Federal Intervention in Higher Education
The federal government is changing its policy toward higher education, and the changes could affect every Christian college and seminary in the nation. The net effect of these changes is a significant federal takeover of the educational process. The vehicle through which the changes are being pursued is accreditation, but non-accredited institutions are likely to feel the bite of federal regulation. In order to understand the changes, you have to understand how accreditation works.
Until now, accreditation has been essentially an activity of the private sector. Of course, anyone can establish an accrediting agency, and there are accreditation mills just as there are diploma mills. Consequently, it has been necessary to create an organization to accredit the accreditors.
That organization is the Council on Higher Education in America (CHEA). CHEA was established in the 1990s to fend off a federal takeover of accreditation at that time. It represents the attempt by American institutions of higher education to regulate themselves through a process of peer review. CHEA does, however, get its force from federal involvement. It is the only agency that the United States Department of Education recognizes to accredit the accreditors.
In other words, a school that wants to be accredited works with a regional or national accrediting agency. That agency in turn works with CHEA, and when a school gains accreditation it also becomes a member of CHEA. Consequently, CHEA is the conduit through which the Department of Education recognizes accredited schools. The Department of Education publishes an annual directory that is the Holy Grail of accreditation: if a school is listed there, its accreditation is recognized (in theory) by other institutions.
The cooperative relationship between accreditation and the Department of Education was authorized in the Higher Education Act of 1965, part of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” reforms. The act must be reauthorized periodically, and reauthorization provides the federal government with an opportunity to review and influence the educational process. Reauthorization is generally a stormy time in the relationship between accreditation and the government.
Once the Higher Education Act has been reauthorized, the Department of Education drafts new rules and policies to implement whatever provisions have changed. The last reauthorization occurred in 2008, but its repercussions are only beginning to be felt as the new rules fall into place. The net result is a significant federal takeover of the educational process.
The takeover is driven by two concerns. The first is a public perception that American education is slipping in quality. The second concern is money. The feds pour billions of dollars into higher education, and the government is naturally eager to curtail the waste of federal funds. The federal answer to both problems is identical, namely, increased regulation.
The government now defines what a credit hour is. The government has begun to regulate transfer of credits among institutions. The government is also regulating the burgeoning field of distance education. Finally, the government has begun to regulate the monitoring of student enrollment.
The impact upon higher education is decidedly negative. Educational institutions are supposed to ask what is best for their students. They are now asking what will best please the feds. In order to comply with recent federal regulations, schools must confront a mountain of new paperwork. The byproduct of federal regulation has been—and will be—to drive up costs while distracting institutions from their focus upon education. In accreditation as in many other areas, federal involvement creates far more problems than it solves.
The largest problem, however, is simply the presence of federal intervention in an area that was previously private. In effect, the government is in the process of taking over a huge segment of American society. As this takeover progresses, it will be the federal government that determines who can teach and what will be taught at every college and seminary in America. The federal government will ultimately determine which institutions have the right to grant degrees and which will simply be shut down.
For Christian institutions, the implications of such a takeover are obvious. Christians have had to work doubly hard to gain a foothold in the private accreditation system. Once the feds are in control, accreditation is likely to become the wedge by which the government forces Christian colleges and seminaries to adopt policies that reflect prevailing notions on subjects like evolution and homosexuality. The potential for damage is both real and alarming.
The government is also going after unaccredited institutions. At the moment, the individual states recognize the right of colleges and seminaries to grant degrees. In many states (Minnesota is one of them), religious institutions are completely exempt from the state’s oversight in this area. The Department of Education, however, is using its new leverage to pressure the states to force all degree-granting institutions to gain accreditation. In other words, if the federal government has its way, no unaccredited schools will be allowed to grant degrees.
The hour may already be too late to thwart the federal takeover. The only way that it could be reversed is through a significant public reaction against the increased federal regulation, coupled with a change in those elected officials who want to use the accreditation process as a way of increasing the federal headlock on higher education.
In the meanwhile, Christians need to begin thinking about other models of teaching and learning. Up to now, we have adopted a model borrowed from the medieval universities. We have coupled our educational process with the granting of degrees at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s levels. That is just what we may not be able to do in the future.
If that happens, we may need to rethink the process of ministry preparation. Future pastors and missionaries do need to be taught, but they do not really need degrees. We might well ask, What will ministry preparation look like in a world in which we are no longer permitted to operate colleges and seminaries? Unless something can be done to reverse the federal juggernaut, that day is almost certain to come.
Wisdom
(Prov. viii, 22-31)
William Cowper (1731-1800)
Ere God had built the mountains,
Or raised the fruitful hills;
Before He filled the fountains
That feed the running rills;
In me from everlasting,
The wonderful I Am,
Found pleasures never wasting,
And Wisdom is my name.
When, like a tent to dwell in,
He spread the skies abroad,
And swathed about the swelling
Of Ocean’s mighty flood;
He wrought by weight and measure,
And I was with Him then:
Myself the Father’s pleasure,
And mine, the sons of men.
Thus Wisdom’s words discover
Thy glory and Thy grace,
Thou everlasting Lover
Of our unworthy race!
Thy gracious eye surveyed us
Ere stars were seen above;
In wisdom Thou hast made us,
And died for us in love.
