Federal Intervention in Higher Education

Kevin,

Great article. Part of the answer I think would have to be keeping our brothers who are called to ministry in our own congregations and mentoring them into pastoral ministry/leadership. No offense at the Colleges and Semiaries - from a pure point of theory, that may be a better answer. The reality is, most of us in the pastorate are really not up to the demand that would place on us. To many of us are not as sharp as we ought to be in the languages, theology, homilitics, responsible counseling, mentoring, etc…..Also, our congregations would have to give up a certain amount of “time and energy” so that our leaders can reproduce more leaders. Again….that’s a normal application from what the NT teaches.

Looks like I’ll never be able to pick up that game of golf….rats!

Doesn’t this also mean that we would have a whole segment of seminary and college prof’s that will be out of work? Wow - You “teaching guys” would have to teach “unofficially” through other means. In some cases you would have to re-enter congregational ministry-life. That might be hard. Maybe we could get these X Fundamental Seminary Prof’s into the secular Universities - teaching Grad and Post Grad Religion courses! We could infiltrate! I think that was tried before, right?

Perhaps we would have to start institutions in other countries where there was more freedom? (That’s a sad statement for a Christian American born on July 4th to make!) Didn’t the Puritans do this - English men studying in Holland?

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Bauder offers keen insight here into what is pretty obviously coming down the road at our colleges and seminaries.

Unfortunately, it is going to be difficult for us to argue in that day that the whole blasted system is unconstitutional (or, at least, extra-Constitutional) because Christian schools have been willing participants in the system for decades — as long as it meant that federally-guaranteed student loans, Pell grants and other forms of revenue were heading in their direction (often subsidizing the participation of students who really had no business in college in the first place).

A visionary response — such as has been offered by http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&mont…] Hillsdale College — was required decades ago. This would have led to an entirely different model of Christian higher education that would have had implications for everything from education to separation.

Easier said than done, I know. Also, in the grand scheme of things it may not have made a bit of difference in offsetting the perils Dr. Bauder is writing about. But it would have made us far less vulnerable.

Mind you, I am not trying to place blame on any particular school or administrator. I love Christian higher education, and am very much saddened that many will be hurt in the days ahead.

However, there is also an opportunity here, as Joel describes. To expand on something I once heard, perhaps the church age will end in a fashion similar to the way it began: with real Christians meeting in small house churches and real Apostolic teaching based in those very churches and similar programs — not gigantic, multi-bajillion dollar colleges and universities (cf. Acts 19:9, 10).

These are some of the passages that came to mind when I read the question posited by Dr. Bauder. Like Joel said, mentoring inside the context of the local church is the answer. I have been involved in teaching in a Bible college on the mission field, and would love teaching in a Bible college or institute here at home. However, I fully support any well thought out program that returns the ministry of edification and preparation back to the local church. It’s interesting to me that just yesterday my pastor preached on Edification of the Saints in his present series “A Fresh (that is, Biblical) Vision of the Church.”

Thanks Dr. Bauder for the heads up.

This possibility was one of the arguments against seeking accreditation.

[Rob Fall] This possibility was one of the arguments against seeking accreditation.

I know that this argument was made, but was it correct?

Is accreditation the problem, or simply the vehicle that will be used to institute persecution — against both accredited and unaccredited schools, as Dr. Bauder notes?

In other words, it seems to me that Christian schools sought accreditation for exactly the wrong reason, i.e., to be able to receive all the federal goodies. The latter was the real problem, not accreditation. Ironically, it was accreditation that made us wince, not the reception of government funds. We strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Louise Dan, What does this have to do with BJU? Kevin Bauder is not connected with them and has no education or degrees from there.

While many schools may be giving a substandard education, BJU isn’t typically considered to be one of them, I don’t think. The comparison of the Bible faculty with marrying cousins seems a bit overboard though. You should probably rethink that one, or give some evidence as to how it is true or manifested. The theology at BJU is generally considered orthodox by most so far as I know.

Can you name any professors or deans at BJU using the title of doctor that have no merit in terms of education in their field? (Chapel speakers are on a totally different plane.)

During the period 1935-1995, just where was BJU supposed to get their faculty trained? The major seminaries (Princeton, Harvard, Eastern Baptist, University of Chicago, Baylor, et al.) in the period were flooded with modernism.

What does this have to do with BJU?

BJU is accredited by the same agency as CBTS. Both are nationally accredited. The DoE has increased its involvement in this issue BECAUSE OF national accreditation associations. Regional accreditation is the gold-standard in higher education. National accreditation is where you find the University of Phoenix, Kaplan, et al. Christian institutions would have been better served to practice separation from these diploma mills by seeking regional accreditation or by remaining unaccredited.

But this also speaks to Louise’s post: BJU (and many other Christian schools) would not qualify for regional accreditation because so many of the faculty there either do not have terminal degrees, or do not have terminal degrees in the field in which they teach.

How this would proceed and be accepted is not clear at this time. There are constitutional and states rights issues to be dealt with. I went through part of my education paying for it with the GI Bill. It was considered a payment to the veteran not the school. However, it has now become a benefit that may put federal regulations on the school attended.

