Why Do Some People?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Martin,

Who do you have in mind? I clicked on their faculty page and saw a plethora of faces, names, and degree nomenclature, but I saw a link to personal information for only one. I suspect most of these have their doctorates from Trinity or someplace similar.

Also, do these men and women actually teach at Trinity, or are they somehow involved in a mentoring role, or are their resources merely used? Surely Trinity does not have that many faculty members, does it?

Of course, there is one last consideration. While you can hardly appreciate it while you're pursuing a PhD, possessors of PhD's are a "dime a dozen." There are many more than there are openings at accredited institutions. Sometimes folks are involved with a place like Trinity until they can get their foot in a door somewhere else.

Bill

 

I have to echo the last post on this thread. It is indeed hard for PhD's to get teaching positions. I had a parishioner who had a PhD in anthropology from the U of London in England, plus a theological degree, plus post-doctoral studies at U of Kansas and Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies. He speaks English, French, Lingala, and one other African language (he's from Congo) ... but the best he has been able to do is get adjunct courses occasionally.

I have a colleague who just resigned after 21 years as pastor of a nearby church. He earned a PhD in history from George Washington Univ, but could not get a call to any college or seminary, and so is in the process of qualifying to teach high school social studies.

Hungry people let down their standards sometimes!

 

If one has a doctorate in a natural science or math and some teaching experience he will have no problem getting a job in a university.

In my field of study they expect at least three to five years of industrial experience and orefer some teaching. I have had four years of high school and junior college. During my doctoral studies I have taught a class each semester. There have been several universities look at me because of my extensive experience in the field.

 

Personally I have had more impact on the lives of people when I was not pastoring than when I was. When a person becomes a pastor his influence among the people in the world immediately goes down to 1/2 or more. At a secular university I have an incredible opportunity to influence many students each time we meet. I am also able to influence the faculty as God opens their heart.

I truly believe that as time goes by more and more people will be influenced by their freinds and less and less by the churches. Too many rah rah TV preachers are giving good pastors a bad name. Fewer and fewer people are willing to enter a church but are willing to ask their colleague or coworker first. People who are not pastoring have much more influence than those who are pastors. As people become more gospel hardened and closed off from the gospel it wil take an active church to reach them and pray for them.

 

When a Christian teaches in a university he is influencing future leaders in businesses and churches. Some of those students are foreign students who will be influential in their country.

 

I had the opposite experience.

 

I think it varies from course to course and institution to institution. Some studies are practical in nature and others are more academic. At NOBTS, Dr. Stephens' Exegesis of Revelation and Dr. Brown's Old Testament Survey were hard enough to make you reconsider your calling. (slightly joking, but in a social setting, I did tell that to Dr. Brown once.) On the other hand, Youth Recreation was pretty fun and not too demanding other than being treated like teenagers at a weekend camp.

I've noticed people in secular grad schools have the same experience.

I am afraid that some seminaries, especially those like Trinity are less and less demanding. I feel this is all about $$$ and readily accepted by those who feel that seminary should be quick, easy, and convenient.

 

One guess would be that the prevailing ethos of secular graduate schools is "Weeding out". The elite in the academy do not want too many other competitors, particularly when the market for academic positions is very tight.

But seminaries, at their best, are interested in enabling people to do ministry, and therefore will often put up with marginal academic performance, trying to encourage people to do better, but always intent on retaining them, hoping to motivate them toward excellence. Of course there is always the political factor as well ... I remember a professor saying that he was working to get a student to at least passing grade, because he knew that student would become a pastor, with or without seminary degree, and, should the seminary flunk him, he would badmouth the school for the rest of his career!

 

Veracity of anecdotal opinions

The first thing is that I would challenge your premise as a general rule. It really depends on too many factors to make a generalization. One must consider the student’s skill in judgment, the different schools, the comparison of disciplines, the student’s aptitudes and abilities, etc. IMHO, it is rather rash to attempt generalizations on the data available from anecdotal accounts.

I do think there is more discipline and rigor inherent in mathematically based subjects. Personally, I did not find secular graduate school very rigorous especially in education and psychology. On the other hand, graduate work in the sciences and mathematics was more demanding for me but it was not unduly taxing. The biggest problem, IMHO, is that girls and partying do not mix well with academics--perhaps seminary discourages this.

Suppose a student who has great language skills and less quantitative abilities attempts secular graduate work in a scientific or technical discipline and later does seminary work. His opinion would probably be that the secular graduate school was harder than seminary. This, however, is a personal perspective due to his aptitude, not the rigor of the programs. On the other hand, I have a good friend who repeatedly failed NT/OT Survey and struggled with English/history but he was a whiz in calculus and engineering. Today, he is a nationally recognized engineer in his specialty and a partner of a substantial consulting engineering firm. Go figure.

Therefore, I contend that we cannot make a broad generalization here.

 

I get your point about generalizations and anecdotal accounts. But just to reinforce your idea about different skills and therefore differing perceptions of difficulty ... one of the students at the seminary where I teach on an adjunct basis trained as a lawyer before she came to seminary. After a semester of seminary, she told me she was very disappointed that the seminary was not more rigorous and demanding. I have not heard other students complaining about that! But then they do not come from one of the other learned professions first.

 

IMHO, this is very variable and depends on individual students. Their goals, abilities, and perceptions give rise to differing opinions about the same program. However, this thread has raised a very valid point, I think. In seminary, we have a mix of students pursuing academic and vocational goals. Because every pastor is expected to have a seminary degree, although he may not be heavily inclined to academics, he is thrown into the mix with people headed for serious and rigorous scholarship. The problem is how to meet the needs and goals of these individuals in the same class. The answer is usually threshold education at the level of the lowest student.

In secular graduate schools, there are disciplines, such as education and social work, which are less academic and more vocational in nature. Also, I think various schools differ in their approaches even to these subjects. The important thing, IHMO, is that each program is clear on its own goals and objectives. Good education can exist at all levels. Basic education is not necessarily inferior to higher education unless it makes claims higher than what it can deliver. For example, a good Bible institute education for people who will never attend seminary is honorable and worthwhile as long as it does not purport to be doctoral level work. What do you think?

 

Sometimes much less than wonderful work is accepted as passing even in schools thought to be top notch. I received from TREN a ThM thesis which I wanted to read as I found the topic interesting.

The degree was done in one of the cadillac seminaries. The committee chairman, first reader, is a very well known and published systematic theologian. The stage was set for this graduate student ,who had finished the BA, MS, MDiv, and now ThM degrees, to produce a signifcant research project and to report that research in a scholarly form and style .

Instead , while of respectable length ,133 pp, the thesis is filled with, I suppose, typo errors (eary =early ; Colosians=Colossians ; Philipians=Philippians ; Gathrie=Guthrie ;toppical=topical ; enviroment=environment -and others).

Then there is this student's dependence on secondary sources as, eg, defining the Christology of Arius by what Fortman says about Arius instead of reading Arius' personal creed or letters to Eusibius and Alexander.

Then there is the failure to interact with important resources as when the student asserts that no evidence leads one to suppose that monogenes means a begetting without interacting with Buchsell in TDNT or Dahms in Journal of NT Studies arguing from Septuagintal usage.

We all make mistakes, but in this case, IMO, the student should have been advised before the thesis passes to fix the typos, use primary sources, and interact with important literature before asserting conclusions upon which the thesis supposedly is evidenced .