An Easy Newburgh ThD

Havensdad,

As one in the process of writing a dissertation, I would say that original thought is certainly still possible. There are some subjects that are so tired and have been discussed so much that it's difficult to sift through the good and bad secondary literature with any brevity or clarity. For this reason, the main historian at my school doesn't approve any seminar paper proposals, let alone dissertation proposals, on Calvin.

A good dissertation will demonstrate that the student has performed the requisite amount of research in both the primary and secondary literature by surveying what others have said and nudging the discussion forward just a little. This nudge could be approaching things from a new methodological insight thereby critiquing earlier approaches, focusing on a neglected area of the discussion, or providing clarity to a position that has been misunderstood. Either way, that small nudge is the original contribution, and those unfamiliar with the discussion can easily miss it.

Of course, standards of dissertations will vary by program. Sometimes outside factors may lead to a bad dissertation passing defense when it really shouldn't have. I read one dissertation recently from a well known Baptist seminary that was deficient in many areas and my hope is they did him a favor passing it. I wouldn't want that dissertation representing my school's program.

As for the greater topic. I don't care what the page count is since quantity does not replace quality. Many of these Th.D. or Ph.D. programs fail to teach proper research methodology. While traditional programs have seminars, language exams, comprehensive exams, etc., these programs have book lists (with books that are at master's level or lower) and page counts. I don't know how one could even begin to compare the two types of programs with any objectivity.

 

It depends. I think it is increasingly hard, and a lot of junk is being put out in the name of scholarship that is really stupidity thinly veiled.

However, the is a lot of ground to be covered by people who want to take the time and effort and devote themselves to it.

 

I don't think this is entirely true. You can't really write a doctoral dissertation in less than 100 pages, probably 200. If you get past 350-400, your topic was probably too big. So quantity does matter, but quality certain matters more.

It is hard in some ways, but you can compare the syllabi for similar classes, the classes required/offered. The book list for comps is a good comparison. So it may be possible to give a totally objective comparison, and desires and opportunities differ, but it can be compared at least somewhat.

In doctoral work, the best thing to do is pick a person to study under. The place is not as important as the person is.

 

Hi Larry,

My statement about quantity was unclear. When proper methodology is not taught and the student is not equipped to write a good seminar paper, let alone a dissertation, then counting pages is pointless. So what if one goes on and on for 200 pages when the quality of the research and writing is poor? You're right about the standard lengths of dissertations, and I wasn't disputing that.

I'm all for comparing accredited programs (and even rigorous unaccredited ones, such as Bob Jones), and I did plenty of that when applying to schools. I was talking about comparing programs like the one in the OP and a more traditional one that actually has course syllabi and book lists for comps (implying that there are comps for the program). I still don't know how to compare Newburgh with such programs since I don't think it's helpful to add up the pages the student is required to write and then compare the totals. I suppose one can compare the books that are required, but as stated before, it shows the program is subpar to put it mildly.

 

Hi Bill,

You are quite right that old, tired subjects can still be given new life and the examples of nudging forward a discussion above make room for that. I just said that common topics are that much more difficult because there is already so much scholarship to sift through. Of course, some people are up for that challenge.

I guess I was just giving a heads up that you are unlikely to write a dissertation that heavily involves Calvin at the school named after him. That doesn't mean he can never be persuaded otherwise or that his preference is defensible in the first place. It might even be a joke for all I know, but I have yet to see a dissertation on him come through our young program.

I don't doubt your scholarship Bill, and I know you didn't write a book report for your degree.

 

Over the past week or two, I have encountered some folks who have been connected in one way or another with Newburgh. I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised at what I hear. This is no cream puff, write a sunday school paper and get a diploma thing. Nor is it an open door, have a heartbeat - get admission thing. One dissertation I saw on the Master's level was comparable to one I saw on the doctoral level at a RE seminary. I'm also impressed by the calliber of people associated. Gene Mims, Robert Smith, and others have done seminars for them, and while I don't know if I could share his name or not (he didn't say not to), a very high ranking SBC denom guy said he is recommending this doctoral program for pastors who can't get to do a RE doctorate. This is a former high ranking member at a seminary. Maybe I said too much :smilewinkgrin:

After perusing some of the texts for preaching, pastoral ministry, theology, and others, I have to say that I've seen these same texts used for D.Min and Ph.D courses at at least three seminaries I know of. So to say that the texts aren't doctoral quality may be true, but Newburgh isn't the only ones doing it. And these are resident, RA and ATS programs we're talking about here.

I'm not suggesting Newburgh is SBTS :laugh: After all, there's only one greatest seminary on the planet However, I think some of the criticisms are a bit unfair after you judge the works and workers connected with Newburgh. After all, that's what it all comes down to. A friend let me look at their dissertation in preaching some time back. I looked at a paper that frankly wouldn't pass muster in a Master's course I graded for. Chock full of spelling errors, grammatically shallow, and just poorly done all the way around. Realizing what was happening, I told him "I can't proof this draft....that's a violation of policy." The friend exclaimed "This isn't my draft...that's the final copy that got me an A!" I was stunned. This was approved by an elite seminary with an elite advisor that everyone would recognize at the drop of the name.