And couldst Thou be delighted
With creatures such as we,
Who, when we saw Thee, slighted,
And nailed Thee to a tree?
Unfathomable wonder,
And mystery divine!
The voice that speaks in thunder,
Says, “Sinner, I am thine!”
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Louise, please don’t use Romans 13 to justify governmental authority in anything other than what is mentioned in the passage—punishing those who do what is wrong and approving of, protecting, and serving those who do what is right. It has nothing to do with educational oversight.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
the current president has NO educational degrees outside of BJU. Less than 15% or so of their faculty have terminal degrees from accredited institutions.Can you give us the accrediting agency guidelines on where degrees come from? I am curious as to what exactly these guidelines are. I have never actually seen anything on them. I did a little looking at SACS the other night and all I could find where the degree requirements for various levels (either Master’s or Doctorate) but no information as to where those degrees come from.
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.As opposed to someone with no training in accreditation offering what sounds to be an informed opinion on, say, accreditation? :D …
But seriously, why is it suspect? (I am not saying it’s not, but I want to hear your reasons.)
Furthermore, who gets to determine whether or not something is suspect?
Some Christian institutions HAVE done wrong, though perhaps with good motives. And it is good and right that secular authorities oversee and correct this.Do you really think you can make a case that is “wrong” to have professors educated at certain institutions rather than others? I am fairly sure you would not be of the “legalistic” mindset, and that you would cry foul when someone raises “extrabiblical standards” and insists that other live by them. Perhaps I am misreading you on that. Here it sure sounds to me like you are raising up some standards that fall somewhat short of the typical notion of “wrong.”
Are we confident that the federal government is qualified to judge what a good theology professor might look like? Or what a good psychology professor looks like? Given the type of things that the federal government is defending and propogating in public education already, color me skeptical that they will do any better with higher education.
[Greg Long] Louise, please don’t use Romans 13 to justify governmental authority in anything other than what is mentioned in the passage—punishing those who do what is wrong and approving of, protecting, and serving those who do what is right. It has nothing to do with educational oversight.when the powers-that-be are inventing new definitions of “right” and “wrong”. Cooking with lard is now a sin? Angels forfend!
Those of us with nationally accredited degrees are treated the same as those without accredited degrees. We cannot get admittance into most (if not all) secular graduate programs; they are all now requiring a regionally accredited degree.
The closest thing they ever had was that the state of TN Dept. of Ed. approved TTU’s education degrees for certification. My wife got her TN certification after graduating from TTU, but that changed when the state legislature passed a law that necessitated regional accreditation for approved teacher training programs in the state.
I applied for the PACE program in SC (allows folks without teaching degrees to acquire certification), and was denied simply because my degree was from TTU and they are not regionally accredited.Bolded emphasis mine. (All of these quotes from the PCC seeking TRACS thread.)
THIS is the problem. If schools tell students and parents, “We’re accredited!” but fail to mention that their national accreditation will PREVENT the student who graduates with an education degree from getting a teaching certificate in well over half of the states in the nation, then that is WRONG!!!
And if the schools aren’t willing to police themselves, then I think it is good for the Federal government to step in and attempt to fix the problem and protect other students from spending thousands of dollars on degrees that are not recognized as legitimate.
So what are we talking about here- if a church were to take on the task of training the next generation’s pastors and missionaries, should they seek accreditation in order to be ‘legitimate’? I think the real question is still “Who should be deciding what the requirements are for ministers of the Gospel?”.
I was also considering the fact that many colleges recognize the worth of life experience- I have been looking into going back to college to earn another degree, and I actually qualify for quite a few credits based on my life experience, and I can test out of several classes (and earn credits) based on my own independent reading and study. I would think that the church can do the same as well- a man given to study and of good character is just as qualified for ministry as he who has an alphabet soup of letters after his name. Personally, I think the character issue outweighs the education issue- you can teach an upright man, but a slime is a slime no matter how smart he is.
Other than for those who are dedicated to pure scholarship (which is a whole other ball of wax), I see no worth in federal accreditation of seminaries for the training of pastors. Gov’t employees are not the ones empowered by God to measure the legitimacy of ministerial qualifications- Paul covered those criteria well enough in Scripture.
I was also considering the fact that many colleges recognize the worth of life experience- I have been looking into going back to college to earn another degree, and I actually qualify for quite a few credits based on my life experience, and I can test out of several classes (and earn credits) based on my own independent reading and study. I would think that the church can do the same as well- a man given to study and of good character is just as qualified for ministry as he who has an alphabet soup of letters after his name. Personally, I think the character issue outweighs the education issue- you can teach an upright man, but a slime is a slime no matter how smart he is.
Other than for those who are dedicated to pure scholarship (which is a whole other ball of wax), I see no worth in federal accreditation of seminaries for the training of pastors. Gov’t employees are not the ones empowered by God to measure the legitimacy of ministerial qualifications- Paul covered those criteria well enough in Scripture.
If schools tell students and parents, “We’re accredited!” but fail to mention that their national accreditation will PREVENT the student who graduates with an education degree from getting a teaching certificate in well over half of the states in the nation, then that is WRONG!!!The problem is that people don’t take any responsibility to understand accreditation before they plunk down their thousands of dollars. There are a bazillion accrediting agencies out there, and schools right up front have the information of where they received accreditation available for anything with two brain cells to rub together.