Considering the course of this country morally and spiritually the separating out of Christian training from the traditional academic structure may not be such a bad thing. Schools associated with churches may have to offer certificates instead of degrees but if the Christian churches and community came to understand what they represent this may be a good thing. A certificate of “Divinity foundation” would be OK.

We have become overly conscience of the degree concept. When the Demon (D.Min) degree started to be offered in the 1970s we entered into a new level of professionalism emphasis and degree awareness that only enforced the advancing of the professional clergy staff rule concepts in churches. The reality is that the D.Min. is a specified work done degree but not a true knowledge gained degree. A person in pastoral ministry who studies diligently should not have the time for D.Min. pursuit for just pastoral competence.

Many KJVO sect and Fundamentalist pastors put doctor in front of their name based on honorary doctorates from friends or some sub standard bible college. The ignored scandal of Christian ministry is the clergy separation claimed by the Pastoral and staff positions and the numerous non standard and phony DR. Degrees being touted by those in ministry. Perhaps the change in status of Christian training institutions may be a very good thing. None could grant degrees whether earned or honorary. Studies and competence could be acknowledged by non academic certificates. There would still be the need of institutional training with specialists in history, languages, and theology. We could get rid of most all practical courses and let that be accomplished by a year of internship. Perhaps we could end up with less preachers and more teachers. For the FB preachers instead of Dr. Zampoosie it could be CHPP Zampoosie (Certificate of honorary Pastoral Prestige).

Rachel hits on a good point when she states:

But this also speaks to Louise’s post: BJU (and many other Christian schools) would not qualify for regional accreditation because so many of the faculty there either do not have terminal degrees, or do not have terminal degrees in the field in which they teach.

One of these days, I’d really like to know just how many BJU faculty - just the teaching faculty - got their degrees from BJU and not elsewhere. I think that could be an interesting study. Of course, it’s not just BJU, too.

I think that I’ll disagree slightly with Rob Fall, though, in that I think there are other good schools that existed pre-1995 - Dallas Theological Seminary, Reformed Theol. Semin, and Westminister (Philly) I think are all good schools - if you can get past other things. I don’t know for sure, but I think I would be able to consider a Pastoral Candidate from any of those schools.

[/BJU discussion]

I was talking with a young lady yesterday, and I wondered aloud - what is the proper, Biblical method for training pastors? I mean, if Bauder is right and there are no Seminaries or Bible Colleges (because they’ve all be shut down by the Dept. of Ed for non-compliance or whatever in the future), then what should we do? And more importantly - why did we get away from that Scriptural model in the first place?

I believe that the college / seminary role was / is off-base. It doesn’t mean that they could not do some good. It just means that they deviated from the local church focus and the definition of the local church (does the local church have arms that are not the church but somehow are?). Such well-meaning institutions have undermined the local church’s assignment, and weakened it in the long run, rather than helping it.

The local church has become something to hold the parachurch organizations up, rather than the other way around. It is no longer capable or expected to train leaders, which I believe is a tragedy. (The church can, but it cannot / need not do so by mimicking the college / seminary format - we have attempted to do so all along, and have been cold-shouldered by a local Bible college.)

I do not welcome anything that weakens the church. However, I am very much for the church returning to its central role, and the artificial education standards (artificial standards). The higher institutions have become the steering mechanism for local churches and associations, rather than an enabling service to them.

As many parachurch institutions, especially those focused on education, have bowed to government regulation (usually to get indirect gov’t funding via grants, scholarships, and loans to students), they have deviated from the cause (and missed the point). It was a matter of time before this happened.

[Jay C.] Rachel hits on a good point when she states:

But this also speaks to Louise’s post: BJU (and many other Christian schools) would not qualify for regional accreditation because so many of the faculty there either do not have terminal degrees, or do not have terminal degrees in the field in which they teach.

One of these days, I’d really like to know just how many BJU faculty - just the teaching faculty - got their degrees from BJU and not elsewhere. I think that could be an interesting study. Of course, it’s not just BJU, too.

I think that I’ll disagree slightly with Rob Fall, though, in that I think there are other good schools that existed pre-1995 - Dallas Theological Seminary, Reformed Theol. Semin, and Westminister (Philly) I think are all good schools - if you can get past other things. I don’t know for sure, but I think I would be able to consider a Pastoral Candidate from any of those schools.

[/BJU discussion] SNIP

You’re right on the existence of those schools. But, I’m not up on the academic politics of the period especially on the later two.

The NT model for ministry seems to be proven faithful service in the local church. This seems vastly different from the “Bible college and seminary” model. While Bible college and seminary can be good and intensive, service in the church deserves more weight. The leaders appear to either have been picked by the apostles and/or the Holy Spirit or to have “emerged” after years of service.

What I have seen over the years has been the improved faithfulness and integrity of the “non-traditional” student over the “greenhouse-grown” students from high schools. Not that that model can’t work, it just doesn’t work as well.

Clearly, we need to get young people out in actual ministry more because our schools are in serious danger for all the reasons described above.

The best pastors I’ve had have been well-educated, with advanced degrees. Universities provide opportunities for interaction with people who are “different” from one’s home town and home church. Changing to a system where a pastor’s training comes from a single church or from a couple of like churches is a recipe for unorthodoxy and “wrong emphasis.” I shudder at the thought.

