Brewer Chrsitian College and Graduate School?

As has been often said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Every Tom, Dick and Harry (including myself) has his opinions about schools, accreditation, etc. I suggest that you look at the two sample video sessions for Brewer found at the following:

http://www.brewerchristiancollege.com/leadership/leadsample.htm

http://www.brewerchristiancollege.com/Romans/romanssample.htm

Now, take the time to go to the following FREE course website for laymen taught by a real seminary professor:

http://cc.christiancourses.com/courses/?courseName=BIBL_500-04

(If the above link doesn’t work, you may need to go to www.christiancourses.com to register free. Go to the course catalog and choose Old Testament Foundations—Advanced by Dr. Douglas Stuart)

If you follow this process, I believe you will see the difference. With disparaging Sunday Schools, the Chris Brewer course on Romans is typically Sunday School class variety, not an academic college level course. Papa Brewer’s lecture on leadership is a little more inspiring but lacking in content, depth, insight and rigor.

Brewer is not a fraudulent degree mill in that you get something for nothing but it is not a serious academic college either. If they were offering Bible institute certificates, then they would be at about the right level. As for undergraduate and graduate degrees, they have shown nothing worthy of such academic standing despite their web page.

As an educator for over thirty years with a interest in DE and degree mills, I spot red flags all over the place with Brewer:
1. It is named after its President who has no name recognition at all with me. (I know, I know…….I have one of my degrees from the same formerly unaccredited school named for its founder as Robert Reymond and Moises Silva.) It just seems a little bigheaded to name your school after yourself if you have no outstanding accomplishments with widespread recognition outside your own circle.
2. FCPC is not an accrediting organization and pretty much authorizes religious schools de facto.
3. Their affiliation with ABHE is not accreditation but it is simply membership that carries no stamp of academic approval.
4. They seem to insinuate into their associations with FCPC and ABHE some kind of implied approval.
5. The academic credentials are not sufficient for the degrees they offer.
6. The whole motif is characteristic of schools more focused on granting degrees than teaching and learning.

My assessment is to stay away from this school. There are dozens of the same ilk springing up all over the Internet. If you want this kind of diploma, there are better choices. Check out Walston’s Guide to Christian DE. Walston’s school, CES, would be better than Brewer.

On the other hand, I heartily disagree with my fellow posters in that I don’t necessarily put much confidence in RA, etc. A school can be quite good without accreditation. I cite BJU, until recently unaccredited, as a case in point. On the other side, I know many academic incompetents with degrees from RA schools. Furthermore, there are a lot of inept people with DE degrees from RA institutions floating around. Some folks snub their noses at foreign DE degrees, yet I think some of the best DE programs are the foreign degrees, especially SA.

 

With all said and done, I don't think a doctorate can necessarily be measured by coursework and credit hours. It is the level and rigor of the work. European doctorates are many times granted on publication of significant work. This is where much current DE has gone wrong. They are proscribing length for dissertations and course work. In scientific disciplines, for example, one is not tied to formal course requirements as much as demonstrating competencies. The main focus is research and making a contribution to the body of knowledge. IMHO, a rehash of what others have done, not matter how lengthy, is worthless even for a degree.

 

This does not necessarily mean anything at all. They may claim that qualified professors teach their courses but these are simply courses purchased from ITS that are available to anyone. You can get these types of courses by going to http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/dimensions/courses.php or http://www.biblicaltraining.org/ for free.

However, who is to say that you have done the work and comprehended the lectures. The problem is the matter of accountability and assessment. Usually, these schools (e.g. Andersonville) ask you to write a paper on your lectures or reading. There are undoubtedly some conscientious people who do good work at these less than wonderful schools but their peers write claptrap that would be rejected in a high school English class.

You may well question what interaction you would have with these well-known professors in the ITS courses. The answer is none. All communication is with the people at the school that purchased the courses. I have seen these Internet DE schools claim the authors of their textbooks as faculty. They send you the text and tell you to read it and to submit a 25-page summary. When you submit the summary, you get credit for the course. There’s no real accountability and assessment.

Personally, I like SATS, UNIZUL or UNISA for inexpensive DE in theology. If all you want is a degree to hang on your wall, print one off your color printer from The University of Hard Knocks. It’s cheaper, worth about as much and a heap more interesting.

 

Bill is indeed correct...theology (once called the Queen of the sciences) is a very intensive field. When I spoke of the 90 graduate hours above the BA I meant other fields. Even less in some cases. TUI (accredited) offered a PhD in Health Sciences for 40 credit hours above the Masters degree.

Someone else mentioned that it is not just the number of credits but the depth and this is also correct. Many programs such as that done by Bill are simply dissertation based but there is nothing simple about them. Very in depth and intensive.

Had I had my druthers I would have not had the nomenclature termed a DMin. As I said above, no disprespect at all to DMin's with MDiv's. But, after earning a 48 credit hours Masters and then a doctorate that required 60 hours and a 200 page ARP that was defended, etc (my committee consisting of PhD's) I would have rather earned a degree with a different title. There is so much variation in DMin programs and many people see DMin's as nothing more than 36 hr practical project oriented courses and this is not the case. My program was more in line with an EdD. Even many shorter DMin programs are.