But human nature is lazy and likes to lay itself on the doorsteps of others and not take any responsibility for researching and asking questions pertinent to their desired career path. The college is not being dishonest about credits not transferring, it’s the students and parents who aren’t doing their homework. One of the first things any student worth their weight in Skittles should ask is what other schools would accept their credits should they desire to transfer or pursue an advanced degree. And that goes for every college on the planet, not just Christian colleges.
What about the guy who is not a medical doctor claiming to be one? Should we let him practice without oversight? That’s the real analogy here.That’s actually not a good analogy, IMO. The MD and the PhD are two different types of degrees, with two different tracks, and two different purposes. Furthermore, the practice of medicine and the life of academia are two entirely different kinds of lives.
Furthermore, in the world of academia, one of the cherished principles is academic freedom which amounts, in many cases, to the lack of oversight (or at least a lack of teeth in the oversight). No one in an oversight position dare challenge the academic freedom of a tenured professor. Of course, this is inconsistently applied, but it is a principled dogma. Medicine doesn’t really celebrate freedom. In fact, failure to practice accepted medical norms can lead to all kinds of problems, including multi-million dollar lawsuits.
A professor at a regionally accredited can say something unorthodox every class period without any vetting and no one can call him on it. New medical advances have to go through long periods of testing and evaluation before they are even able to be labeled as “experimental.” And patients have to be fully informed that something is experimental.
[Louise Dan] What about the guy who is not a medical doctor claiming to be one? Should we let him practice without oversight? That’s the real analogy here. Personally, I don’t want to operated on by a guy with an honorary doctorate.Louise, my analogy stands. A piece of paper proves nothing either way. The whole accreditation scheme is artificial. That’s my point.
I’m addressing the superficial process whereby people or institutions are OK’d. And I don’t think it has a place within the Church. There’s no such discussion in Scripture. The Word is the measure, not where one went to school, or who accredited someone. The local church selects their leaders with the help of other leaders. No mention is made of their diverse training backgrounds, etc.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Larry]Larry, I believe you’ve missed the point that was being made. No one is trying to say that PhD’s are out there trying to practice medicine. However, there are:What about the guy who is not a medical doctor claiming to be one? Should we let him practice without oversight? That’s the real analogy here.That’s actually not a good analogy, IMO. The MD and the PhD are two different types of degrees, with two different tracks, and two different purposes. Furthermore, the practice of medicine and the life of academia are two entirely different kinds of lives.
1. HONORARY DOCTORATES out there teaching/acting as if these are EARNED DOCTORATES
2. Professors whose highest degree is a BACHELOR’s DEGREE teaching students who are attempting to earn their BACHELOR’S DEGREE
This was the analogy … that there are professors teaching at TRACS schools who do not have the qualifications normally recognized to meet the requirements to do so.
Louise,
Once again, I think you’ve got it wrong way ‘round. The Feds are not going after accreditation because of the nationals. They are going after accreditation because of the regionals.
The Feds are tired of paying money for students to attend institutions with national accreditation, only to have those students required to repeat the same hours when they transfer into a regionally accredited school. The Feds are tired of having regionally-accredited schools reject applicants for graduate programs when those applicants have graduated from nationally accredited undergrad institutions. It’s regionally accredited institutions that are creating the problem with their prejudicial attitude toward national accreditation (not just TRACS, but organizations like ABHE, DETC, etc., whose standards are sometimes more stringent than the regionals).
Here is a paragraph from a communication dated 14 Sept. 2009. It is from Robert Gomez of the Information Resource Center at the US Department of Education.
“There is no quality difference between regional and national accrediting agencies, nor does one outrank the other. Basically, regional agencies accredit public or private colleges and universities within a specific state or region, whereas the national agencies are specialized, meaning they accredit “programs” (programs, departments, schools) within a larger institution/university that is already accredited by a regional. It is really only a small group of the national agencies that accredit free-standing “institutions” like rabbinical, allied health, bible colleges, distance education, business, and vocational/occupational/trade/technical schools. “
This is pursuant to a separate communication dated 30 Aug. 2007, in which Carol A. Griffiths (chief of the Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit of the Department of Education) stated,
“In order to be recognized by the Secretary, an accrediting agency must demonstrate to the Secretary’s satisfaction that it meets the Criteria for Recognition, which are stated in Federal regulation. The Criteria do not differentiate between types of accrediting agencies, so the recognition granted to all types of accrediting agencies-regional, institutional, specialized, and programmatic-is identical.”
Get it? In the eyes of the Feds, the nationals are just as good as the regionals. THAT’S the problem. When some regionally accredited institutions act prejudicially against some nationally accredited institutions, the Feds see money going down the drain.
Ironically, there are plenty of nationally accredited schools (including some TRACS schools) that are salivating for a Federal takeover. They see this as a quick way to solve problems of transfer credits, etc.
Accreditation never guarantees transfer of credits or recognition of degrees from other institutions, not even between regionally accredited schools. In virtually every case, other criteria will also be factored into the decision. Every institution (whether regionally or nationally accredited) will have its own rubrics for deciding those questions. The Feds are pushing for standardization. CHEA and the regionals are resisting—and I’m glad they are.
