Doctor Of Philosophy In Religion From Ulc

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

I don't know what the actual motive is, but my best guess is that it brings in money. However unseemly that may be, money is critical for the continued operation of any organization, so it is a worthy motive.

That said, the degree programs fit perfectly within the ULC's goal of freedom through equality. Ministers can't get special treatment if everyone is a minister. A religious degree won't get you special treatment if those are easy to get. With both the ordination and the degrees, it isn't so much a legitimization of the person bearing the title as it is a delegitimization of the hierarchical systems that rely on an assumption that a title indicates some degree of superiority.

 

That makes a lot of sense.  I remember Kirby Hensley.  He did enjoy poking his finger in the establishment's eye.  

[RevTom]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

I don't know what the actual motive is, but my best guess is that it brings in money. However unseemly that may be, money is critical for the continued operation of any organization, so it is a worthy motive.

That said, the degree programs fit perfectly within the ULC's goal of freedom through equality. Ministers can't get special treatment if everyone is a minister. A religious degree won't get you special treatment if those are easy to get. With both the ordination and the degrees, it isn't so much a legitimization of the person bearing the title as it is a delegitimization of the hierarchical systems that rely on an assumption that a title indicates some degree of superiority.

Point taken. I had decided to go ahead and get the PhD of Divinity, and of course, since I can't find my ordination certificate, I will order a new one. Regarding the thought "delegitimization of the hierarchical systems that rely on an assumption that a title indicates some degree of superiority", I disagree that is the only or even main purpose of systems that do have a structured learning program and hierarchal system. I firmly believe that a pastor should have a firm grasp of theology, philosophy, apologetics, and counseling to lead his flock. The schools of theology providing this have exhaustive courses of study, and they make sure one is fully prepared to undertake the situations that will arise in dealing with people's spiritual and practical needs regarding faith and daily living. It is difficult to teach math if you do not have an intimate knowledge of math. It is the same with ministry: One cannot minister to the needs of the people without a firm foundation.

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, RevTom said:

Regarding the thought "delegitimization of the hierarchical systems that rely on an assumption that a title indicates some degree of superiority", I disagree that is the only or even main purpose of systems that do have a structured learning program and hierarchal system.

You aren't actually disagreeing with me. I am not saying that is their purpose, but simply that it is something they rely on.

 

A degree is not a guarantee of competence, nor does lack of a degree indicate a lack of competence. The same is true of an ordination. The ULC ordains all, without question. One justification often given for this comes in the form of the rhetorical question "What seminary did the Apostles attend?"

[RevTom]

1 minute ago, mererdog said:

You aren't actually disagreeing with me. I am not saying that is their purpose, but simply that it is something they rely on.

 

A degree is not a guarantee of competence, nor does lack of a degree indicate a lack of competence. The same is true of an ordination. The ULC ordains all, without question. One justification often given for this comes in the form of the rhetorical question "What seminary did the Apostles attend?"

Again, I beg to differ. A degree from a recognized college is most certainly a guarantee that the degree holder has the competency to know and understand the subject matter and its implications upon real life situations. While a lack of degree does not necessarily convey incompetence, I do believe a minister should be able to exhibit a grasp of the fundamentals in practical terms. I would not attend services in which a minister did not exhibit this understanding and grasp of knowledge. I have gone to services in both cases, and in both cases (degreed and non degreed pastors) I have elected to never attend their services again. The non degreed in most instances because of a lack of understanding of the Bible and practical knowledge of the minister, and the degreed because of the ministers' lack of humanity. The LaGrange District of the UMC once told me "God chooses. we decide (speaking of admission into ordained ministry). While I find that to be a bit overboard and overreaching on the UMC's part, it does indicate that inclusion into the ministry there is a multiple endeavor: One must not only pass the academics, one must also show works, competence, and commitment to the pastoral life.

[Brother Kaman]

2 hours ago, RevTom said:

Again, I beg to differ. A degree from a recognized college is most certainly a guarantee that the degree holder has the competency to know and understand the subject matter and its implications upon real life situations. While a lack of degree does not necessarily convey incompetence, I do believe a minister should be able to exhibit a grasp of the fundamentals in practical terms. I would not attend services in which a minister did not exhibit this understanding and grasp of knowledge. I have gone to services in both cases, and in both cases (degreed and non degreed pastors) I have elected to never attend their services again. The non degreed in most instances because of a lack of understanding of the Bible and practical knowledge of the minister, and the degreed because of the ministers' lack of humanity. The LaGrange District of the UMC once told me "God chooses. we decide (speaking of admission into ordained ministry). While I find that to be a bit overboard and overreaching on the UMC's part, it does indicate that inclusion into the ministry there is a multiple endeavor: One must not only pass the academics, one must also show works, competence, and commitment to the pastoral life.

