Crown College

I know a couple Maranatha Preacher boys, and I have seen some preach and pray and lead singing at a moment's notice. Haven't seen too many die, but I'd wager (great Baptist cliche ) they are prepared for that too!

The other half of that, is if you are a Maranatha Student, but not a preacher boy, you will probably be prepared to do the above as well. They definitely don't let you out of there without a solid theological foundation, and some great practical ministry training, even if your degree is in Underwater Basketweaving (I don't think they offer that one yet, but we live in hope)

To the Praise of His glory

 

Living near the college, knowing many students, faculty, church staff, alumni....without reservation I would NOT advise anyone attend there. There are plenty of other solid, Bible-believing colleges out there.

Like others, I'd advise them to do what I did not - go to a school where you can double major in Bible/missions/pastoral ministry, whatever your calling, and another field that you can use if you have to be bivocational such as teaching, business, etc.

 

A pastor friend of mine in Connecticut should have done that. He is making almost nothing as a crossing guard to supplement his income as a pastor to support his wife and 4 children.

 

i AM PRESENTLY A STUDENT A CC AND AM LOVING IT!
i AM CALLED TO PREACH AND i AM A SECONDARY EDUCATION HISTORY MAJOR/MUSIC MINOR.
(HEY KIDZ-4-HIM! THIS IS TRAVIS)
CROWN COLLEGE IS AN EXCELLENT SCHOOL AS ALL WHO HAVE REPLIED HAS SAID. THE EMPHASIS ON GOD'S WILL SETTLING ALL QUESTIONS IN LIFE, THE MINISTRY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH, AND ACADEMIC DILLIGENCE AND DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, IT IS ALL UNDENIABLY PRESENT AT CC.
FIRST i WOULD SAY CONCERNING THE COMMENTS REFERING TO LIBERAL ARTS DEGREES AS A BACK-UP PLAN FOR YOURE FULL-TIME SERVICE DEGREE,
i UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN IN THE FIELD, WHATEVER/WHEREEVER IT MAY BE, THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE TO FIND ALTERNATE SOURCES OF INCOME. WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE AND CIRCUMSTANCE CAUSES YOU TO RETHINK YOUR LIFE AND SUBJECTION TO GOD'S WILL. MY FAMILY MOVED TO EDGWATER, FLA. 4 YEARS AGO AND STARTED A CHURCH. WE HAVE HAD OUR SRUGGLES. BUT THE LORD PROVIDED AND WEVE MADE IT THROUGH THOSE TRYING TIMES.
--TO PREPARE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT THE LORD HAS GIVEN YOU TO DO IN YOUR LIFE AS A BACKUP PLAN, i SEE AS SECOND GUESSING GOD, GOD'S WILL, AND HIS POWER TO PROVIDE.--
JUST MY OPINION.
LAST THING--
shannonL DOES NOT KNOW MUCH OF ANYTHING ABOUT CROWN.
THERE ARE PICTURES OF ZWINGLI, CALVIN, AND J. EDWARDS HANGING IN THE NEW CAMPUS HALLWAYS. i TOOK AMERICAN LITERATURE (EXCELLENT CLASS) AND HAD 2 1/2 PAGES OF NOTES ON J. EDWARDS ALONE.
iM TAKING HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION THIS COMING FALL AND AM EXSTATIC. THERE ARE PLENTY OF BOOKS, PAMPLETS, ETC. THAT ARE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE IFB CIRCLES IN THE BOOKSTORE AND USED IN CLASSES.
BECAUSE AS THE DISCLAIMER IN EVERY BOOK AT CROWN SAYS:
"THAT CROWN COLLEGE IS A FUNDAMENTALIST ISTITUTION...IS WELL KNOWN. ACEDEMIC DILLIGENCE AND DEFENCE OF THE FAITH OFTEN NECCESSITATES BOOKS AND AUTHORS WHO'S VIEWS AND BIBLE VERSIONS WE DO NOT NECCESSARILY RECOMMEND OR ENDORCE."
WELL ANYWAYS,
CONGRADULATION GA! AND SEE YOU SOON!
TRAVIS JAMES

 

First of all, a liberal arts degree is useless. Get a degree in business, teaching, etc. Now, no one is taking a shot at God's Will, nor is it questioning him to have an alternate source of income in case God's Will is for you to be missionary, a church planter or bivocational, or if "God's Will" leads a church to fire you for preaching the Word.