There is a real problem, but it is not the one you think. There is a need for standardization. The question is whether the solution to that problem should be left in the hands of the private sector (as it has always been), or whether it should simply be taken over by the government. If there is a government takeover, then all non-accredited institutions will lose the privilege (not right!) of granting degrees. For this and other reasons, I see a government takeover in this area as highly problematic.
Once again, I think you’ve got it wrong way ‘round. The Feds are not going after accreditation because of the nationals. They are going after accreditation because of the regionals.
The Feds are tired of paying money for students to attend institutions with national accreditation, only to have those students required to repeat the same hours when they transfer into a regionally accredited school. The Feds are tired of having regionally-accredited schools reject applicants for graduate programs when those applicants have graduated from nationally accredited undergrad institutions. It’s regionally accredited institutions that are creating the problem with their prejudicial attitude toward national accreditation (not just TRACS, but organizations like ABHE, DETC, etc., whose standards are sometimes more stringent than the regionals).
Here is a paragraph from a communication dated 14 Sept. 2009. It is from Robert Gomez of the Information Resource Center at the US Department of Education.
“There is no quality difference between regional and national accrediting agencies, nor does one outrank the other. Basically, regional agencies accredit public or private colleges and universities within a specific state or region, whereas the national agencies are specialized, meaning they accredit “programs” (programs, departments, schools) within a larger institution/university that is already accredited by a regional. It is really only a small group of the national agencies that accredit free-standing “institutions” like rabbinical, allied health, bible colleges, distance education, business, and vocational/occupational/trade/technical schools. “
This is pursuant to a separate communication dated 30 Aug. 2007, in which Carol A. Griffiths (chief of the Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit of the Department of Education) stated,
“In order to be recognized by the Secretary, an accrediting agency must demonstrate to the Secretary’s satisfaction that it meets the Criteria for Recognition, which are stated in Federal regulation. The Criteria do not differentiate between types of accrediting agencies, so the recognition granted to all types of accrediting agencies-regional, institutional, specialized, and programmatic-is identical.”
Get it? In the eyes of the Feds, the nationals are just as good as the regionals. THAT’S the problem. When some regionally accredited institutions act prejudicially against some nationally accredited institutions, the Feds see money going down the drain.
Ironically, there are plenty of nationally accredited schools (including some TRACS schools) that are salivating for a Federal takeover. They see this as a quick way to solve problems of transfer credits, etc.
Accreditation never guarantees transfer of credits or recognition of degrees from other institutions, not even between regionally accredited schools. In virtually every case, other criteria will also be factored into the decision. Every institution (whether regionally or nationally accredited) will have its own rubrics for deciding those questions. The Feds are pushing for standardization. CHEA and the regionals are resisting—and I’m glad they are.
There is a real problem, but it is not the one you think. There is a need for standardization. The question is whether the solution to that problem should be left in the hands of the private sector (as it has always been), or whether it should simply be taken over by the government. If there is a government takeover, then all non-accredited institutions will lose the privilege (not right!) of granting degrees. For this and other reasons, I see a government takeover in this area as highly problematic.
Rachel,
I wasn’t under the impression that anyone claimed PhDs were practicing medicine (though some do I believe). The point is that comparing an MD with a PhD is an illegitimate comparison because the degrees serve two completely different purposes in their respective fields. That’s all.
I don’t know of any TRACS accredited schools where honorary doctorates are being used as teaching credentials. Do you?
You have to remember that some people with honorary doctorates may be teaching based on their master’s degree, not their doctorate.
I wasn’t under the impression that anyone claimed PhDs were practicing medicine (though some do I believe). The point is that comparing an MD with a PhD is an illegitimate comparison because the degrees serve two completely different purposes in their respective fields. That’s all.
1. HONORARY DOCTORATES out there teaching/acting as if these are EARNED DOCTORATESTRACS schools are not able to do this according to the http://www.tracs.org/files/AccreditationManual_January_2011.pdf] TRACS guidelines . They say:
2. Professors whose highest degree is a BACHELOR’s DEGREE teaching students who are attempting to earn their BACHELOR’S DEGREE
The faculty must possess the appropriate academic credentials and experiences for their teaching assignments.That appears actually to be higher than the http://sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/faculty%20credentials.pdf] SAC requirements . SACS says that those teaching associates classes not designed for transfer to a baccalaureate degree only have to have a bachelor’s degree. Under TRACS, associate level teaching requires a master’s degree.
a. Faculty hold at least the master’s degree in their teaching field from an accredited institution in order to teach at the associate or bachelor’s level, including 18 graduate hours in the field of his or her teaching assignment.*
*All references to “from an accredited institution” specifically refer to an institution that is accredited by an accrediting agency approved by the U. S. Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting body.
I don’t know of any TRACS accredited schools where honorary doctorates are being used as teaching credentials. Do you?
You have to remember that some people with honorary doctorates may be teaching based on their master’s degree, not their doctorate.
Louise, I am not entirely sure how to proceed here. I have asked you several questions that would help us all to understand where you are coming from and what exactly your complaint is. So far, you haven’t answered. It sounds an awful lot like your main complaint is that BJU exists and confers degrees. I actually recently asked a number of the deans about some of these issues with accreditation, and they said they tell prospective students up front what the lay of the land is so they know ahead of time.
But I went ahead and did a little searching about requirements for professors. You can see in my response to Rachel above that TRACS accreditation requires doctorates and master’s from accredited institutions for teaching. I can’t find any place where it talks about where in specific those degrees come from.