Someone already said it, but BJU and Bauder’s seminary are in exactly the same position concerning national v. regional accreditation.

But they don’t have anything to do with each other or anything to do with the article, at least so far as I can see. The article seems to be more about the whole process of educational accreditation.

As for faculty, do you have anyone besides Jim Berg? While I disagree with the practice, if the theology is good, it doesn’t really matter. Again, I am not aware of any questions of their orthodoxy or any belief that they are a degree mill for theology. I think they would be well served by getting Bible faculty with degrees from other places for several reasons.

What about outside the Bible faculty? How many of those teachers have terminal degrees from BJU and how many from elsewhere. Any idea?

Let’s not get this too far afield, however.

On the general topic of pastoral training, I think there are some things that are difficult to learn outside of a classroom with specialized instruction. Furthermore, keeping up with current literature is an important part of education and most pastors don’t have the time or resources to do that. I do think that there are some things of pastoral ministry that cannot be learned in a classroom. So I think a hybrid approach is probably a good model.

Steve,

I have no problem with the local church taking lead in training pastors. But your post seems to be the other extreme. Maybe I am misreading it. But training men just in “ministry” usually leads to men that are not trained in languages, hermenutics and theology. Anyone remember Steve Anderson?? If not, do a search on youtube. A local church can train their men and I agree with others that it could be done. I think Rachel’s caution is good as well. So maybe several area pastors and churches could team up if the need arises? But service only ministry training will lead to many ill-equipped pastors.

What about outside the Bible faculty? How many of those teachers have terminal degrees from BJU and how many from elsewhere. Any idea?

In the College of Business there are 26 faculty members listed on BJU’s website. Of those, only 5 have doctorates, but 2 of those are EDUCATION doctorates from BJU. One is a Juris Doctorate, and the remaining two are PhDs from other institutions.

Thirteen faculty members only have a master’s degree (two of which were earned at BJU), and the remaining eight hold only a Bachelor’s or Associate’s degree.

How many of those 13 Master’s are MBAs (which is considered a terminal degree isn’t it)?

I just went and looked after I wrote that. Of the 13 master’s, I counted 11 MBA’s only two of which are from BJU. And one of the EdD’s has an MBA from elsewhere (not counted in the 11).

Furthermore, you have a couple of aviation people in there which is not exactly a field where you go get a PhD in flight. Terminal has a whole different meaning when you are flying. And don’t forget the culinary arts people. Can you get a terminal degree in cooking somewhere?

So, I don’t know a lot about the specifics, but I am not overly persuaded that total picture is as bleak as “2 PhDs from other institutions” might make it sound. It looks like about half of them have terminal degrees from outside BJU, and few teach in a fields that probably don’t have terminal degrees.

Louise Dan, I am not bothered by you sounding pejorative, but what fact that I have not faced.

Did I defend Jim Berg somewhere (although according to SACS a Master’s degree is apparently acceptable for teaching undergraduate classes)? I didn’t even comment on Dr. Mazak. The only thing I did was point out that the article does not appear to be about BJU or Central, say that I think BJU should hire outside Bible degrees, raised the question if anyone knew the status of terminal degrees at BJU, and then went and counted the MBAs on the business faculty. I am not sure how that indicates that there are facts I am not facing.

Now, with respect to Jim Berg, he was the dean of students for many years and taught one or two classes I believe then. He is a very knowledgeable man in the Scriptures, and you could do worse if you want to learn from someone. And he has about 30 years of experience. But he is hardly the leading teacher at the seminary and Bible faculty. According to the current website, he teaches two classes in the Division of Practical Theology.

With respect to Dr. Mazak and the psychology department, you have to keep in mind that BJU takes a biblical counseling approach in which secular psychology plays a very small (and often misleading) role. People who go there for counseling know that up front, so I hardly think there is misleading going on. Having a PhD in psychology is not helpful for the kind of training that they are offering.

With respect to the Bible faculty in general, I have already said that I think they should hire outside professors.

So what facts am I not facing? And how is getting the government involved in it going to change any of this? Everything you have said here is public information without government involvement.

Back to your original point, your claim was that accreditation is needed because of substandard education. Yet you have not provided any information that BJU offers a substandard education have you?

While an MBA was once considered a terminal degree for those working in business, it is not considered a terminal degree for those teaching at the college level. At my (secular, regionally accredited) university, I think I only had one professor in the College of Business who was teaching with “just” an MBA… and it was “allowed” because he had unique expertise in his field, and he was not considered a full professor. We also did not refer to him as “Doctor.”

I just did a quick check of Furman’s Business and Accounting department: There are 11 people that appear to be faculty, of the eight people whose credentials were listed, all but one professor has a PhD. The one who only has an MBA is listed as an “adjunct” professor and she has 25 years experience working with major corporations in her field.

I know I am opening up a can of worms here, but the CE’s are lightyears ahead of (most) of us when it comes to alternative forms of educating pastors. Mark Dever and Capitol Hill Baptist have their internship and weekenders programs both of which have been wildly successful in training men for ministry. Their internship program is being replicated in churches across the country.