The Lord provides no matter what. But are you saying that the one who is bivo or a church planter did NOT have the Lord's provision? Be careful, friend.

Not at all. See above. God's sovereignty includes our preparation and diligence. To say otherwise denies limits God's rule and control over His children.

 

my deepest appologies!
i am very sorry for "shouting".
i must admit that i am not accostomed to most internet lingo or etiquette.
i did not realize that i was shouting.
that may also be the reason that a few things that i said were taken a little more blatantly that i intended.
again, i am very sory. it's a habit.
i hope that you all will understand and accept my appology.

 

again, allow me to appologize for shouting and take the time to explain my opinion a little more clearly.
i am not saying that a "bivo" or a church planter does not have the Lord's provision. on the contrary, the past four years of my life has proved to my family and myself the exact opposite.
i believe that the Lord provides.
i believe that His provision comes by a multitude of sources.
whether it be by a job that pays well and is convenient for a church planter or new pastor, or by a anonomous envelope filled with money, the Lord provide for those truly surrendered to His will and it is all miraculous.

 

either way,
congratulations, GA and Lord willing, i'll see you in powell!

 

No problem. We can tell that you weren't actually shouting; we just wanted you to know how it looks so you could be a better poster.

And don't feel bad if someone challenges anything or everything you write . That's how forums work; you say something and ten people add their $0.02 worth. As such, you're always taking a small risk when you post; somebody might disagree!

On the bivo issue, TomVols was just pointing out something you overlooked. Happens to me all the time. That's what friends are for.

I predict great things for y'all at Crown.

 

'preciate it!

 

A liberal arts degree is far from useless. It all depends upon one’s view of college. IMHO, college education is not vocational training. A good liberal arts education teaches a student to think and work with a broad range of knowledge transcending numerous disciplines or fields. Vocational training (this is what many college programs have become) trains you to do or work in one specific area. If one is interested in vocational training he needs to attend a good tech school. One can get a good liberal arts education and then pursue vocational training for one or two years at a tech school.

The advice given in the previous post is vestigial thinking left over from the smorgasbord view of education in the 1970’s following the Hippie dropout from schooling. The idea was to study only what was relevant to your interests and pursuits. This scheme was to disregard all the knowledge outside your own personal interests and, more recently, it has morphed into the study of only what is useful to you. In the 1970’s, there was the dismantling of the traditional majors and the birth of a variety of new esoteric disciplines. This included everything from “basket weaving” to the tightly focused and narrow specialized training. We saw a rise of undergraduate pre-majors for the professional schools (i.e. pre-law, pre-med, etc.). Students were no longer required to think and possess knowledge across a range of disciplines. They were trained in a narrow specialty.

For current educational thinking, the pendulum has swung back in the other direction when the folly of the smorgasbord approach became apparent. While participating in an educational forum with secular college presidents several years ago, we talked shop during a break. They observed that the better professional schools (i.e. law, med, etc.) such as Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, Bowen-Gray, et.al. were asking for liberal arts majors instead of the pre-majors. They preferred the student who could think and was educated across a gamut of subjects. They wanted educated and thinking students. Generally, we find the trained, not educated, student to be incompetent in novel or problem situations. He has never learned to think and problem-solve.

In addition, the bi-vocational idea sounds great on paper but it doesn’t work as well in reality. There really isn’t enough space for vocation in a good rigorous liberal arts curriculum without sacrificing something of importance. With the explosion of knowledge, some are proposing a five-year course for the baccalaureate. It has merit. Also, the bi-vocational idea lacks the insight that we are mixing clashing flavors into the same stew—education and training. IMHO, education is about getting the intellectual tools such as language, mathematics, history, philosophy, logic and problem-solving skills. Training, on the other hand, is about learning specific skills or procedures for particular applications. If one is well educated, he can quickly acquire the skills or expertise for many vocational applications. An educated person develops vocational skills OJT.