It is a sad state for G/god's word to be so complicated we must have college accredited degrees to properly understand it.

[mererdog]

3 hours ago, RevTom said:

Again, I beg to differ. A degree from a recognized college is most certainly a guarantee that the degree holder has the competency to know and understand the subject matter and its implications upon real life situations. 

I'm sorry, but I've seen the first-hand proof that it isn't true.

I know people who have degrees they never really used, and as a result have forgotten most of what they learned on their chosen subjects.

I know loads of engineers who are great at math and theory but have no idea how to actually build something. 

I had quite a few teachers who had no real idea how to handle a class full of rowdy kids. Some figured it out. One quit halfway through the year.

I knew an ordained minister with less people skills than a turnip. He may have gotten better.

 

As an interesting asside, I read an article a few years back about newly-minted lawyers not having the skills they needed for success in private practice. According to the article, law firms can only really use them as glorified office clerks for the first couple of years...

Edited August 2, 2017 by mererdog

[RevTom]

7 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

It is a sad state for G/god's word to be so complicated we must have college accredited degrees to properly understand it.

I don't believe it takes a degree to understand God's word: What I believe is someone teaching God's word should have an advanced understanding and knowledge of not only God's word, but of the forces that compel people to seek advice, to have at least some introduction to pastoral counseling, and an advanced understanding of theology. Without that, it is only a sham, in my opinion, to call oneself a minister. How can one minister if he or she has no understanding beyond those ministered to? There are many reasons people come here to get their various certificates. Some of those reasons are rather spurious, while others have a genuine desire to make a difference in people's lives, and/or a genuine interest in the discussions and debates here. I don't disparage or question anyone's reasons, but I do think the minister should be able to minister effectively, and IMO that calls for a higher degree of knowledge and understanding.

[RevTom]

2 minutes ago, mererdog said:

I'm sorry, but I've seen the first-hand proof that it isn't true.

I know people who have degrees they never really used, and as a result have forgotten most of what they learned on their chosen subjects.

I know loads of engineers who are great at math and theory but have no idea how to actually build something. 

I had quite a few teachers who had no real idea how to handle a class full of rowdy kids.

I know an ordained minister with less people skills than a turnip.

 

As an interesting asside, I read an article a few years back about newly-minted lawyers not having the skills they needed for success in private practice. According to the article, law firms can only really use them as glorified office clerks for the first couple of years...

These people should not have graduated in their chosen fields respectively then. I did qualify my statement with the waiver that the school should be one that is reputable, and I also stated that IMO a lack of degree does not necessarily convey incompetence. While your point is taken, those schools that graduate students without insuring the students have a firm foundation of their chosen field should not be allowed to remain accredited. I know of no graduate of Emory, Ga Tech, or Harvard for instance, that cannot display a firm grasp of his or her field.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 minutes ago, RevTom said:

I don't believe it takes a degree to understand God's word: What I believe is someone teaching God's word should have an advanced understanding and knowledge of not only God's word, but of the forces that compel people to seek advice, to have at least some introduction to pastoral counseling, and an advanced understanding of theology. Without that, it is only a sham, in my opinion, to call oneself a minister. How can one minister if he or she has no understanding beyond those ministered to? There are many reasons people come here to get their various certificates. Some of those reasons are rather spurious, while others have a genuine desire to make a difference in people's lives, and/or a genuine interest in the discussions and debates here. I don't disparage or question anyone's reasons, but I do think the minister should be able to minister effectively, and IMO that calls for a higher degree of knowledge and understanding.

 

Sometimes it takes an ear and a human heart.  I don't believe that empathy can be credentialed.  Or common sense.  Or compassion.  Or that they should be.  

[mererdog]

21 minutes ago, RevTom said:

I did qualify my statement with the waiver that the school should be one that is reputable, 

To the best of my knowledge, all the examples I mentioned are of people with degrees from reputable schools. Your mistake seems to lie in assuming that "reputable" is the same as "perfect." Ask Georgia Tech about their athletes. Ask Harvard about their Legacies.

Edited August 2, 2017 by mererdog

[RevTom]

1 minute ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Sometimes it takes an ear and a human heart.  I don't believe that empathy can be credentialed.  Or common sense.  Or compassion.  Or that they should be.  

Yes, and that is where the weeding out process starts. For instance, in the UMC, a candidate for ordained ministry must undergo a mentoring process and during that process the candidate's mentor teaches him what he needs to know to be successful, and the steps to achieve that success. In addition to completing the coursework, the candidate is required to do home visitations, demonstrate empathy toward others, and demonstrate that he indeed does care for others and their needs and situations. 

[RevTom]

13 minutes ago, mererdog said:

To the best of my knowledge, all the examples I mentioned are of people with degrees from reputable schools. Your mistake seems to lie in assuming that "reputable" is the same as "perfect." Ask Georgia Tech about their athletes. Ask Harvard about their Legacies.