Mark Driscoll (I know, I know. Just pretend its a different name) and Mars Hill have re:train which seems to be one of the most viable options going forward. It offers some distance training as well classroom and practical training, and instead of having a full time staff of PhDs and DMins they contract them for a week or two to come teach. The model is very appealing for a number of reasons:

Time and Distance: There is no reason you have to commit 9 months of the year to schooling. You can learn greek and hebrew in an online classroom. Then you can spend 2 months at the campus for other types of training. The rest of the time the students are plugged into “real life” ministry.

Overhead: They don’t have to hire a rock star staff. They can use regular teachers for regular coursework (because let’s face it, andy grad student can teach basic greek or hebrew). Then they hire the big guns when they need them to teach for a week or two.

This also keeps higher education in its useful place. There is a place for advanced degrees. We need the Kevin Bauders, Wayne Grudems, Alfred Edersheims, etc. Keep them in seminary. Keep our best minds working diligently in the schools and let’s contract them out.

Interesting, Rachel. As I say, I don’t know much about it. I was just curious after you mentioned that so I went a looked it up.

Overall, I think the higher education is going to be changing greatly. My gut is that we are going to see a trend away from liberal arts and towards vocational training (which I think will be worse overall). I think we are going to see increasing amounts of online education (which I think will be worse than classroom training for a lot of reasons). To me, module training or cohort training such as re:train is probably a better model that is sustainable for a while, especially for ministry. But you can’t really learn Greek or Hebrew in a one or two week module.

I think pastoral training needs to be a combination of classroom and practical experience or mentorship.

But I would encourage any student to know what they want to do before you get too far down, and keep your options open as much as possible. You need to know up front if you can do what you want to do with the degree you are getting. Take for instance, a BJU degree. You can get into a lot of grad schools with it. But you can’t get into all grad schools. So you have to know that up front as much as possible.

But a lot of it depends on what you want to do. If you want to pastor, you do things differently than if you want to be a research professor in chemistry which you do differently than if you want to be a pilot which you do differently than if you want to be an accountant, etc.

But I don’t think the feds will be particularly helpful, especially in training Christian worldviews. So far, the feds don’t have a great track record in much except spending a lot of money, and higher education certainly doesn’t need help spending more money. So I doubt the usefulness of federal intervention in the overall quality.

I have absolutely no knowledge about seminaries or their accreditation standards, so I’ve had little to say about that aspect of this issue.

I did/do not intend any of my observations about the degrees held by BJU faculty to be an indictment or insult to any of them personally. I have no doubt that they each desire to do right by the students they teach and that they are serving faithfully. I commend them for their service to their students. But while commending them, I can observe that the degree requirements for faculty at other (regionally-accredited) universities are higher.

While you ended your piece discussing the preparation of men for ministry, this issue has much broader scope since many Christian schools also have non-ministry degrees. I believe we have two discussions in this thread; both are worthy of comment. And, since I have little to offer the “training men for Christian service” discussion, I joined in on the “why is this happening?” discussion.

I didn’t think Kevin was allowed to post on SI. ;>D

Thanks for your “extras” on this post, Dr. Bauder, in addition to your article. AMEN

Dr. Bauder,

You stated

(2) The seminary will employ professors who have serious ministry experience. Ideally, every professor should have been a pastor, missionary, or some other vocational Christian servant (such as a military chaplain). Every professor should bring years of non-academic experience into the classroom with him.

My question is, “Is there room for the “professional” scholar in this paradigm?” In other words where does the Ancient Near East History professor or the language expert fit in? I understand the extreme usefulness and practicality of having every staff member be a veteran in the field. But what of the Christian scholar? Should a student seeking to be a scholar in Church history or Bible languages or any other Bible-related topic seek seminary or would it be best for him to look at secular options which can offer perhaps a greater expertise in the field?

One of the problems in my opinion is the conflation of training for scholarship with training for the ministry. Yes our pastors need to be trained well, but the needs of a pastor and a scholar are much different and require different types of training. Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Forrest

Clearly, the current paradigm for ministy training is broken. There are too many failures in ministry, and too many who complete their training only to leave ministry after only a few short years.

The problem is this: Anyone who has the money can go to a Bible College or Seminary. Anyone who can pass the courses can get a degree. Anyone who gets the degree can get ordained. Anyone who can get ordained can get a church. And I Timothy 3 is nowhere in sight.

Dr. Bauder is absolutely correct in characterizing the nature of the problem, of course. Local church training is vital for ministry, but because we have such linguistic and cultural distance from the text of Scripture, it is usually not enough. I suppose I’m barely capable of training our guys in N.T. Greek, but I sure don’t have the time, unless I drop my pastorate.

Modern technology is beginning to craft an escape from this trap. On-line classes by specialists in the various difficult fields can fill in very well, whether or not any degree is conferred. In just a few short years, who you studied with will be more important than where you studied. So, “I studied hermeneutics in an on-line course from Vanhoozer, and Greek with Dr. …” will be the kind of thing we hear, rather than “I went to BJU.”

Some are already beginning to build this brave new world of ministerial training. For instance, Evangelist Tom Pryde and Dr. Bob Snyder are working on such a program at www.logcollegenetwork.org. Their program is designed to work alongside the church’s work in the candidate’s life. We have several about to start their program. Dr. Paul Henebury (SI Member!) has a somewhat less radical and more traditional approach at www.inquiroveritas.com. These stand alongside the many excellent on-line programs from the many “storefront” colleges and seminaries still based in brick and mortar.