But I went ahead and did a little searching about requirements for professors. You can see in my response to Rachel above that TRACS accreditation requires doctorates and master’s from accredited institutions for teaching. I can’t find any place where it talks about where in specific those degrees come from.
I was particularly talking about professors and college presidents that call themselves doctors but don’t even have a PhD from an unaccredited school.If a person has done legitimate doctoral level work they are entitled to the title. If they haven’t they may still be entitled to the title based on other things. Remember honorary degrees were typically given for a life of contribution to a particular field. It is true that some schools have greatly compromised this, but TRACS schools are not allowed to have professors who teach based on honorary or unaccredited degrees.
The difference between an MD and PhD is irrelevant.Actually, it’s quite relevant if you are comparing them, as you seemed to be doing.
How about the difference in a PhD and an honorary PhD?I am not aware of anyone who has or is giving out honorary PhDs. In the academic world, honorary degrees have other designations, typically.
The use of honorary doctorates in some fundamentalist institutions is outright fraud and makes the term Doctor almost meaningless.Fraud? Probably not. But a honorary degree is not a basis for teaching.
And when TRACS allows and “accredits” an institution run by honorary doctorates and inbred education, then they make themselves suspect.And TRACS does this? I asked you above if you could tell us about accrediting agencies guidelines on where their professors get their degrees. You didn’t. I have done a little searching and can’t find any requirements.
If you google educational fraud, you will see that fraudulent educational outlets are rampant.I doubt you will find anyone here defending fraudulent educational outlets.
[Louise Dan] If you google educational fraud, you will see that fraudulent educational outlets are rampant. And just as we would want some kind of oversight of a bank that doesn’t actually protect your money (or maybe you would argue that government overstepped its bounds in prosecuting Bernie Madoff?) or a pharmacy that sells fake FDA approved heart medicine, it is reasonable that government stops educational fraud. Schools like BJU weren’t wise in taking steps to protect themselves from being lumped in with fraudulent schools. They thumbed their nose at generally accepted educational norms, and here is the consequence.Actually, that’s not true. The reason why BJU and so many other schools did not want to be accredited is because they were afraid that this would happen - that the DoEd would start trying to get the schools to change their curricula, mandate textbooks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Has_Two_Mommies] Heather Has Two Mommies , for example in the case of preschoolers / kindergarteners - and force the schools to legitimize things like quotas and affirmative action.
The wisdom of opting in or out is quite a bit different when you realize that they had good reasons for not wanting to get entangled in the first place. If I can find the old BJU paper on non-acceditation, I’ll link to it here. And it’s not just BJU that did this, as well.
—edit—
Here’s http://www.truereligionworks.com/June_92.htm some of the policy as reproduced elsewhere :
WHAT IS THE ACCREDITING ASSOCIATIONS’ AGENDA?
The accrediting agencies have their own “gods.” A Christian college can’t receive their stamp of approval without bowing down to their gods—their policies, their philosophy, their agenda.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 10,1990, presented an article exploring what role accrediting associations should play in shaping campus quality and diversity. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (one of the six accrediting agencies) decided in 1988 that every college under its aegis should be expected to make continuing progress toward becoming a multiracial, multicultural institution. The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, et al.) has taken a similar stand. We can assume the other four accrediting agencies will follow suit and hasten education’s role in producing citizens for the new world order.
These accrediting associations are not merely concerned about the educational agenda. They also wish to dictate the social agenda. They want the colleges to indoctrinate graduates that will be good citizens for the New Age. This means that for the first time, the Federal Government, through its recognized agency—the regional accrediting associations—will be party to the control of intellectual viewpoints by encouraging some and excluding others.
Foremost on the agenda of the Christian college should be its desire to produce Christians who are biblical in their philosophy and style of life. The New Age agenda is antithetical to the Christian college’s purpose. We don’t worship the gods of the New Age. It isn’t hard to figure out what will happen to the Christian college that allows accrediting bodies thus minded to dictate its educational and social policy.
The associations’ expectations regarding “diversity” affect virtually every aspect of campus life. Their social agenda requires institutions to have equal opportunity and affirmative action policies. Their plan addresses curricula, recruiting, and retention strategies for students, faculty, and staff members; student life programs; academic support for students—pervasive control over all aspects of the school. The Chronicle’s closing statement sounds an ominous warning, “Campuses are changing, and so is the nature of accreditation.”
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Louise Dan, I don’t know a lot about the accreditation process or the academic world so I have tried deliberately to be cautious in my assertions about it. I am not sure what your qualifications are to speak to it either.
TRACS website uses the term “substantive compliance.” I don’t know what exactly that means, particularly with respect to BJU. I don’t know much about BJU’s accrediting process, the makeup of their faculty degrees and the like. I don’t know anything about what was said or done. So I am going to withhold comments on the specifics. FWIW, I have heard some suggest that it is better to be unaccredited than TRACS accredited. I don’t really care either way, so my point is not a defense of TRACS or anyone else. My point was that early on you made some statements that did not appear to be entirely clear or accurate. And you tried to focus on BJU when that was not the point of the article (and still isn’t).
We still have not had any discussion about what would qualify an organization to assess academic quality. To my way of thinking, that would be a pretty important point. (But my education is mostly unaccredited so I am probably not entitled to a place at the table in this discussion cuz you know, some of the people I learned from didn’t have accredited degrees).
