On Doing a "Cheap" PhD!!

This is the relevant point.

 

==I think you are reading way too much into my posts. My whole point is that I strongly disagree with their (MABTS's) position and I disagree with them enough to refrain from recommending their school to anyone until their position is changed. In other words, their position is so extreme as to be a deal breaker for me.

==This is far from a "moot" point or view. MABTS's policy could very well hurt a believer who made a mistake before they were saved or who are the victims of another person's sin. Their policy is simply too unflexible. They should take each student on a case-by-case basis. That way they don't end up throwing out the wheat with the tares (so to speak).

==I don't know why they put this particular policy in place. Nor does their reasoning have anything to do with what I am saying. They may have a legal reason for the policy or it may reflect a understanding of Scripture that I don't share. Either way, it does not change what I have said. Their policy just goes too far.

==Actually, I have been "the boss" before and I have had to make tough decisions. That is why I am usually the one who defends "the boss" and/or the administration of a business or school. However this situation with MABTS is so extreme that I cannot help but be very critical of their policy.

==Since Scripture does not address seminary admission policies it is hard to say what admission policies are correct (etc). However I would point out that Scripture is clear that we are to be forgiving towards other believers, not holding their past against them (Eph 4:31-32, etc). Divorce is wrong (Mal 2:16). However it is not the unpardonable sin. There are many Christians who were divorced before they were saved or who are divorced because of the actions of someone else. There is no Biblical justification for Christians punishing the innocent with the guilty.

==Generally speaking I have the same attitude towards many seminaries and universities. However MABTS's policy on this is just too extreme for me to over look.

 

==I never said that my opinion attains "the authority of Scripture" and I have never said that everyone had to agree with my position on this matter. Like everyone else on this thread I offered my opinion. Clearly my opinion rubbed some people the wrong way. Therefore there have been several posts discussing what I said. I find that very interesting since I am not calling for a public boycott of MABTS nor am I calling for anyone's resignation. All I said was that I will not recommend MABTS unless/until they change this particular policy. That is my view on this subject.

==Animus or not, their policy punishes applicants who are innocent of wrong doing. I'm sorry, but I do not consider such a policy to be graceful. Applicants to any evangelical seminary should be carefully screened. Part of that screening involves examining the individual situation(s) of each applicant. The kind of blanket statement that MABTS has made on this issue, where even they openly admit they apply it to the innocent as well as the guilty, is not an example of carefully examining each applicant's situation.

==I have never said, nor do I believe, that anyone has a "natural right" to admission into any school. That is not even the issue. For me the issue is a policy that denies admission to students based on something they may have had no control over. They have control over their GPA, GRE/MAT scores, moral conduct, etc. However a person can become divorced through no fault of their own.

 

==Why should I be "tolerant" towards a policy that I believe is ungraceful and unrealistic? I see no reason for such tolerance. In fact, such tolerance would be dishonesty on my part.

==First I am not "throwing around" anything. Every word I have posted on this is exactly what I meant. Second I am not throwing around any "buzz word". I called the policy legalistic because that is exactly what I think it is. If you don't agree with me that is fine. Third, what is legalism? Legalism is the opposite of grace. MABTS is not being graceful towards applicants who may find themselves divorced due to no fault of their own or because of sins/mistakes they made before their salvation. MABTS has a right to their policy and I have a right to disagree with their policy.

==I am talking about how MABTS's policy might affect an applicant who is guilty of NO wrong (sinful) doing. A person who is divorced due to no fault of their own. Or a person who was divorced before they were saved. I am not talking about people who are living in open sin and rebellion against God. Certainly such people should never be admitted into an evangelical seminary.

==I believe Scripture forbids divorce. That is not the issue. The issue is that there are people who were divorced before they were saved and there are people who are divorced due to no fault of their own. I don't believe such people should not be turned down automatically because they are divorced. The admissions committee should look at their situation and make a decision based on the results of that examination.

Btw, just because the folks at MABTS who created this policy believe that their policy is Biblical does not (a) make it so or (b) refute the claim that they are being legalistic on this point. As I am sure you know, people can be sincerely wrong.

 

==Thanks for pointing that out Paul. Those are exactly my thoughts on this. MABTS has a right to its policy, but I also have a right to say that I believe their policy is not in line with Scripture's teaching on how we as believers should behavior towards each other. O, and your correct, perfect people do not exist. We are all sinners in need of the grace of God. Those of us who have recieved God's grace (salvation) should not have our pasts held against us. Mainly by other Christians!