The problem is nowhere more apparent than in the computer industry. Most schools are simply training students in high-end software applications. They learn how to manipulate one software package but they are incompetent with another program of the same genre. These degreed students must be constantly retrained for new software. I was instructed in one programming language—Fortran (WATIV-S). I learned computers and programming rather than just a programming language. Yet, I have done database programming, systems software, networking, etc. utilizing a variety of languages and operating systems. I routinely acquire and use new high-end applications without additional instruction.

In education, we are seeing the phenomena of the middle-aged college student. Many of these people already have degrees and are returning to change their careers. They were trained for a narrow, specific vocation and have to return to school to pursue a later interest in life. Except for a few very specialized fields, this should not be necessary if they had a broad liberal arts education instead of vocational training. Without any degree in business or background in insurance, a guy was offered an executive position with NY Life Insurance Company, one of the oldest and largest insurance companies in America. Why? He had the skills and ability to do what they wanted. He was educated, not trained.

This guy has a liberal arts education. His knowledge is broad and diverse. He has done graduate work in education, biochemistry, microbiology, counseling, theology, church history and psychology. He moves comfortably in both the sciences and the humanities. He is competent in management and administration, writing, teaching, and research. His job opportunities have included technical/scientific work, teaching, management/administration and consulting. He does database programming, systems administration, networking, etc. On a different level, he has worked as a truck driver, warehouse worker, construction worker, security guard, etc. He has never really been unemployed. An educated person can do many things; a trained person is competent in one or two things.

IMHO, a liberal arts degree is the way to go! Recently, I read an interview with Peter Drucker, the number one business guru, who said that a business degree is useless. He says get educated! I agree!

 

A pastor friend of mine in Connecticut should have done that. He is making almost nothing as a crossing guard to supplement his income as a pastor to support his wife and 4 children. </font>[/QUOTE]What's wrong with this? It gives him great flex time for study, visitation, etc. One of my best jobs was a security guard position when I was between positions. I had finished graduate school and had held responsible positions. Yet, this was great because it gave me a break from my very busy schedule to read, study, write etc. for forty minutes on the hour. I also spent a great deal of time in prayer and communion with the Lord. Also, I was able to spend more time with my wife and young son. It was a tremendous blessing. A few months later, a great opportunity opened and I enjoyed unparalleled success. It was hard and demanding work but I was prepared by working as a security guard for a few months. Praise God! I look back to those joyful days with fondness and nostalgia. If you believe in God's sovereignty and benevolent leading, you will not negate these times of not being in an exalted position of human success.

 

The Lord provides no matter what. But are you saying that the one who is bivo or a church planter did NOT have the Lord's provision? Be careful, friend. </font>[/QUOTE]There are definitely two sides to this argument. This can be taken in two ways. One is simply trusting God instead of trying to make it happen on our own. An indolent attitude of not working and piously claiming to rely upon God is wrong. Paul definitely condemns this. The other is to presumptuously run ahead of God and try to do God’s work in the wisdom and strength of our flesh. This too is wrong. Somewhere, there must be a Biblical balance between the two.

Not at all. See above. God's sovereignty includes our preparation and diligence. To say otherwise denies limits God's rule and control over His children. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, there is definitely a role for planning and preparation in our service for God. Nonetheless, there is danger here too. One may be pulled away from the ministry as his primary calling by the allure of the world and riches. I’ve known several successful businessmen who pastored small, struggling works for their whole lives. They enjoyed worldly success but their ministry never seemed to prosper. (Of course, I cannot judge the success of the ministry; this is the Lord’s doing.) One cannot help but wonder: Is this the Lord’s way of sustaining a struggling ministry (i.e. providing support from a successful business career) or is it the failure of the pastor to realize his higher calling by holding onto the material security? Perhaps the church would have grown and prospered if he had given his fulltime to it? I don’t know. God alone knows. Nevertheless, it is something that we must consider.