In short, a well managed church is far better qualified to judge the fitness of someone’s life than a Bible College or Seminary. The profs will always have their roles, but it needs to mutate a bit.

I have a lot of thoughts about this and hope that I don’t get too scattered.

I have gradually come to a point where I believe that under-graduate Christian education is highly overrated. I have this opinion as one who has graduated and currently attends seminary at one of (possibly the) only schools that is regionally accredited. That quality of undergraduate education is not what I take issue with. I believe that the school I attended provided sufficient preparation. However, the idea of creating a sheltered environment for college really bothers me. There has to come a point in time where young people learn to stand on their own two feet. That point will eventually come. Hopefully that stage happens early enough that they are able to bounce back from mistakes that are made. Yes, young people need to be grounded in their faith before being faced with a worldview that is completely contrary to Christianity, but maybe secular college wouldn’t be such a big deal if parents and churches were doing a good job of this for the 18 years before college. In so many fundamentalist churches Christianity is nothing more than a set of rules to follow. There is little theology and no concept of grace. When an 18 year old raised in this type of church and home is first faced with a secular worldview they crumble because there is no foundation to their faith. They see that there are other ways of behaving that are more enjoyable than how they were raised and the moral standards have no theological grounds; therefore, they leave the faith (I would contend they were never in the faith). The answer isn’t Christian colleges; it’s good parenting and faithful churches.

(added after posting)

I also take issue with pulling kids away from their local church and sending them to school in a place where local churches are flooded with students and do not provide them a church body that they desperately need at an important life stage.

Contrary to my feelings towards Christian college my appreciation for seminary has increased. I’ll be honest 96 credits seems like huge overkill, but my time in seminary has had unparalleled value. I am frustrated that I am repeating much of my undergrad work (this is not a complaint about seminary; I believe I would have been much better served by getting a degree that could potentially get me a job in business or something like that in undergrad), but I have received immense value from seminary training. I agree with many who have mentioned a heavy local church aspect of seminary. I think that the massive credit amount of an M.Div. (96 at my seminary) could be lowered to include just academics while placing a heavy requirement of local church experience through practicums and internships. I am leery of local church only solutions because they could easily lend themselves to provincialism and the aforementioned problems of repeated generations marrying their cousins.

In summary, I think the ideal path for a preacher would be a secular undergraduate education (in a field that will provide options for supporting a family outside of the ministry) followed by a hybrid local church/seminary education. I think that this solution would solve many of the problems that accreditation may bring.

Please don’t misunderstand my post from before - I’m not knocking undergraduate education or seminary - I have pastoral degrees from two institutions (NIU and BJU). I’m just wondering what we do if the current model of education isn’t going to be sustainable. Personally, I don’t think it can or should be…but that’s why I’m asking for input. I love the ideas that Forrest (#28), Bauder (#31) or Jhorneck3723 (#37) are referring to.

I am not particularly interested in studying the educational credentials of all college/seminary teachers in Fundamentalism (if there is such a formalized movement anymore). I AM noting that there seems to be a level of academica insularity that is not good for anyone by any criteria - and that I suspect 99.9% of Fundy schools have that problem.

[Jay C.] I AM noting that there seems to be a level of academica insularity that is not good for anyone by any criteria - and that I suspect 99.9% of Fundy schools have that problem.

But isn’t this inherent in the seperatist position as embraced by most of these same institutions?

Because BJU isn’t the only Fundamental institution of higher learning - Detroit, Calvary Lansdale, and Central are all good as well; as I mentioned above, I might also look at schools like Faith Free Pres (Greenville), Dallas, Westminster (Philly) and Masters’. They may not offer the range of programs that BJU does, but BJU isn’t the only place to get an education. And does an MBA from Clemson or USC really differ from an MBA at BJU?

[Mike Durning]

[Jay C.] I AM noting that there seems to be a level of academica insularity that is not good for anyone by any criteria - and that I suspect 99.9% of Fundy schools have that problem.

But isn’t this inherent in the seperatist position as embraced by most of these same institutions?

Well, it may be inherent in separatism as some Fundamentalist schools practice it, but not in separatism per se. For example, the PCA is separatist in a sense, even though it isn’t Fundamentalist. It requires all church officers and seminary professors to hold to the Westminster Standards. Yet, if you look at PCA seminaries, you will find that many of their faculty gained their terminal degrees from schools that don’t support those beliefs. Covenant Seminary faculty, for example, have many of their PhDs from Aberdeen, Edinburgh, St. Louis, and similar places.

Fundamentalism, or at least large swaths of it, has moved from the healthy practice of holding a recognizable position within the larger scholarly world to unhealthily abdicating scholarship entirely. Now, some Fundamentalists still write books and the occasional journal article, but that doesn’t make them works of scholarship. Scholarship includes recognizing and interacting with the other major positions out there, and doing so in venues that allow peer review and discussion. Fundamentalists have retreated from challenging alternative theories - as Warfield, Vos, and Machen did - to ignoring them and hoping they go away. They may have gained something by that move, but they lost scholarship.