I am not sure why anyone thinks the federal government would be equipped for this. As I say, I have not been impressed with their educational efforts so far. I don’t see any hope for change in that.
I tend to think graduates should be assessed on their abilities and skills, not on the name on their diploma. If you can teach effectively, why does it matter who taught you to teach? If you can add numbers properly, why does it matter who taught you to add? And if you can’t do either, does it really matter that your degree was accredited?
If we start to assess real skill level, the accreditation issue becomes moot, it seems to me. But if accreditation is a world of cronyism that may match old time fundamentalism, that may be unlikely to happen.
TRACS website uses the term “substantive compliance.” I don’t know what exactly that means, particularly with respect to BJU. I don’t know much about BJU’s accrediting process, the makeup of their faculty degrees and the like. I don’t know anything about what was said or done. So I am going to withhold comments on the specifics. FWIW, I have heard some suggest that it is better to be unaccredited than TRACS accredited. I don’t really care either way, so my point is not a defense of TRACS or anyone else. My point was that early on you made some statements that did not appear to be entirely clear or accurate. And you tried to focus on BJU when that was not the point of the article (and still isn’t).
you still have people like Greg Mazak HEADING UP ENTIRE DEPARTMENTS without “appropriate academic credentials” for their teaching assignments.What would be an “appropriate academic credential” for teaching about biblical change and the human condition?
We still have not had any discussion about what would qualify an organization to assess academic quality. To my way of thinking, that would be a pretty important point. (But my education is mostly unaccredited so I am probably not entitled to a place at the table in this discussion cuz you know, some of the people I learned from didn’t have accredited degrees).
I am not sure why anyone thinks the federal government would be equipped for this. As I say, I have not been impressed with their educational efforts so far. I don’t see any hope for change in that.
I tend to think graduates should be assessed on their abilities and skills, not on the name on their diploma. If you can teach effectively, why does it matter who taught you to teach? If you can add numbers properly, why does it matter who taught you to add? And if you can’t do either, does it really matter that your degree was accredited?
If we start to assess real skill level, the accreditation issue becomes moot, it seems to me. But if accreditation is a world of cronyism that may match old time fundamentalism, that may be unlikely to happen.
Then BJU is violating TRACS policy. A quick look at the nursing program shows 4 faculty with just a bachelor’s degree teaching 200, 300, and 400 level nursing courses. One member of the nursing faculty appears to just have an A.A. and is teaching a 300 level course.The faculty must possess the appropriate academic credentials and experiences for their teaching assignments.That appears actually to be higher than the http://sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/faculty%20credentials.pdf] SAC requirements . SACS says that those teaching associates classes not designed for transfer to a baccalaureate degree only have to have a bachelor’s degree. Under TRACS, associate level teaching requires a master’s degree.
a. Faculty hold at least the master’s degree in their teaching field from an accredited institution in order to teach at the associate or bachelor’s level, including 18 graduate hours in the field of his or her teaching assignment.*
*All references to “from an accredited institution” specifically refer to an institution that is accredited by an accrediting agency approved by the U. S. Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting body.
Well this is a bit tricky, really. If someone is teaching a master’s level course and has both an earned master’s and an honorary doctorate, which one are you “counting” them teaching with? There is no good answer. A master’s level course being taught by someone with just a master’s is (generally) inappropriate… so maybe they’re using their honorary doctorate as the legitimizing degree? If the person in question is addressed as “Doctor” one can’t help but think that the honorary doctorate is what is being “used.”
I don’t know of any TRACS accredited schools where honorary doctorates are being used as teaching credentials. Do you?
You have to remember that some people with honorary doctorates may be teaching based on their master’s degree, not their doctorate.
Someone who has not worked with accreditation may not understand what the associations (whether national or regional) are looking for.
For years, schools accredited by the North Central Regional have been able to use professors with doctorates from unaccredited institutions if, like Bob Jones University, the unaccredited institutions gave evidence of being bona fide educational institutions. Furthermore, individuals with honorary doctorates have been able to teach in North Central Regional schools, provided they have made a significant contribution to their discipline that justifies their employment.
One of my doctorates is from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, which is accredited by both NCA (now HLC) and by ATS. During my studies there, I had more than one professor who had either no doctorate or only an honorary doctorate. Sometimes professional expertise is what counts.
SACS and Middle States tend to be stickier on these standards. NCA/HLC tends to be a little more flexible. And NCA is really the behemoth among the regionals.
What the accrediting associations are most concerned with are the following:
(1) That the institution has a clearly stated mission that fits into the category of higher education. [As long as it fits the category of higher ed, accreditation does not interfere with the mission.]
(2) That the institution is working out its mission strategically in terms of its values, institutional objectives, programs, and other aspects of campus life.
(3) That the institution is assessing every aspect of its operation for its contribution to accomplishing the mission.
(4) That the institution is drawing students to its mission and equipping them in a way that will accomplish the mission.
(5) That the institution has sufficient resources to achieve its mission.
(6) That the institution is, in its governance, free of conflicting interests that could thwart or interfere with the accomplishing of its mission.
If the institution can demonstrate all of the above adequately, that is what really counts.