My point? Don't judge prima facie.

Let the slings and arrows come :laugh:

 

Tom

Good observation. Unqualified statements about any school should be based on research of the objectives, materials, and interaction between students and qualified faculty at that school. That reseach is a lot of work! But until that is done, remarks should be qualified.

And I agree that unaccredited schools may equal accredited ones in substance and rigor--it just is not common.

Here's one example of the, IMO, failure of accredited schools: In my Theological/Biblical coursework at Western Seminary (RA/ATs), and Point Loma (RA), the issue of the popular view of hierarchical intra- Trinal relationships, whether relational only (eg Grudem ) or ontological as well, (eg, Berkhof ) or both (eg Dahms)never, as I recall, was broached in class or in assignment.

Yet, the Trinity is the center of our Faith!

How can one finish the work for three advanced theological degrees in two accredited schools and never be exposed to that?

So, accreditation is no proof of quality, IMO!

Both accredited and unaccredited schools should be carefully analyzed.

 

Agreed. And as for the breadth of theological exposure to the various nuances of every doctrine, I suppose there would have to be 12-24 semester hours at least for a fully orbed systematic theology sequence for students to be adequately exposed to all that is available. In our seminaries now, most simply will deal with the basics and move on, satisfied that students have a grasp already, will grasp it in the future, or will be motivated to study in depth concurrent with survey courses.

IMHO, we cannot go too deep in our theology clases. But if you ask a language prof, she would want 12 hours of Greek. Ask Dr. Hebrew and he'll tell you the same. By the time we've queried the Church History guy, the homiletics chap, the counseling lady, et.al., then suddenly our M.Div degree has 154 hours of study...providing you take no electives But at least the evangelical M.Div graduates every year in America would be well prepared....all four of them :tongue3:

Back to Newburgh. Let me say I don't think anyone should have the totality of their experience at a Newburgh, CES, Luther Rice, or even Liberty DL or the South African schools (no offense). I think your first ministry degree should be RE. Too much face to face interaction is needed, mentoring available, etc. But for terminal work, I think the above examples are more than adequate for the right person in the right circumstance.

 

Do you think this holds true for an experienced minister, or only for the younger folks? In other words, does a guy that has been in full time ministry for ten years, who decides he needs his M.div., REALLY need a bunch of face to face? Don't you think this would primarily apply to the young and inexperienced?

 

I think this would typically apply. As someone who is going on twenty years in ministry, I can say that ten years isn't all that much experience really. And if you have a man who spent years in small to medium churches, wouldn't he benefit from the experience of large and megachurch servants? The opposite is true, too.

A man who spent his ministry in small towns would benefit from country church preachers who would benefit from the inner-city pastor. We can get awful clannish in church ministry. Why not get some breadth?

My first day at Bible college, I met a man who had been pastoring longer than I was alive. After his first semester, he said he never knew how much he never knew First day at seminary, I met a man who had been in ministry over forty years. He was there because he knew he never reached a point where iron couldn't sharpen iron.

That's not to discount the fellow in your example. Obviously, the ten year veteran has more experience than the first year seminarian who enrolled straight out of college. But both have room to grow.

I have pity and caution for the man who thinks he has enough experience that he can't learn from others. It's typically this chap (and I've seen them over the years) who really don't know half of what they think they do. They're the ones who need it the worst.

I have talked to three D.O.Ms lately whose associations are doing away with their pastor lunches. The pastors just are getting way too clannish. So they'll cloister themselves away to do their own thing. They all think they've arrived. They're wrong.

 

I am not saying that they do not need to interact; but discussion boards, chat rooms, etc.,(which most good DL use nowadays), can accomplish the interaction part. To me, it seems, the only advantage in a learning environment where one talks face to face, rather than through message boards, forums etc., is that a person develops social skills necessary for a Pastor. However, a minister of ten years (I would Hope!), should already be in possession of these skills, and interaction on the internet, rather than face to face, should not adversely affect him.

I think I recognize what you are saying though. I have thought of transferring to one of the Big Six (preferrably SBTS, if I could get in), once I have accumulated the maximum number of transfer credits from Liberty (I get federal aid, which SBTS and the Big Six do not participate in). If not, I will stay with Liberty.

 

I personally believe that, though the Internet, boards like this, chat rooms, etc., have benefits, one of the drawbacks is the stunting of interpersonal growth and relational skills. I suppose being in RE gives you some socialization skills. I was thinking more of the interaction, shared experiences, professorial tutelage, mentoring, etc. Not to mention the things you really don't learn as well DE or can't learn at all DE. We've gone down the RE vs DE thing a lot.

True that the Big Six do not do federal loans (you typically don't get Fed grants for grad/seminary work). But there are other aid options. If you like LBTS so much, why not do their RE program if that's the direction you are led? Of course, I can see why you want to go to SBTS since it's the best seminary on planet Earth :smilewinkgrin:

 

What I think is stupid, is that the Big six do not participate in Fed. loans, but they will point you to secondary loan sources, with much higher interest rates (as well as not being subsidized). What is the POINT in that?

