Talk:Moody Bible Institute

anti-semitism

a well-informed section on their messianic "judaism" department would be helpful & enlightening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:2:6F24:3945:F70B:BF15:A308 (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Title IV

I removed the reference to Moody's non-participation in Title IV, as they began participating for the Fall 2010 semester. I will try to insert some more detailed information once I can find citable sources. Laughingfuzzball (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

"As part of the process of providing a Bible-centered education that enables students to know Christ and serve Him through His church in vocational ministry..."

Quotes like this are heavy on the Christian POV. This article should be cleaned up to read more like an encyclopedia article and not a Moody Bible Institute viewbook. Scrutchfield 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made a pass through the text and removed or modified a number of similar quotes (the one mentioned above was deleted as unnecessary to the point of the article). I've also removed some text that was a copyvio. Stub and NPOV tags came off, as a result, to. Because the school has an overtly religious purpose, it is appropriate to leave some of the statements in the text that explain how the school achieves its distinctiveness, but hopefully these can clearly be seen as explaining the school's declared purpose in both current and historical lights, rather than reading as promotional copy for the school. I'm certainly open for more suggestions, too. Akradecki 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Campuses

This article is heavily centered around the Chicago campus, with little recognition given to the Spokane branch campus or the regional campuses in Ohio and Florida. We should incorporate a new section into the article dealing specifically with the different campuses.--Son of thunder (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been changes to the Moody Bible Institute - Spokane campus and the available programs there. I would edit, but I 1) am a current student and am afraid of entering bias. 2) I am under the Moody IP address and would raise a flag of course (I do have a Wiki account, though have forgotten my password and waiting to change it (Nick)) Also, the Spokane campus is no longer considered a part of the Distance Learning division. Sources: http://www.moody.edu/edu_mainpage.aspx?id=1120 66.185.252.253 (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Moody Broadcasting Network

Agreed. As a former student I do beleive that it would be wise to move the broadcasting side into the Institute article. I also agree with Scrutchfield, it reads too much like a possible admissions brochure than a encyclopedia article.adamfish

I vote do not merge. I really think this subject is large enough to warrent its own article. Perhaps this "Broadcasting" section should mention the other radio aspects of MBI, such as Moody Campus Radio. --Ktdreyer 16:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Moody Campus Radio is not part of the broadcasting division, but rather part of the undergraduate school. It is a student organization along the same lines as Student Council, and any discussion about it would fit best in the Student Life section.--66.185.252.134 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I also come down on the side of do not merge. The broadcasting "mission" (as in "mission statement", not "Missionaries") is significantly different that the mission of the educational branch. Though they share common parentage, these differences in purpose and function are great enough to justify different articles. Akradecki 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

However, this article covers Moody Bible Institute as a whole, NOT just the education branch. If you compare the Broadcasting section of this article with the Moody Broadcasting Network article, they are almost verbatim. Maintaining the same information in two separate places leads to confusion. If one page is updated, those changes are not automatically made on the other, so neither will be the "authoritative" article on the MBN.

Regarding the mission statment, note that all of MBI ascribes to the same mission statement: "The Moody Bible Institute exists to equip and motivate people to advance the cause of Christ through ministries that educate, edify and evangelize." This same statement covers the education branch, the broadcasting branch, and the publishing branch, and can be found word-for-word on each branch's website.