What does being an athlete have to do with scholastic achievement? I worked at Ga Tech for 12 years. I employed many students on a work/study program. I know they have a rigid curricula and I saw quite a few have to go home because they couldn't stand up to the rigors of Ga TEch requirements. A couple of the students had asked me to hire them on permanently (Printing and Photographic Center), but I wouldn't do it while they were in school. You have the misconception that I equate reputable with perfection. That thought and idea came out of your head.

[RevTom]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

I'm sorry, but I've seen the first-hand proof that it isn't true.

I know loads of engineers who are great at math and theory but have no idea how to actually build something. 

I had quite a few teachers who had no real idea how to handle a class full of rowdy kids. Some figured it out. One quit halfway through the year.

I knew an ordained minister with less people skills than a turnip. He may have gotten better.

 

As an interesting asside, I read an article a few years back about newly-minted lawyers not having the skills they needed for success in private practice. According to the article, law firms can only really use them as glorified office clerks for the first couple of years...

I know people who have degrees they never really used, and as a result have forgotten most of what they learned on their chosen subjects.

How does never using the degree or forgetting what they learned over time equate with having had the knowledge? They are two separate entities or circumstances. I remember how to solder, how to weld, how to fit pipe together from when I was a plumber years ago but I do not remember how close a commode must be to a riser (the stack or pipe that goes through the roof in a drain line). I do not remember the cubic feet in a 16 foot 11/2 in diameter pipe. That doesn't mean I never knew it.  Not using knowledge is either a choice or a situation due to circumstances. Not ever acquiring that knowledge is a different matter.

[RevTom]

15 minutes ago, RevTom said:

I know people who have degrees they never really used, and as a result have forgotten most of what they learned on their chosen subjects.

How does never using the degree or forgetting what they learned over time equate with having had the knowledge? They are two separate entities or circumstances. I remember how to solder, how to weld, how to fit pipe together from when I was a plumber years ago but I do not remember how close a commode must be to a riser (the stack or pipe that goes through the roof in a drain line). I do not remember the cubic feet in a 16 foot 11/2 in diameter pipe. That doesn't mean I never knew it.  Not using knowledge is either a choice or a situation due to circumstances. Not ever acquiring that knowledge is a different matter.

I had quite a few teachers who had no real idea how to handle a class full of rowdy kids. Some figured it out. One quit halfway through the year.

Unfortunately the demand for teachers is so great that qualifying them is minimal at best. The schools they come from in some instances are not solid colleges with high standards. That the teacher you mentioned quit halfway through the year is evidence of the weeding out process - a bit late, albeit but true nonetheless.

[RevTom]

Just now, RevTom said:

I had quite a few teachers who had no real idea how to handle a class full of rowdy kids. Some figured it out. One quit halfway through the year.

Unfortunately the demand for teachers is so great that qualifying them is minimal at best. The schools they come from in some instances are not solid colleges with high standards. That the teacher you mentioned quit halfway through the year is evidence of the weeding out process - a bit late, albeit but true nonetheless.

I knew an ordained minister with less people skills than a turnip. He may have gotten better.

I would ask what college he graduated from? Again, I know in my experience it wouldn't have been from Candler School of Theology, for instance. I can't vouch for schools I have no knowledge of. As you iterated, the pastor who does not serve the needs of his congregation will not last long.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, RevTom said:

Yes, and that is where the weeding out process starts. For instance, in the UMC, a candidate for ordained ministry must undergo a mentoring process and during that process the candidate's mentor teaches him what he needs to know to be successful, and the steps to achieve that success. In addition to completing the coursework, the candidate is required to do home visitations, demonstrate empathy toward others, and demonstrate that he indeed does care for others and their needs and situations. 

 

This part sounds very good.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

It is a sad state for G/god's word to be so complicated we must have college accredited degrees to properly understand it.

 

 

Perhaps, if God had actually produced it, the results would be better than they are.  As it is, "the word" looks like it was produced by a lot of different minds, with human limitations.  In fact, "the word" looks like what I would expect, if people were the source.  

[mererdog]

14 hours ago, RevTom said:

What does being an athlete have to do with scholastic achievement? 

Nothing.  But the income from athletics has a profound effect on how colleges and universities operate. 

http://investigations.myajc.com/football-admissions/

"Since 2009, the four schools have enrolled more than 230 players who failed to meet the bare-bones academic requirements laid out by the University System of Georgia. These so-called special admits often require intensive academic assistance when they arrive on campus. At Tech, for instance, six full-time academic coordinators are on staff to shepherd football players through their studies.

• SAT scores and high school grade point averages for football players trail well behind those of regular students. That's especially true at Tech and UGA, where data shows football players entering the schools have recorded SAT scores that are hundreds of points lower than regular freshmen.