Several fundamentalists participate regularly at ETS (and publish in journals like Themelios)

But, yes, I think some bad theology regarding the intellect (most likely from the revivalism neck of the woods) encouraged the attitude that the “heart” is better than the “mind” (though in Scripture the “heart” includes the intellect). So we kind of developed an attitude of suspicion toward things intellectual in general.

Fine way to love God with our minds, eh?

Another big factor was the populist thread in the fundamentalist movement and American culture at the time. It’s still really weird how American culture worships and demonizes the intellect simultaneously. Am I the only one who finds that weird? We adore what scientists say, but regularly mock people who are really brilliant. Was there a “mad scientist” cliche in any other culture before ours? Maybe so (Dr. Jekyl and Frankenstein come to mind…. hmm, both products of Victorian sentimentalism?) We bow before scholar elites when they pontificate on news shows, but in film, theater, novel, etc. we stereotype them as socially awkward, repressed, clumsy people without common sense. So which is it?

Anyway, just as our culture has not figured out what it believes about the intellect, fundamentalism hasn’t either.

But what was the topic here? … Federal takeover of education. Sad, sad day.

I would have to say, No.

[jhorneck3723] I’ll be honest 96 credits seems like huge overkill, but my time in seminary has had unparalleled value. I am frustrated that I am repeating much of my undergrad work (this is not a complaint about seminary; I believe I would have been much better served by getting a degree that could potentially get me a job in business or something like that in undergrad), but I have received immense value from seminary training. I agree with many who have mentioned a heavy local church aspect of seminary. I think that the massive credit amount of an M.Div. (96 at my seminary) could be lowered to include just academics while placing a heavy requirement of local church experience through practicums and internships…

In summary, I think the ideal path for a preacher would be a secular undergraduate education (in a field that will provide options for supporting a family outside of the ministry) followed by a hybrid local church/seminary education.

I agree with J. here on some things. If I had it to do over again, I would probably have focused on an even broader undergrad education, and would surely have thought much more deeply about the financial cost vs. return on investment.

With regard to seminary being too long, however, I would definitely disagree. Two reasons:

1) Even though I had a Bible degree from college, I found that seminary repeated almost none of my undergrad training.

2) In the Lutheran tradition I grew up in — and I believe it still holds true today — getting an M.Div. is a four-year process = three years in the classroom and one as a vicar (we would say intern). Remember, when you get out into the “real world of ministry,” these fellows with many more years of Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic and Latin) will be your “competition.” Is 96 hours too long and impractical for an M.Div.? I say, no way.

[Mike Durning] Clearly, the current paradigm for ministy training is broken. There are too many failures in ministry, and too many who complete their training only to leave ministry after only a few short years.

The problem is this: Anyone who has the money can go to a Bible College or Seminary. Anyone who can pass the courses can get a degree. Anyone who gets the degree can get ordained. Anyone who can get ordained can get a church. And I Timothy 3 is nowhere in sight…. In short, a well managed church is far better qualified to judge the fitness of someone’s life than a Bible College or Seminary. The profs will always have their roles, but it needs to mutate a bit.

That is a major concern and a problem that should never have been tolerated. Young men send out resumes and apply for ministry positions in the same way that a secular business recruits and hires for their company. They have not been tried and tested in any way, shape, or form. Their ‘personal’ references come from teachers that have never personally witnessed these guys ministering. It is flat out scary what is being passed off out there as pastor material. Oy vey.

Modern technology is beginning to craft an escape from this trap. On-line classes by specialists in the various difficult fields can fill in very well, whether or not any degree is conferred. In just a few short years, who you studied with will be more important than where you studied. So, “I studied hermeneutics in an on-line course from Vanhoozer, and Greek with Dr. …” will be the kind of thing we hear, rather than “I went to BJU.”

Many men before the age of electronics were self taught in the areas of language and philosophy. Those who had that mindset were often exceptional by default. We don’t have that same sifting ability today, thanks to the homogenized education system, and we (in general) certainly don’t hold up high standards of character and intellectual discipline anymore. The extension of so-called ‘adolescence’ into the second and third decades of one’s life began many years ago, and the crop of ne’er-do-wells has increased to an alarming degree.

Technology is (hopefully) going to result in a resurgence of the self-motivated scholar.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

In an ideal world, every local church would be training its own next generation of pastors. In fact, everything the church would be doing from nursery through college-and-career would be aimed at preparing the next pastors and missionaries—and since the church would not know who those would be, it would have to train every child as if that child were going to be the church’s next pastor.

Imagine how that vision would change youth ministry!

Absolutely- IMO every church should sift through their Sunday School curriculum and get rid of the cartoons and cutesy stories, and start teaching apologetics as soon as the kids can speak English. I think Ken Ham’s book Already Gone addresses some major issues in how we teach our children the Scriptures. Too many churches act as if Sunday School doesn’t matter, it’s just glorified babysitting, and the qualifications for Sunday School teacher are 1) you are a carbon-based life form 2) you have a pulse.

When you’ve set up your youth and church in such a way, is it any wonder that applying scholarly discipline to Bible study is so rare? That we have ceased to hold up Biblical qualifications as the standard for ministry?

I think the whole accreditation issue is a blessing in disguise, especially if it forces us to reconsider and reformat how we teach and train the next generation.

[RPittman] One thing that electronic education cannot do is provide the necessary human interaction necessary for quality training and education.