For years, schools accredited by the North Central Regional have been able to use professors with doctorates from unaccredited institutions if, like Bob Jones University, the unaccredited institutions gave evidence of being bona fide educational institutions. Furthermore, individuals with honorary doctorates have been able to teach in North Central Regional schools, provided they have made a significant contribution to their discipline that justifies their employment.
One of my doctorates is from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, which is accredited by both NCA (now HLC) and by ATS. During my studies there, I had more than one professor who had either no doctorate or only an honorary doctorate. Sometimes professional expertise is what counts.
SACS and Middle States tend to be stickier on these standards. NCA/HLC tends to be a little more flexible. And NCA is really the behemoth among the regionals.
What the accrediting associations are most concerned with are the following:
(1) That the institution has a clearly stated mission that fits into the category of higher education. [As long as it fits the category of higher ed, accreditation does not interfere with the mission.]
(2) That the institution is working out its mission strategically in terms of its values, institutional objectives, programs, and other aspects of campus life.
(3) That the institution is assessing every aspect of its operation for its contribution to accomplishing the mission.
(4) That the institution is drawing students to its mission and equipping them in a way that will accomplish the mission.
(5) That the institution has sufficient resources to achieve its mission.
(6) That the institution is, in its governance, free of conflicting interests that could thwart or interfere with the accomplishing of its mission.
If the institution can demonstrate all of the above adequately, that is what really counts.
[Kevin T. Bauder] Sometimes professional expertise is what counts.After all the bruhaha about BJU, accrediting agencies, accrediting standards, etc…Isn’t this statement getting back to the original question about ministry training in light of what the Department of Education is seems likely to do?
Local church based ministry preparation seems to be the Biblical paradigm and the way that churches need to seriously consider. This is said without discounting the valuable contributions that Bible Colleges and Seminaries have made. I thank God for the admirable service many have provided to local churches. But as Dr. Bauder pointed out in the original essay, they are parachurch organizations working under the medieval and modern Western paradigm of the University system…there is no Biblical precedent for them.
So, bouncing an idea of of the quoted statement…shouldn’t we start seriously looking at what “apt to teach” means for the pastor, and what “equipping the saints for the work of the work of the ministry” really looks like in the local church? It’s “professional” expertise that counts—professional expertise as measured by the Scriptures, not TRACS, SACS, NCA, HLC, or any other accrediting agency.
Shawn Haynie
[Susan R]I agree with Susan here. Youth (12 and up) should be trained for adulthood and not with the secular adolescent model that has been adopted by many fundamental Christians. By 18, if youth are saved, separated and serving they should have a heart to reach their generation in society by attending colleges where they can be grow through involvement in a local church discipleship program and reach the lost on campus. Practical evangelistic work using the apologetic they have learned is crucial in the maturing process.[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.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.
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.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]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.
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!
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.
The local church can train pastors and missionaries without the help of seminaries brick or mortar or on-line education. Just use books. How simple! Like home-schooling, but in the household of the local church family. Outside interaction with other pastors, speakers, field trips to other ministries can augment this education. What a concept! Biblical too.
Bible College and Graduate School and their paradigm is over-rated.
DJung
Derek,
You may be right that the college/seminary paradigm is over-rated. What is not over-rated is the preparation that these institutions provide.
The purpose of a pastor is not PRIMARILY to hold peoples’ hands, to engage them socially, or to have a comforting bedside manner. The purpose of ministry is to mediate to people the system of faith as revealed in the Word of God so that their lives are conformed to God’s expectations.
To put it bluntly, that requires learning. Of a high order.
There are two sides to pastoral leadership: the expository side and the exemplary side. On the expository side, a pastor has to be able to understand and explain the Scriptures for himself. He cannot afford to echo commentaries or theologies. He is responsible to do the work of the mind on his own.
That means that he has to be competent in the biblical languages. He has to master the art and science of hermeneutics. He must work out the Bible’s teachings in terms of the way that they affect each other and the way that they affect life—i.e., he must be a good theologian. And he must be able to take this whole bundle of knowledge, reduce it to comprehensibility, and bring it to bear upon people’s lives (whether in the pulpit, the counseling session, or the discipleship meeting).
In order to perform these tasks, a pastor must first possess the tools of thought. These tools are three in number: grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Of all people, a pastor has an obligation to grow skillful in the use of these tools, for without them thinking is not possible. These are the tools that are normally sharpened during one’s undergraduate training.
In short, an pastor MUST be an educated man. If he is not, he is likely to seriously misunderstand his text and his task. He will never take his congregation where he cannot go. The likely result (even if he is a kind and warmhearted man) will be a congregation that is seriously shallow. For a generation that congregation may continue to be carried by the momentum of its forebears, but the next generation will begin to evidence the decay.
This is precisely the choice that Fundamentalism made in the early 20th century. When we rejected seminaries for Bible institutes, we traded away a learned ministry for mess of pragmatic pottage. The result is the shambles that we see today. We have had three generations of pastoral leadership that was increasingly efficient at getting things done, but increasingly deficient at knowing what was worth doing.
The belief that we had to do something to fix that disaster is one of the things that drove me from the pastorate into seminary teaching.
Granted, learning by itself will not fix all problems (knowledge puffs up), but ignorance is not demonstrably superior. I have never, ever had a pastor tell me that he regretted having learned too much in seminary, and I never expect to (assuming a decent seminary that focuses on Scripture). I have heard many pastors share their regret that they skipped seminary and failed to obtain a level of skill that would have made them more effective than their are.