 

Wow, their DMin tuition is very reasonable. And, while I don't agree with their marriage policy one would have to admit that their tuition cost is better than other comparable schools.

 

So it seems that you are saying that "graceful" can only be defined by "admittance into seminary," that there is no way that anyone can possibly have grace toward certain classes of people without admitting them into seminary.

What is the biblical basis for defining grace that way?

If a church has a policy that someone who embezzled from the offering can't count the offering anymore, is that also legalistic? Even if they were unsaved when there were counting the offering?

Or what about a school who says that someone can't enroll in children's ministry majors if they have been convicted of child abuse, even if the abuse was prior to salvation? Is that also legalistic?

Where do you draw the line here?

 

That's not true. Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the Big Six, is only 5400 dollars: 400 bucks less than MABTS, and without the legalistic restrictions.

For that matter, all of the Big Six are under 10,000.

 

==I am not saying that. You are trying to take what I am saying here and apply it accross the board. It is not meant that way. I have said here several times, and now repeat myself yet again, that I believe seminary admissions should look at each applicant on a case-by-case basis. Their policy on divorced applicants does not do that (see below). I have never said that they should admit everyone who applies.

==What is the Biblical basis for their policy?

Notice the policy:
"The Seminary does not admit as a student anyone who has ever been divorced or whose spouse has ever been divorced. This applies without exception both to those who are “innocent parties” of divorce and to others." (here)

They refuse to consider each applicant on a case-by-case basis. Instead they simply make a blanket statement which, by their own admission, automatically disqualifies the guilty and innocent. What is the Biblical basis for that Pastor Larry?

==Since I am mainly talking about those who are divorced due to no fault of their own, "innocent parties" as MABTS says, I'm not sure I see the connection. You are, yet again, misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that MABTS must admit divorced students. My objection is simply towards their blanket statement. They should handle each applicant on a case-by-case basis. The situation of each applicant should be taken into consideration. That is how most evangelical seminaries handle the situation.

For example, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary states:

That is a perfectly reasonable and Biblical approach to the matter. Allow time to pass and then look at each prospective student's situation.

==No, it is not. Then again I don't see the connection. As I have said, each applicant's situation must be taken on a case-by-case basis. A prospective student who was convicted of child abuse before their salvation must be carefully examined by the admissions committee.

 

I am not sure what they would say, but I can see a policy that is based on the idea that divorced people, while forgiven and restored, are permanently ineligible for ministry, and thus admission to program is training them for something they cannot biblically pursue anyway. (Again, I am not supporting that position, but that is a biblical argument and a biblical position held by a great many very gracious, loving men.)

See above. In addition, it admits that there are "innocent parties" in divorce. That is rarely if ever the case. Although a party might not have committed adultery, it is doubtful that they were completely biblical. We have to be careful how far we take that, and I certainly don't have room to defend it here, so don't read too much into it. Second, to admit some and not others on a "case by case" basis opens the door for all kinds of problems, including lawsuits (by people who don't believe 1 Cor 6). You open the door to politics ("so and so goes to such and such a church and they donated X,000,000 dollars last year so we better not make them mad). So it is fraught with danger.

Now, having said that, I would probably support a case by case basis. But I can't imagine what possible legitimacy there is in calling MABTS' policy legalistic. That doesn't match any commonly used definition of legalistic.

So you think there is a chance that a convicted child abuser could qualify for ministry under the guidelines of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1? I think that is a stretch, and I have taken heat here at the BB for saying we have no grounds to prevent convicted s*x offenders from attending church. But preparation for ministry?

Thanks Martin. I will bow out here (I hope ... unless you direct a question directly to me).

 

Bowing out..................

Pastor Larry has posted a very reasonable and calm reply to the criticism of MABTS. I concur and will gracefully bow out of the discussion as well. I don't think anything more needs to be said.

 

==My answer (to your question in bold) is no. Being admitted into a seminary, even graduating from a seminary, does not mean one is qualified or prepared to be a minister. All it means is that the person has met the entrance requirements and graduation requirements.