This is true in the sense that most people think of DE, but if a school can retain its committment to quality by requiring digital interaction and keeping the student/teacher ratio appropriate, it can overcome this to a large extent. Coupled with the pastoral role in the local church, I think the mix can attain something that is actually better for the ultimate development of future spiritual leaders — though probably not professional scholars in Biblical fields.

This post is not part of the seminary discussion that is happening in this thread. It is addressing the issue of accreditation standards that is also happening here.

While the Ivies and European schools are not well represented in Fundamentalist institutions, I don’t think it’s fair to accuse our better seminaries of being insular. I have not done the same kind of tally for the colleges, but I suspect the same is true there. To take a single example, Clearwater Christian College, I see doctorates from the following institutions:

…

Again, not exactly an Ivy faculty, but certainly nothing to be embarrassed about. Clearwater is accredited by SACS, which has a reputation for being a bit thorny about faculty credentials.

I would have said that SACS (a regional accreditation association) has a reputation for having more stringent standards than national accreditation associations. So, for sake of clarity about the other discussion happening in this thread, I want to say that Clearwater is not one of the institutions that I would express concern about within the list of Christian colleges for non-ministry degrees. By the nature of their meeting more stringent accreditation standards they would (in general) be judged to be offering a “higher quality” product. And, their graduates have more opportunities for graduate-level work.

[Paul J. Scharf] I would have to say, No.

I agree with J. here on some things. If I had it to do over again, I would probably have focused on an even broader undergrad education, and would surely have thought much more deeply about the financial cost vs. return on investment.

With regard to seminary being too long, however, I would definitely disagree. Two reasons:

1) Even though I had a Bible degree from college, I found that seminary repeated almost none of my undergrad training.

2) In the Lutheran tradition I grew up in — and I believe it still holds true today — getting an M.Div. is a four-year process = three years in the classroom and one as a vicar (we would say intern). Remember, when you get out into the “real world of ministry,” these fellows with many more years of Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic and Latin) will be your “competition.” Is 96 hours too long and impractical for an M.Div.? I say, no way.

I think you misunderstand my complaint. I am vehemently opposed to the uneducated pastor. Personally, I am much more likely to struggle with elitist attitudes in my heart than populist. I think we probably agree on this topic.

1) The duplication I received in my seminary/Bible college training should not reflect poorly on seminary, but on the waste of having an undergraduate Bible degree that requires a seminary education (and there is no way an undergraduate student is capable of receiving the training he needs to pastor at the standard level of maturity of an American college student). I really wish that I had used my undergraduate time to gain a backup plan. Because of my decision to do a B.A. in Bible I have very limited credentials to use to get hired in a non-ministry position. The time spent training in Bible (which I received in seminary any way) would have been better spent on other disciplines. That’s not to say that my undergrad did not help me in seminary, it certainly did; however, I think I would have been able to finish seminary with just as good (or better) a grasp on many concepts if I had not had my undergrad and instead worked harder in seminary. However, that’s a whole other issue.

2) I’m not willing to do something because that’s what everyone does. I think that attitude underlies much of the current methodology which could use updating. I would not encourage a reduction in the level of instruction required, but an increase in instruction through practice. I believe that many seminaries are attempting to do this, but the old ideas of 96 hours for an M. Div. hinder them. Here are the requirements for my seminary’s M. Div.:

Biblical Studies and Languages 18

Old Testament Studies 13

New Testament Studies 13

Systematic Theology 17

Historical Theology 8

Pastoral Theology 14

Biblical Counseling 2

Cross-Cultural Studies 2

Pastoral theology, counseling, cross-cultural, and some parts of the other sections would all be more effective, more affordable, and even more enjoyable if offered in a local church setting.

For this to happen more churches need to start investing in training pastors. Instead of seeing a young guy who is gifted and called to ministry and saying, “Youth Pastor!” churches should be pouring into these guys to train them to do the work of a pastor. I say this because that is what I want for myself and I believe that is what would be most helpful to my future ministry. I’m finishing up an M.A. right now. I chose to do the M.A. so that I can serve while working on finishing the last half of my M.Div. I just wish I could find a church who wanted to partner with me and help me rather than just have me as a youth pastor and hope I learn something so I can become a senior pastor.

In a nutshell, I don’t believe that the requirements for training for pastoral ministry should be any less rigorous; I just think the current model is cost-prohibitive, time-prohibitive, and risks students missing out on seeing people and the local church as the heart of ministry. I thank God that my seminary has taken steps to prevent all three of those from happening, but I think that more work can be done.

Bro. Pittman,

Let not your heart be troubled- I think we do agree on this. I’m not at all opposed to a classical approach to Sunday School, with younger children learning foundational facts and rote memorization. I teach memorization myself in our homeschool. What I am suggesting is that SS material be serious instead of frivolous. Why do we use pictures of Noah and the ark that have goofy, disproportioned animals squeezing out of every window and a rosy cheeked Noah who looks like Santa Claus and then expect children to see those stories as historical fact, or feel the impact of the dreadful reality of the deaths of who knows how many people and animals because of unbelief?