Incidentally, Regionally Accredited SCU has a 60 credit hour DMin for cousnelors in Marriage and family therapy (one for those with an MDiv) and a regionally accredited university back east (cannot remember the name) also has a DMin 60 credit hour for those without and MDiv. There is a therapist here with a DMin (Masters is an LMSW).

North

 

wrote a response-did't come through. Had nothing very important to say anyway

 

Bill, Let us know how that UNIZUL Diploma looks when you get it. Their crest has class.

North

 

==

sure will! I hope its a great BIG one

 

North,

I agree. My D.Min. at Gordon-Conwell is at a much higher academic level than other programs I looked into.

I don't mind the D.Min. label, but I know it doesn't distinguish what I'm doing from lesser programs.

As to 90 hours after the B.A., that's what Ph.Ds in theology should be. Having learned Hebrew and Greek, an academic D.Min. should really be called something else. Actually, I don't know why we can't earn a Ph.D. for what we are doing.

 

Gorden-Conwell is a great program as I understand. Plus they have great ads in Christianity Today (always enjoy reading the stories).

You are also correct about the amount of study. Lawyers used to earn an Bachelors and still do in the Canada. It was turned into a JD in the US. Pharmacists now earn a doctorate. MD's get a doctorate here for what in Britian is a Bachelors (professional degree). With the amount of education required of MDiv's it indeed could be equivalent to a standard (if such a thing existed) PhD. Even if not that then it seems that it would amost be fair to turn the MDiv into a DDiv (Doctor of Divinity) degree for the first professional degree and then leave the DMin as an advanced doctorate.

North

 

My argument with theology is that it so easily becomes scholastic and divorced from the real world. To keep theology viable, we must maintain the connection with life and the living. Don’t let it slip into an esoteric discipline for the few initiated. This comes from making it too technical so that only the initiated can comprehend. We ought not let theology become an academic discipline existing for the sake of academics—it should be a vibrant subject pulsating with life.

Several factors push theology into its esoteric mode. Firstly, we talk theology in abstraction and obscurity. Theology becomes obfuscation. We argue fine points without making application to how we live. (At times, I think, we create artifacts that were never intended in the original context.) Theology must be applied to daily life. For the believer, all of life is theology. How I interact with my neighbor, or my wife, or my employees is determined by my theology. It must be practical and applicable.

Secondly, we tend to hesitate in reaching a conclusion. We ought to study our hardest, exegete the Scriptures and reach the best possible conclusion. Then, we ought to preach it as truth. Like the Jews, we say, “Hillel says this and Shammai say that.” Trying to be fair and scholarly, we fail to reach applicable conclusions and leave matters hanging between many opinions.

Thirdly, the way many study theology makes it dull. The compiling, sifting and quoting of variant opinions does little to edify or stimulate. Whereas some of this kind of activity is necessary in surveying the extant literature on the subject, it snuffs the life out when it becomes the primary thing. Theology must come from the primary source—the Scriptures. Arguments must be made on the grammatical, historical and theological aspects of the Scriptures rather than scholarly publications.

Theology is one of my passions but I find a great deal sailing under this banner to be so much drivel. Yes, theology is Queen but she only rules when she reigns in the real world, not cloistered in ivy towers.

 

MDiv equivalency for admission to DMin programs is kind of interesting to me. I had my transcripts evaluated by 4 seminaries and each one interpreted equivalency differently. (3 were RA and ATS accredited schools and one TRACS). At Ashland Seminary I was deemed MDiv equivalent with a 36 credit MAR, 30 credits toward an MDiv and a 60 credit MSW.(SBTS wanted me to take 2 more classes). I ended up attending Ashland's DMin program in Formational Counseling. That program is 45 quarter hours.

 

Good luck Patsfan. Ashland is a good seminary (UMC??) and the DMin in Counseling program sounds interesting. Can you tell us a little about it and how you have found the program.

North

 

Yeah? In economics, we call it inflation when the value of paper currency gets cheaper and cheaper. Now we’re inflating sheepskins. We have inflated the baccalaureate so that it’s worth about as much as a high school diploma once was.

What does it matter whether it’s a D.Min., Ph.D., or Th.D.? Who’s going to really know when everyone is calling you Dr. Paul. After all, that’s why guys buy the bogus paper from a degree mill. No one asks, cares, or knows where Dr. Whifflesniffle got his doctorate. Most folks don’t know the difference or care whether it’s an earned Th.D. or an honorary D.D. (BTW, a Th.D. once took ten years of full time study.)

I digress here:
I am always suspicious of the folks purring, “Oh, Dr. _____ . . . . ” and “Ah, Dr. ______ . . . . .” I wonder what their game is. Whom do they think that they’re manipulating? Of course, some of the newly minted doctors seem to lap it up. (My old microbiology prof was fond of saying that a doctorate ruined a lot of good men and it usually took about five years to get over it.)

It amuses me to no end when a guy introduces himself as Dr. ________. So droll! The really sheik guys who have made in actual fact some significant accomplishments wear their doctorates lightly. I cannot recall ever hearing one of them calling himself doctor. It’s always the hacks that aspire to higher notoriety.