 

What I have heard time and again is the claptrap about Federal requirements that come with loans, and it's not entirely false. For example, I do know that if an institution has default rates that exceed a certain level, then Fed loan monies are cut off. And it's a different animal when you're in grad school. But I share your frustration.

Definitely could use some work. That said, the website of my alma mater is in terrible need of a makeover. Whenever I ask someone about it there in the admin, I get the old "Would you rather we had a glitzy website or a good library/paid faculty/student scholarship" answer. And to be fair, a glitzy website is down the list, but if you're going to market yourself, you have to have one.

Prima facie, that's understandable. Once I talked to some folks (which happened by providence and not necessarily by me seeking out initially) I am willing to surrender that charge. And as I stated earlier, snap judgements on spec are ill-advised and not helpful.

If the only reason a person couldn't do an RE PhD was because they weren't cut out for it, I would not disagree with you one whit. However, some of the brightest theological minds out there are unable to pack up and head to Louisville to go to the greatest seminary on the planet So these guys can either not do anything at all, or they can do something else. I'd hate to think that their ministries and personal enrichment would suffer because they cannot do a degree somewhere that would be beneficial and at least have some substance. Not all are like this, so there are qualifiers naturally.

This, too, was an issue for me when I was considering an RE Ph.D. I was also studying and pastoring a church about 75 miles from the campus. There was a rule that you have to live within 50 miles of campus to do the Ph.D. When I told someone in the Academic office about my concerns, they laughed off both of them, pointing to various people who did not meet either of these. This is true almost anywhere. My point? For all the noise about how strident these elite programs are, they rarely enforce all stips. If they did, they couldn't get anyone in, and if they didn't have them, no one would want in. I was essentially told to pass one Hebrew, one Greek, and I would probably get in, though I'd have to take one language class during enrollment.

First, just because someone can get into a Ph.D program and read Latin and German does not make them a de facto better scholar than someone who cannot and may not be in a Ph.D. program. I will not argue that these are helpful attributes in a researcher, depending upon his area. I personally believe a person should have proficiency in the Biblical languages to have any kind of seminary degree, let alone a doctorate. But the seminaries that require language proficiency are few and far between. I know people who have doctorates from RA/ATS seminaries who never took the first day of either language. Second, you cannot compare X graduate from Y, with A graduate from B, until you meet and look at both, evaluating them individually. You just can't do it. And I've taken a couple of doctoral classes. The requirements for a Newburgh doctoral class would be more than what I was required to do.

I think that's flimsy, too, and someone connected with the situation admitted as much and told me they do not allow that one to be used with folks they advise. I don't think they show everything on the website...what school does? An old joke amongst admissions people is there are two universities...the one in the catalog...and the real one

While I agree, your intimation is this is why someone would choose a program like Newburgh, Columbia Evangelical, etc. That's a terrible charge to make if it's true on your end. I wouldn't want to impugn the motives of all because some might do that. The ones I know who do that have not gone their way. They know the "schools" that will give (literally) a doctorate for little to no work. I referenced them earlier in this thread, probably not by name.

An advisor and other person connected with them shared info with me that would lead me to believe that, at least in their situations, they would not allow someone out of their program who did not do quality work. My concern for Newburgh doing what you argue against is no more than it is for all other institutions. It has been widely held that in the past, at some of the schools years ago, certain applicants were allowed to enter and stay in because they could charge more tuition. Honestly, if I gave you a copy of the very highly regarded seminary doctoral dissertation I referenced previously, you'd either laugh or cry. I couldn't decide which.

I drew that line on purpose. If you had stopped before that line, I could agree with you. But everything you typed after that line flips everything above the line on its ear. It cannot be had both ways. So I have to disagree with you. Again, I'm not about to argue that, at face value, a PhD from a SBTS is going to carry more weight than Trinity (IN) or Newburgh (I wouldn't put Covington in their league from what I know of it...no offense to your mentor....I hope it was better then). I am just disputing the notion that the worst grad from an RE accredited program is automatically a better scholar/servant than a good quality grad from a good DE program.
I would also add that you seem to be indicting people like our good UzThd, who did a disertation only degree. Should his merits be less because he did not do his traditionally? What about James White, the noted apologist? Or many others who could be listed who did their research degrees non-traditionally.

I met a fellow who is one of the brightest men I've ever met. Very sharp mind. His ThD was from an unaccredited Luther Rice when they still offered that degree. Even he admits he wishes he could've done something different. But providence would not allow it. So he did what he could. His dissertation research turned into three different books, which have been and are now used at seminaries and colleges all over, and has blessed preachers for two generations. His name is Jerry Vines, and I his books on preaching, now collected in one voume called "Power in the Pulpit" were the first I ever read (the initial versions) on preaching and influence me to this day. Without that doctoral program, we would never have had that influence.

Thanks, friend!