Having said that, I don't think you are treating 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1 correctly. Both passages speak of the man's life and qualifications as a believer, not as an unbeliever. For example, even though the Apostle Paul was a denier of Christ, a persecutor of the church, and an accessory to murder before salvation, none of that disqualified him from being a minister after his salvation. After his salvation and call into the ministry, the church examined his life and teachings and determined that he was properly called (Acts 9:26-30). In the same way, a sinner who (while lost) committed the serious crimes you are talking about but has now come to faith in Christ should be examined by his pastor, local church, family, etc. At the end of the day they are the ones who can rightly judge if (a) enough time has passed to determine that his salvation and repentance are genunie, (b) he is called by God into the ministry, (c) if he is not likely to be a repeat offender. Even if a, b, and c are positive there are churches that will likely not be willing to trust him with their youth. Is that legalistic? No. Is that distrustful? Yes. However it is certainly understandable and any truly repentant person would understand the concerns. All of that aside, the courts may not allow such a person to be a youth minister.

 

The Apostle Paul murdered and tortured Christians. Guess he is "ineligible for ministry" now, according to 1 Tim 3, and Titus 1.

Context. Since Paul was engaged in Ministry, and he, self admittedly, was a worse sinner than anyone else He was addressing, he is obviously talking about one's lifestyle AFTER being saved. Else he would not have been in the ministry himself.

 

That's not true. Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the Big Six, is only 5400 dollars: 400 bucks less than MABTS, and without the legalistic restrictions.

For that matter, all of the Big Six are under 10,000.

I stand corrected, but MBTS is a lot closer than Midwestern. You have to take in consideration the cost of travel to the seminary for seminars and the cost of staying on or near campus during the seminars. For me, Kansas City may as well be in Egypt considering the distance.

 

-------------

This is a tough issue. One of my profs at Western in the early 90s, Carl Laney, opines that divorce is never permitted and has written a book expressing that view. It is one topic among several which SATS students may choose to write about in the graduate bridging course GCS5200. Some interesting stuff. As you may know, one of several understandings of 1 Tim 3:2 is that the pastoral applicant may only have married one woman in his lifetime. Sorry if I just repeat what has been already said.

 

Yes, I've read the book. Also, your former colleague, Wayne House, has written a book comparing the four views on divorce. It's a recommended read for one to broaden his perspective on the question. You're absolutely right--it's a tough issue. Too often we look at the human side of pain and suffering, which clouds our viewpoint on what Scripture teaches. I am always suspicious the person who says this is it and there's no room for disagreement. Personally, I don't think that individual has done his or her homework. I wonder how your SATS students approach the question.

 

I think this gets away from what seminary is about. Historically, seminary was about training pastors. Why would you admit someone and train them for something that they can't do? I realize that there are exceptions, like people taking classes for the fun of it, but by and large, it is a career choice.

Hm. ... I missed that in there. I don't see anything about believer vs. unbeliever. I see "blameless, etc."

You see, I think there are things that a man can do prior to salvation that disqualify him, and things he can do after salvation that disqualify him. We have to ask, Is this man blameless?

People who say, "Well no one is" or "We would have to disqualify everyone" don't understand what it means to be blameless. They are just making stuff up.

This is correct.

So the courts have higher standards for pastors than churches do? That is truly a sad statement on our churches. It is a bad thing when the world has to tell the church how to act. This is exactly the point of being blameless. When the world ... "those outside the church" ... looks at a man with questions, he is not blameless. Paul says, "He is to have a good reputation with those outside the church." That is not the same as "forgiven by God" or "accepted by the church," both of which can happen without reputation being restored.

Blameless means that you can't lay blame on him. It doesn't mean he's never done anything wrong, or never does anything wrong.

As for appealing to Paul, when you get direct revelation from God by a light from heaven, and three years of teaching in the wilderness from Jesus, then we can talk. But remember that early on, Paul did not have a good reputation with those in the church and had to have Barnabas vouch for him (Acts 9:26-27).

 

-------

Paid

GCS5200 is one of three SATS' required bridging courses for one without a BA in Bible/Theology to complete before beginning MTh work. The other two are exegesis of Romans and a course on Anthropology, Christology, and Soteriology. I especially enjoy the last.

In GCS5200 the students write two papers. One is in Apologetics and the other in Ethics. In each of the two assignments, the student chooses one of five topics.

The last student to write on Divorce took the position that divorce is allowable in cases of desertion by the spouse or abuse by the spouse. Remarriage was said to be allowed should the spouse die.

Usually in this course , I do not debate tenets with students ; I'm mainly interested in such as their form, style, usage of sources, and basic orthodoxy. I required this particular student to resubmit her work three times before I'd pass it.

Usually one does not pass the first time any of these courses. But I did pass a first try on Romans today, however this student already has a secular PhD!

H Wayne House is a good friend, and we recently co authored "Does God Feel Your Pain?' pub by Harvest House.

 

I am sure they also got burned by several kinds of people who were not divorced.