Furthermore, note that the MBN article is a stub. If it were merged with the main MBI page, however, it would be placed in the proper context, complete with the greater historical background, and the stub tag could then be removed.--Son of thunder 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the information under "Broadcasting" is similar to the information on Moody Broadcasting Network, but that in and of itself is not a valid reason to merge this entire article back into a subsection of Moody Bible Institute. The former is one of the largest Christian radio networks in the US, the latter is an educational institution. The former is indeed a ministry of the latter, but this is why the "Broadcasting" section exists: to provide an overview of this relationship. This happens all over wikipedia; for example, see Red Hat Linux#Fedora Core. Also, the fact that an article is a stub is not in and of itself a valid reason to merge into another article, see WP:Stub. --Ktdreyer 19:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that separating both Moody Broadcasting Network and Moody Press from the Moody Bible Institute article all together would be the most logical thing to do. Though they are all part of one and the same thing they are also separate entities. It seems illogical to have a radio network and publishing company listed on an Institutions article other than simply saying they are subsidiaries. By having separate articles there is much more context relevancy. People are also more likely to find them as they can each be listed in the corresponding categories. That way then MBI can be listed as a school as it is in its categories. --MJHankel 11:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be afraid that in doing this, we would bring ambiguity to the organizational hierarchy of MBI. MBI is the institute as a whole, NOT just the education division. It is presided over by a president who oversees all three divisions. Broadcasting and Publishing are not subservient to or subsidiaries of the education branch. Rather, education, broadcasting, and publishing are all on equal footing and the vice president of each division reports directly to the president of the Institute as a whole. Emphasizing only the school in this article, while leaving broadcasting and publishing to be dealt with in others, would unfairly skew the article's POV towards the education division.--Son of thunder 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This would not make the organizational hierarchy any more ambiguous than Moody itself presents it. See http://about.moody.edu, where the first paragraph says "Welcome to Moody Bible Institute (MBI), a group of ministries that seek to advance the cause of Christ." The second paragraph says "Our flagship ministry is education" and the other two ministries are listed together in the third paragraph. Dr. Easley himself writes on his letter on the website: "Among the many ministries highlighted on this site is the heartbeat of our work -- education." No one is saying that the other ministries are in any way "less effective" than the education or anything like that. This is not about NPOV; this is about having encyclopedic accuracy in reflecting what the school writes about itself. --Ktdreyer 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added several infoboxes to the page. Are multiple infoboxes appropriate? If not, how should the page be broken down? The merge discussion seems to be heading towards creating different articles for each division. If this is done, which page should contain the general company infobox? What should the "Education" article be titled, since the education division does not have its own name like Moody Broadcasting Network or Moody Publishers? I don't think the page looks good with the multiple infoboxes, but I had difficulty deciding which one best fit the article.--Son of thunder 03:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of the school is the title of the article. If you look at a other Bible colleges' articles, you'll see that even the articles with ancillary ministries use Template:Infobox_University, so I recommend using that. --Ktdreyer 04:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The merge proposal has caused people to develop both articles quite extensively. The MBI article has been expanded to cover the education side of things in much more detail, and the MBN article has grown from a single paragraph or two covering the history of the WMBI station to a solid treatment of the entire network. In light of this extensive expansion and definition of the two articles, I no longer think a merge would be appropriate. The MBI article would become much too cumbersome, were we to merge the MBN article into it at this point. I think we should leave the two articles as-is, and provide "See Also" links to other. Now we just need someone to develop a more extensive treatment of Moody Publishers. I'll leave the merge proposal up in case anyone else has anything else to say. If we get no objections, I think it's safe to remove it by the end of the week.--Son of thunder 15:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Improving the main article

The main article needs a link to a complete list of publications offered by the earlier Colportage Library.

The official Moody Publications website appears to lack organized access to the earlier publications of the Colportage Library. For instance, I happened across Colportage Library #292, "Angels and Demons" and discovered it was not only out of print, but the official Moody Publications website does not even list the author, Mrs. George C. Needham, as one in its circle of authors, implying that the book has fallen out of favor somehow. For one thing, CL #292 "Angels and Demons" lacks a copyright notice, but that doesn't necessarily mean that some or all of that work is in the public domain. I was curious if there is a pattern of some kind as to which works of the Colportage Library are indeed out of print, or worse, fallen into censure. 198.177.27.23 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is much more that needs to be done to this page. Addationally, I would like to see current and former students getting involved with the information. MBI has changed much from what this whole article describes and needs to be updated. Such an example would be the new branch campus in Spokane, Washington. This is home to their Aviation Ministry, which uses the local community college for training. Also, with the school attracting more students, some have been accepted into what is called the 1 + 3 program. I would like to see this at the standards of many state colleges and university pages.Nick (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe also this link

https://archive.org/details/ThePhillipMedhurstPictureTorah467.MosesDescendsFromMountSinai.ExodusCap34Vv2935.Heuman

could help, or be placed in a separate page for Moody Institute of Science films, or as this page shows "Sermons from Science" as some movies each have there own page.

This page shows movies called

1 City of Bees 2 Dust or Destiny 3 Empty Cities 4 Experience With an Eel 5 Facts of Faith 6 God of Creation 7 God of the Atom 8 Hidden Treasures 9 Journey of Life 10 Of Books and Sloths 11 Prior claim 13 Red River of Life 14 Signposts Aloft 15 The Mystery of the Three Clocks 16 The Professor and the Prophets 17 The Ultimate Adventure 18 Time and Eternity 19 Voice of the Deep 20 Where the Waters Run 21 Windows of the Soul

Though I do not know if all these need a page or if these should be placed in a list here.