This is a complex and knotted question. However, one must be careful in giving wholesale advice to bi-vocational preparation for ministry. It can turn out badly if the two vocations become competitive. I do know folks who lost their ministry to the competition of their secular vocation. The pull of materialism was just too powerful. On the other hand, I find the concept of a “tent-maker” ministry very appealing. For some countries, this is about the only way to get into them as a missionary.

Let’s keep the views and opinions balanced.

 

paidagogos wrote:

Agreed. I was not arguing for "the strength of the flesh" when I gave the advice that God may sovereignly place His servant in a place where secular employment is necessary.

Agreed. There are a lot of people around here who criticize "full-time" pastors, and these very hacks are very well paid in secular employment.

First, I think you may have a faulty view of "success." While you admit that success is the Lord's business, you then do a 180 degree when you say the man may have been "successful" and the church grown had he been single-vocation. To characterize small churches broadly as "struggling ministry" is a dangerous mindset that find no Scriptural warrant.

To my knowledge, no one (I know I have not) said that all should prepare for bivocational ministry. I have simply said one should have a trade they can use should they need it. Single-vocation pastors get fired all the time, or feel the need to resign without another field to go to. Others are tentmakers. Some will need to go to churches that cannot pay a man enough to support his family. I'm not advocating bivocational ministry; I'm simply pointing out its existence.

 

[qb]

TomVols: First, I think you may have a faulty view of "success." While you admit that success is the Lord's business, you then do a 180 degree when you say the man may have been "successful" and the church grown had he been single-vocation. To characterize small churches broadly as "struggling ministry" is a dangerous mindset that find no Scriptural warrant. </font>[/QUOTE]I beg your pardon. You have assumed and read more than I said.
1. I did not define struggling but you wrongly assumed that I was thinking small. Although size may be an indication, it is not necessarily so. Some small churches are active, dynamic and vibrant ministries. However, this type of ministry usually grows. On the other hand, some churches, regardless of size, are struggling ministries. Growth is generally lacking, the people are discouraged and the finances are usually in arrears. Some are shells of former ministries. One sees little activity for the Cause of Christ—no evangelism, no outreach, no missionary emphasis, no spiritual development among the members, etc. Buildings are usually in disrepair and ill-kept. Their testimony in the community is non-existent or negative. All they do is meet.
2. You have taken my words out of context. As you well know, a word is defined by its context. Success related to business is making money whereas success in the ministry is another matter altogether. Please notice that I used the words “grown and prospered” instead of “success.” I am not sure that success should be used of the ministry since we cannot define it properly. What is a successful ministry? Also, we must take into consideration I Corinthians 3-4 where the “increase” is of the Lord and the requirement of a steward is faithfulness. However, every bi-vocational pastor may not be faithful. He may be unfaithful to his calling by holding onto the security of a welling paying job. Or, he may be faithful, as Paul was, in providing for his own necessities while preaching the gospel without charge.
3. You do not know my view of success. Again, I am not sure that I would intentionally apply it to the ministry. I think more in terms of I Corinthians 3-4. see my above statements.
4. You misread my post or misunderstood it. I did no 180-degree turn. I proposed an either-or proposition. It is a balanced view with two opposite possibilities. One is admirable and the other is less so. There are two viewpoints on a bi-vocational pastor. (1) He may be doing an admirable thing by supporting himself in the Lord’s work, or (2) he may be failing his calling by holding onto the material things and not giving himself fully to the ministry. Which is it?
5. Yes, I agree that all “increase” is of the Lord. However, the blessing comes from the Lord only when man is faithful in his planting and watering. If we fail in our part, then the Lord does not give the increase. Am I right? God blesses our efforts in visitation, evangelism, preaching, teaching, etc. when we are faithful. However, if we neglect these things, God does not provide the “increase.” Some ministries are struggling simply because the bi-vocational pastor has not done his job due to other commitments.
6. Please note that I simply evaluated the situation and proposed the dilemma. I did not presume to judge any work or pastor. Can you analyze it any better?