A friend of mine, whom we will call Buster, was inordinately proud of his capital letters (earned Ed.D.). He met everyone with outstretched palm while droning, “Hello, I’m Dr. Highsmith." When Buster went into his act, I played the redneck hick by drawling, “Yeah, me and Buster here is friends and my name is Billy Bob Smith.” It was highly embarrassing for him but I was ROFL. Oh, well. I suppose some people have a perverted sense of humus.

Now, back to the main track. Once the M.Div. was the B.D., the first professional degree. It was academic oriented, not ministry modeled. It did not build on the B.A. as many wrongly assume. The B.A. was the liberal arts degree for a broad general education. The B.A. could be in history, the classics, languages, or any other field. The B.D. was a specialized, professional degree in theology. The inflation of the B.D. to a M.Div. followed the same pattern and reasoning that you are proposing.

My position is that the D.Min does need 90 hours beyond the baccalaureate. The difference between the Ph.D., Th.D. and D.Min. is not the number of hours as much as the content and level of scholarship expected. With the number of ministry courses (i.e. methodology courses) in a D.Min. program, the rigor is not comparable to a Ph.D. track which is more academic and research oriented. A Ph.D. should, theoretically at least, advance the state of knowledge in the field.

As for Greek and Hebrew, even a M.Div. should have a working knowledge so this is not especially rigorous for a D.Min. On the other hand, methinks, a Ph.D. or Th.D. should not only be proficient in Greek and Hebrew (including the other related Semitic languages) but he should have a reading knowledge of Latin and German as well.

Now, I am always confused by this mystery. When one is buying a product, he tries to get as much as he can for his money but the student in education tries to get as little as he can. Yeah, I know you pay for more credit hours and there is more work but think how much you are learning. Are you going to school for the education or the degree?

This is only one man’s view. Enjoy yourself, Dr. Paul.

 

I think the Master's ThD does take 11 years of FT study. Mine took that too: BA, 4 ; ThM, 4, ThD, 3. Or did you perhaps mean 10 years past the ThM?

Actually I twice attempted to change my sig to "Bill Grover" instead of UZThD. Couldn't figure it out. I by email asked how to do that, but got no reply. Yet, I notice some moderators go by "Dr. ", so perhaps it's OK.

I don't know that there's anything at all wrong with listing a doc if we have it. But if I can be convinced that it is, I'll go back to trying to change my sig.

Not that important!

 

Paid,

I appreciate your humor! Actually, I don't disagree with much, if anything you said. Perhaps you have misunderstood my real complaint, which I obviously didn't state.

My complaint is this. You need a Ph.D to teach in most universities. The D.Min. that I am earning at Gordon-Conwell is academic. The track is revival and reform. In actuality, it is an historical theology degree. I've looked at other Ph.D. programs and realized that if my program were at the Unversity of South Africa, I would be earning a Ph.D.!

I've looked at other seminary programs and university programs in the USA, and you know, if I learned German and French, Gordon-Conwell's D.Min. program would be a Ph.D. program. I do know enough German that it wouldn't be too hard to pass a test or take the summer course.

So my complaint is, I wish it were a Ph.D. because I'm doing the work of a Ph.D.

If universities would hire D.Min. doctorates, then I wouldn't have a complaint.

And I agree, I'm not introducing myself as "doctor" unless some idiot J.D. or M.D. does first!

 

I will say this, though, in academic circles, if a Ph.D in English or History is 90 credits after the B.A., then so should a Theology degree, if one holds a B.A. in theology/religion. Actually Baylor University appears to do this. A one year master's degree is all that is required to enter the Ph.D. program.

If God doesn't take the desire to earn a Ph.D. away from me, which I'm asking him to do if that's not his purpose for me, I will probably apply there in a few years.

 

That’s okay. You sign yourself as plain Bill at the end of your posts. Dr. Bob goes by Dr. Bob. No problem with UZTHD. I wasn’t needling you. I was aiming elsewhere. However, if you should begin signing your posts with Rt. Rev. Dr. Bill Grover, Th.D., then I may take a few pot shots at ya.

Honor and accolades are hard things for us mere mortals to handle. A doctorate is a notable achievement that can easily nudge one into prideful thought. It’s a big temptation. Success scares me to death. I fear that I will become either proud or self-sufficient and God will have to chasten me. (See Prov. 30:8-9)

IMHO, a man’s character is more important than his capital letters. I am just an iconoclastic who smashes the icons. I don’t think we should take ourselves too seriously. I never was one to stand on pretense, dignity, and self-importance but I love sincerity, verity, humility, integrity, meekness and kindness. I just wish that I had more of these things.

Aside:
The story goes that H.A. Ironside turned down an honorary doctorate from BJU (BJC) because he was running with the Plymouth Brethren crowd and he was afraid that they would consider it pretentious. When he later became President of Moody, he decided that it would be fitting so he passed the word to BJ and they awarded him his doctorate.

 

I understand. Just don't sign your posts as Dr. Paul, D.Min., Ph.D., ad nauseam