I do not know what, if any, videos are in the public domain, though this page shows a public domain mark, I do not yet know if these year MCMLXII to MCMLX films (if film 1 and 21 are listed by date) were put in the public domain.

Other Cody (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Michigan Theological Seminary article merger proposal

The schools announced that the Michigan Theological Seminary will be merged as an insitution into Moody's graduate school by the end of the year. It seems that the Michigan Theological Seminary article should be merged into the graduate section of Moody's article with a redirect from the Michigan Theological Seminary to this section in Moody's article if not now, when it is complete. Novaseminary (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I vote to keep the Michigan Theological Seminary article as it exists for the value of historical record as typically found in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmollenkamp (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be up-to-date. The fact that Michigan Theological Seminary will have formerly existed as a separate entity can be (and should be) adequately addressed in the relevant section of the new merged section of the Moody Bible Institute article. In addition, the current and prior versions of the Michigan Theological Seminary article will continue to be available. After the merger, this page would be changed to a become a redirect to the merged section in the Moody Bible Institute article, but the article history will remain with links to prior versions. The only difference will be that when somebody types in Michigan Theological Seminary (or clicks on an outdated link), they will be sent to up-to-date information in the Moody article rather than inaccurate information in a preserved Michigan Theological Seminary article. Novaseminary (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the merger is now complete and there was no other dissent, I merged the former Michigan Theological Seminary into, and redirected it to, the Graduate section of this article. Novaseminary (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Theology

Is there any particular theology they endorse? If so shouldn't it be included in the article? Zantorzi (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

== Zantorzi, that is a great question, and it is a critical element in understanding Moody.

I am a Bible/Theology graduate of MBI. I can confirm that the school has very strong theological commitments to Pre-tribulational, Pre-millenial Dispensationalism. These ideas are not often communicated, nor are they openly debated at the school. Faculty who changed their opinions on these matters have been dismissed from the Institute, and graduates are required to sign a statement confirming their adherence to this theological position, before receiving their diploma / degree.

Links to these would be very helpful to anyone trying to better understand this school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

--Delenardo (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

== As a recent graduate, I too can confirm that Moody's faculty is fairly committed to pre-tribulational, pre-millennial eschatology as well as dispensationalism. However, I am not so sure about signing anything that says you're a pre-tribulational, pre-millennial dispensationalist (perhaps things have changed). All that I ever had to sign was the doctrinal statement for admission, which contained the following:

  the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture
  the Trinity
  the full deity and full humanity of Christ
  the creation of the human race in the image of God
  the spiritual lostness of the human race
  the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ
  salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone
  the physical and imminent return of Christ
  the eternal reward of the righteous and the eternal judgment of the lost

See Moody's website: http://www.moody.edu/edu_MainPage.aspx?id=3470

The main part that would affect one's view on the said doctrinal questions would be the "imminent return of Christ." But I believe I am not mistaken in saying that one does not have to be a pre-tribulational, pre-millennial dispensationalist to hold to the imminent return of Christ (e.g., the Protestant Reformers, who were amillennial).

Doctrinal position is a sticky issue. While the statement of faith is all that's necesary to participate as a student, the Institute does take a more specific stance on certain issues and generally the faculty is expected to at the very least not be openly hostile toward these positions, though nothing is required of the students in this regard. There's also certain tendencies- while the Institute doesn't technically take a position, it is the dominant position held by the students and faculty. Things get really hairy when you get to the theology department, which has its own set of unofficial positions, mostly based on what's current at Dallas Theological Seminary, where most of the faculty has come out of. In short, Moody isn't immune to the politics of Academia. Since this is mostly personal experience and vague trends, it isn't citable, but the statement of faith is, as is the doctrinal statement (http://www.moody.edu/uploadedFiles/Education/Library/undergraduate_catalog.pdf, pp 20-23), which outlines the institutes official positions but is not binding on students or faculty.Laughingfuzzball (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Creationism