Many churches have, IMO, abdicated their role as a serious teaching institution to traditional schools. They don’t spend time equipping parents to teach their children Bible doctrine, church history, or the science that supports God’s version of creation and a worldwide flood. SS is where teachers keep kids from swinging from the chandeliers so the parents can get a break and sit in a quiet service.

This attitude eventually leaks into the area of training ministers, and results in shipping these ill-prepared and ignorant young people off to seminary to do what the parents and church should have been doing for the last 18 years. These ‘ministers-in-training’ are often far removed from actual ministering, and the ability to mentor them is seldom included in the school’s dynamic.

Accreditation in the area of seminary and Bible education sounds good, but teaching and training for ministry is not a sterile transmission of information in the vacuum of a classroom or isolated campus. The quality of a minister cannot be measured by his GPA, and a school isn’t equipped to measure character and integrity and render personal recommendations of its graduates to churches.

If federal accreditation of seminaries and Bible colleges goes the way of the dodo, I for one will be in the stands cheering. But- that is not to say that the requirements or quality of education not be taken seriously or held to a very high standard. The gov’t simply has no place in the logistics of teaching and training young people for ministry.

[RPittman] Digital may approximate but it cannot duplicate face-to-face contact. We say so much through body language and facial expression that is not transmitted by words alone. Having been an avid student of DE for a quarter of a century, I am confident that a teacher can never be replaced by a computer. There is a human quality of education that can only be done by actual personal contact with a living, breathing human being. But, you’re right that most of this can be made up by pastoral mentoring in the local church. I favor a church-based model for ministry training. In fact, I could envision a Christian university model similar to UNISA that would be administered through the local church with periodic trips to a main campus for laboratory work. What do you think?

Roland, we are in agreement. I suspect the higher the academic level sought, the more critical interaction face-to-face with the prof would become.

Wouldn’t it make sense for accreditation to examine the quality of education per se, and not where the education came from? Any exposure (as a non-BJU grad) to BJU-grads (college instructors, pastors) has been outstanding. They are well-trained.

Are we pursuing / using the wrong standard(s) to judge expertise?

Wouldn’t it make sense for accreditation to examine the quality of education per se, and not where the education came from?

But where it “came from” plays a huge part in its quality. Breadth and depth are both important in education, which is why regional accreditation associations generally want to see terminal degrees (for depth) and several institutions represented (for breadth).

[Louise Dan] I understand this, Dr. Bauder. And I am not attacking Central. But you need to recognize that TRACS accreditation is meaningless when they also accredit a university like BJU where even the long time previous president didn’t have a doctorate. And the current president has NO educational degrees outside of BJU. Less than 15% or so of their faculty have terminal degrees from accredited institutions. TRACS accredited your institution, which seems to have exactly the credentials one would expect an accredited institution to have, and BJU, which has exactly the opposite credentials one would expect an accredited institution to have.

But also, you mentioned that the government is encroaching on the definition of a credit hour, the reporting of number of students enrolled, and so forth. It seems that those are all pieces of higher education that SHOULD have a standard definition. I’m curious why the defining of a credit hour seems like encroachment.

I think Dr. Bauder is concerned because the government has never traditionally intervened in the definitions and reporting of each school, and now they are. That’s disconcerting because they’re beginning to intervene / interfere in areas they really shouldn’t or haven’t.

[Louise Dan] The problem is that this reasoning is totally anecdotal. If a counseling professor who has no training in clinical psychology offers what sounds to be an informed opinion on, say, depression or bipolar disorder, it’s still suspect. There is a reason our society has gone the way of certification. Anecdotal evidence simply can’t be trusted.

I disagree. I would say that just because someone can provide proof of training is no guarantee of the existence of understanding or the ability to teach with expertise or understanding. Conversely, just because someone has not received some formal form of education in now way indicates that a person has not studied, pursued, and understood a broad range of views.

I, for one, have had professors that have earned degrees from institutions which would necessarily have required them to study intensely, and yet they were simpleton in their instruction. I have also met those without formal education (or higher forms of it) that were very well read and trained.

The system is artificial. It is what one knows, that what program(s) a person or person(s) have gone through that prove anything. Results, not degrees, are to be examined. Degrees, and from where, are the true anecdotal method. And the failure is (in part) the reason for this entire discussion.

[An example would be a medical doctor being unable to teach in a public high school (or his own children as a home schooling parent) because he does not have a teaching degree from an approved institution. It has nothing to do with what one knows, but rather is a system of control. Pursuing any government approval results in government control, eventually. It has no business in evaluating the teaching of the church, and the church has no business pursuing this evaluation.]

[Louise Dan] Here’s my final concern. The opening article talks about government oversight like it’s an inappropriate encroachment of authority. On the other hand, maybe this is God’s common grace. He does say that He sets up secular authorities “not as a terror to good conduct, but to bad.”

…If we take these verses literally, we are hard put to say the government in this case is doing an inappropriate thing. Some Christian institutions HAVE done wrong, though perhaps with good motives. And it is good and right that secular authorities oversee and correct this.

Louise, if the Federal government suddenly started taking a massive interest in making sure that your parenting style was acceptable - that kids’ bedrooms were big enough, that they got what they considered to be enough play time every day, and that all of their toys were on an approved list of acceptable items, would you still be make this argument that it’s a good thing? After all, parenting is nothing more than education and training for God’s service.