• Depending on the year, as many as 100 percent of football players have SAT scores in the bottom quarter of their freshman class at Tech. At the University of Georgia, roughly eight of 10 football players are in the bottom quarter.

• There were a handful of extremely low scores. Georgia Tech admitted one player with a Math-Verbal combined SAT of 590, and UGA, 570. A score of 400 is the lowest possible on the SAT. Among college-bound seniors in 2014, just 2 percent of all SAT test takers nationally scored 600 or below, according to the College Board."

 

Now, the schools will tell you that many of the athletes perform better in college than these indicators predict. And they use graduation rates as proof. But we keep having scandals break that show athletic departments pressuring academic departments to give special treatment to athletes, or even massive cheating conspiracies as at UNC. Georgia Tech would never break the rules just for athletic wins, right? Thats why the NCAA keeps putting them on probation.

[RevTom]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Nothing.  But the income from athletics has a profound effect on how colleges and universities operate. 

http://investigations.myajc.com/football-admissions/

"Since 2009, the four schools have enrolled more than 230 players who failed to meet the bare-bones academic requirements laid out by the University System of Georgia. These so-called special admits often require intensive academic assistance when they arrive on campus. At Tech, for instance, six full-time academic coordinators are on staff to shepherd football players through their studies.

• SAT scores and high school grade point averages for football players trail well behind those of regular students. That's especially true at Tech and UGA, where data shows football players entering the schools have recorded SAT scores that are hundreds of points lower than regular freshmen.

• Depending on the year, as many as 100 percent of football players have SAT scores in the bottom quarter of their freshman class at Tech. At the University of Georgia, roughly eight of 10 football players are in the bottom quarter.

• There were a handful of extremely low scores. Georgia Tech admitted one player with a Math-Verbal combined SAT of 590, and UGA, 570. A score of 400 is the lowest possible on the SAT. Among college-bound seniors in 2014, just 2 percent of all SAT test takers nationally scored 600 or below, according to the College Board."

 

Now, the schools will tell you that many of the athletes perform better in college than these indicators predict. And they use graduation rates as proof. But we keep having scandals break that show athletic departments pressuring academic departments to give special treatment to athletes, or even massive cheating conspiracies as at UNC. Georgia Tech would never break the rules just for athletic wins, right? Thats why the NCAA keeps putting them on probation.

It was unfortunate that I brought the athletic question into play. It is a travesty that Ga Tech, UGA, and others are able to bend the rules and even violate them to have good athletic programs. The alumni at these colleges condone and support these transgressions. Be that as it may, it detracts from the larger point, which was a solid background in one's chosen field is advantageous I believe, in being an effective minister and to be well prepared for all the situations that will present themselves. A reference was made to "what seminary did the apostles attend?" That is in my view a very dismissive and poor argument. The apostles were the pioneers. Jesus was a Rabbi, and it was under his tutelage that they learned. The same might be asked  "what flight school did Wilbur and Orville Wright attend?" They were the pioneers, and I will absolutely not board a plane if I know the pilot did not attend a competent flight school (which would include military training as one of the pathways to being a pilot). I do not believe that graduating from a reputable school is the only avenue to being a good minister, but I believe it certainly helps one prepare adequately. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Nothing.  But the income from athletics has a profound effect on how colleges and universities operate. 

http://investigations.myajc.com/football-admissions/

"Since 2009, the four schools have enrolled more than 230 players who failed to meet the bare-bones academic requirements laid out by the University System of Georgia. These so-called special admits often require intensive academic assistance when they arrive on campus. At Tech, for instance, six full-time academic coordinators are on staff to shepherd football players through their studies.

• SAT scores and high school grade point averages for football players trail well behind those of regular students. That's especially true at Tech and UGA, where data shows football players entering the schools have recorded SAT scores that are hundreds of points lower than regular freshmen.

• Depending on the year, as many as 100 percent of football players have SAT scores in the bottom quarter of their freshman class at Tech. At the University of Georgia, roughly eight of 10 football players are in the bottom quarter.

• There were a handful of extremely low scores. Georgia Tech admitted one player with a Math-Verbal combined SAT of 590, and UGA, 570. A score of 400 is the lowest possible on the SAT. Among college-bound seniors in 2014, just 2 percent of all SAT test takers nationally scored 600 or below, according to the College Board."

 

Now, the schools will tell you that many of the athletes perform better in college than these indicators predict. And they use graduation rates as proof. But we keep having scandals break that show athletic departments pressuring academic departments to give special treatment to athletes, or even massive cheating conspiracies as at UNC. Georgia Tech would never break the rules just for athletic wins, right? Thats why the NCAA keeps putting them on probation.

 

 

One more sad detail.  The connection between football and brain injury.  Maybe football isn't that wonderful for intellectual goals.