An IP changed the school's institutional belief to "old earth creationist" from "new earth creationsist". Another ed, Dougweller, changed it back with this edit. I think Doug misunderstood the reference, though. The reference lists schools on a scale of 1-6. Moody is listed as a five, which corresponds to the following institutional position: "God created all life forms, but they appeared in the general sequence and time frame suggested by evolutionist theory." So, the IP seems to have been correct. I have changed it back to what the IP made it with this edit. This is not a traditional reliable source, but it does purport to report on each school's self-identification in a survey. It isn't exactly clear whether this position must be held by anyone teaching or attending the school, so what exactly this institutional belief means and the weight it should be given (per WP:UNDUE, etc.) is still unclear to me. Novaseminary (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question, and apologies for not having read the reference carefully enough. Maybe we need to be more explicit about the source. Not just name it, but describe it? Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That strikes me as a good idea. I took a stab with this edit, though I'm sure it can be substantially improved upon. I also moved it out of the lead. It didn't appear elsewhere in the article and I'm not sure it is so integral to understanding the institution that it should be in the lead, at least as the lead stands now. Novaseminary (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

While not citable, I can attest as a student that the Institute's official position is somewhat vague and the faculty's positions are varied. Young earth fiat creationism appears to be the accepted norm, though literary framework is also held and taught by some faculty.The official position, according to the doctrinal statement, is that"the first human beings were special and unique creations by God as contrasted to being derived from any pre-existing life forms. Further, God created everything, after its kind, which excludes any position that allows for any evolutionary process between kinds." , which would seem to imply a young-earth position, or at least ot exclude most standard old-earth positions.Laughingfuzzball (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I teach for MBI as an adjunct faculty member, and creationism is a significant topic in my class, The Church and its Doctrines. I can personally vouch that the textbook we use for this class, "The Moody Handbook of Theology," by Paul Enns teaches young-earth creationism. The source attributing old-earth creationism to MBI is not reliable. Moody's own "The Moody Handbook of Theology" which staunchly defends young earth creationism (almost to an extreme) is a much more reliable, firsthand source to use in discussing Moody's position. In class, we encourage the students to maintain open lines of fellowship and dialog with old-earth creationists and stress the biblical non-negotiable that God is ultimately the creator of the universe. But this is not the same as endorsing the old-earth position. This statement should be removed from the article since it does not come from a reliable source and the content of our classes expressly teaches otherwise--let alone the fact that it seems a bit random and out of place for this article to begin with. There is really no need to disucss the school's stance on Creation on this page at all, since it is not in any way a unique distinctive of the school. Would anyone be opposed to removing it?--Son of thunder (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In light of the source being challenged (WP:RS) and no indication (supported by a source) of the importance of this fact even if true (WP:UNDUE) and the type of source it is, I agree with removing the mention and have done so with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Is this a university?

A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Moody_Publishers#University_press. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Moody Bible Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110504053449/http://www.moody.edu:80/edu_mainpage.aspx?id=1808 to http://www.moody.edu/edu_mainpage.aspx?id=1808

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

History?

The history section here is a blank between 1900 and 2012. Is there no history? Or are there no sources available to give even the barest outline of the history for these 112 years? Carhutt (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed "defunct" from defunct media outlet?

@Hydrangeans, was surprised to see that my small changes on this sleepy article got your near-instant attention. (How?) The "Media Ministries" section starts with a statement that they have 2 media ministries (true) and then follows with 3 sections. For clarity, I added "(defunct)" to the magazine, which is defunct, no longer one of their media ministries. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

About a month ago I was expanding Template:Evangelical Protestantism in the United States, and I added Moody Bible Institute to the template and have had the page watched since. I simply felt that including the word "defunct" in the header was a bit cluttery and that the defunct status could be stated sufficiently in the body text. Right you are though that it's confusing for the section to state there are two ministries and then list three. So I've added a sentence to the introduction of that section that mentions the magazine is defunct. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Our paths will probably cross again, then, as I'm trying to fix dead links and expand areas missing information for articles about people and organizations in the evangelical space from about 1900-1970, especially as they overlap with radio, publishing, and education. If you remember, I'd appreciate you dropping a bit of a line in the change log about *why* you make a change so that I can understand your thought processes as you monitor the updates. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A fair request on your part. This was certainly one of my weaker edit summaries; I explained that I reformatted the magazine citation but completely forgot to explain the subsection retitling, which is on me. Thanks for raising the matter here.

And sounds like you're getting into a fascinating topic area. Best regards with that; and happy editing! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)