published work some years ago. (He was head of the institute but he is no longer there.) Other faculties are willing to do this as well. As I posted elsewhere, the Ph.D. in other countries is less course oriented than in America. IMHO, we have become too credit conscious and course-oriented rather than making the Ph.D. highly individualistic and specialized with the students bearing the burden of independent and creative learning.

 

Thanks, North. Ashland is a Brethren seminary. I found them on the internet one day as I was looking at DMin programs. Their formational counseling(F.C.) program is kind of unique. Dr. Terry Wardle was one of the main architects of the program. The idea for the model came out of a sense that traditonal Christian counseling was often not really getting it done. F.C. is psychology friendly and very biblical. It has 3 aspects: Spirit-directed counseling, spiritual direction and inner healing prayer. </font>[/QUOTE]Please enlighten me.

What is formational counseling?

Who is Terry Wardle? What is his background?

How can it be psychology friendly and Biblical? These two are antithetical. Can secular, evolutionary based ideas be reconciled to Scripture?

Where do we find Biblical basis for Spirit-directed counseling, spiritual direction, and inner healing prayer?

 

Thanks, North. Ashland is a Brethren seminary. I found them on the internet one day as I was looking at DMin programs. Their formational counseling(F.C.) program is kind of unique. Dr. Terry Wardle was one of the main architects of the program. The idea for the model came out of a sense that traditonal Christian counseling was often not really getting it done. F.C. is psychology friendly and very biblical. It has 3 aspects: Spirit-directed counseling, spiritual direction and inner healing prayer. </font>[/QUOTE]Having done a little brief research on Dr. Wardle and formational counseling, it appears that he is involved with contemplative spirituality. The direction of this movement is disturbing at least for its apparent use and connection with New Age ideas and methods. This is a definite step toward interspirituality and New Age spirituality.

With emphasis on the inner spiritual dimensions of man, I can easily understand how this could mesh with Rogerian psychology. Jungian elements, which are popular with New Agers as well, are also visible. What I cannot find is anything Biblical about the whole concept.

It does violence to the whole Biblical understanding of prayer. Instead of being communion with one’s Heavenly Father, prayer becomes a contemplative communion and introspection with one’s inner self. Fits nicely with Rogerian psychology, doesn’t it? Finding God, finding self. Such prayer is very mystical and attractive to the modern New Age interest. Dr. Wardle appears to be an updated and Protestant Thomas Merton.

Avoid this like the plague.

 

===


I'm interested in discussing things, but I always prefer to have the resources as my partner in discussion has, and I don't have Fish. I also like to limit my discussions to what I know about.

IF our discussions could apply Fish to particular NT texts, and could also have as a premise the inspiration of only the originals not a translation of the originals, then I'd be interested.

Could that be done?

Sorry if in my ignorance I've misunderstood you.

 

Paid:

I just looked a little at Fish and might be willing to troll a bit with you re his views as they relate to Scripture. If you wish, start a thread in Bible Study.

Bill

 

Rather than dissuading me from my conclusion, you have strengthened it. So, he does run with guys who are mystical and have incorporated New Age ideas into their thinking.