If a church is serious about training its own ministers, I’ll cheer them on. If, on the other hand, their talk of training pastors is only so much cant to cover up the fact that they really want to sell God’s people into populism, pragmatism, revivalism, and roll-your-own-at-home theology, then shame on them.
If you dissolve all Bible colleges and seminaries today, within a decade you’ll be starting them up again. Less than a handful of churches are actually able and willing to do the job of training pastors for themselves.
If we want to fix the problem, we begin by strengthening churches. While we do that, we set a high standard for the sort of preparation that a pastor requires. Then we aim to provide that—whether through a single church, a group of churches, or an institution that is accountable to churches (a seminary).
At the end of the day, I don’t think it matters whether we offer degrees (though, if we do offer them, it matters whether they are credible). What does matter is that we are giving pastors the tools that they need in order to minister. That will be more than a seminary with a traditional M.Div. can offer, but it should never be less.
You may be right that the college/seminary paradigm is over-rated. What is not over-rated is the preparation that these institutions provide.
The purpose of a pastor is not PRIMARILY to hold peoples’ hands, to engage them socially, or to have a comforting bedside manner. The purpose of ministry is to mediate to people the system of faith as revealed in the Word of God so that their lives are conformed to God’s expectations.
To put it bluntly, that requires learning. Of a high order.
There are two sides to pastoral leadership: the expository side and the exemplary side. On the expository side, a pastor has to be able to understand and explain the Scriptures for himself. He cannot afford to echo commentaries or theologies. He is responsible to do the work of the mind on his own.
That means that he has to be competent in the biblical languages. He has to master the art and science of hermeneutics. He must work out the Bible’s teachings in terms of the way that they affect each other and the way that they affect life—i.e., he must be a good theologian. And he must be able to take this whole bundle of knowledge, reduce it to comprehensibility, and bring it to bear upon people’s lives (whether in the pulpit, the counseling session, or the discipleship meeting).
In order to perform these tasks, a pastor must first possess the tools of thought. These tools are three in number: grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Of all people, a pastor has an obligation to grow skillful in the use of these tools, for without them thinking is not possible. These are the tools that are normally sharpened during one’s undergraduate training.
In short, an pastor MUST be an educated man. If he is not, he is likely to seriously misunderstand his text and his task. He will never take his congregation where he cannot go. The likely result (even if he is a kind and warmhearted man) will be a congregation that is seriously shallow. For a generation that congregation may continue to be carried by the momentum of its forebears, but the next generation will begin to evidence the decay.
This is precisely the choice that Fundamentalism made in the early 20th century. When we rejected seminaries for Bible institutes, we traded away a learned ministry for mess of pragmatic pottage. The result is the shambles that we see today. We have had three generations of pastoral leadership that was increasingly efficient at getting things done, but increasingly deficient at knowing what was worth doing.
The belief that we had to do something to fix that disaster is one of the things that drove me from the pastorate into seminary teaching.
Granted, learning by itself will not fix all problems (knowledge puffs up), but ignorance is not demonstrably superior. I have never, ever had a pastor tell me that he regretted having learned too much in seminary, and I never expect to (assuming a decent seminary that focuses on Scripture). I have heard many pastors share their regret that they skipped seminary and failed to obtain a level of skill that would have made them more effective than their are.
If a church is serious about training its own ministers, I’ll cheer them on. If, on the other hand, their talk of training pastors is only so much cant to cover up the fact that they really want to sell God’s people into populism, pragmatism, revivalism, and roll-your-own-at-home theology, then shame on them.
If you dissolve all Bible colleges and seminaries today, within a decade you’ll be starting them up again. Less than a handful of churches are actually able and willing to do the job of training pastors for themselves.
If we want to fix the problem, we begin by strengthening churches. While we do that, we set a high standard for the sort of preparation that a pastor requires. Then we aim to provide that—whether through a single church, a group of churches, or an institution that is accountable to churches (a seminary).
At the end of the day, I don’t think it matters whether we offer degrees (though, if we do offer them, it matters whether they are credible). What does matter is that we are giving pastors the tools that they need in order to minister. That will be more than a seminary with a traditional M.Div. can offer, but it should never be less.
[SDHaynie]It’s pretty easy to claim that what worked for the early church is exactly what our churches should do, but unfortunately, most churches today are not in the position of the early church, and frankly, lack the resources.
Local church based ministry preparation seems to be the Biblical paradigm and the way that churches need to seriously consider. This is said without discounting the valuable contributions that Bible Colleges and Seminaries have made. I thank God for the admirable service many have provided to local churches. But as Dr. Bauder pointed out in the original essay, they are parachurch organizations working under the medieval and modern Western paradigm of the University system…there is no Biblical precedent for them.
The church at Jerusalem had 12 apostles (educated by Jesus himself) to oversee it, and handle the teaching, with very competent deacons who were capable of handling preaching.
The church had at least 5000 members (maybe approximately 4x that many if it was 5000 men in the style of counting used then). Many fundamental churches today believe that getting larger than 100 or 200 members means there should be a new church forming. That’s all well and good for the spreading out of the ministry, but a church that size cannot support 12 pastors or the equivalent number of men for teaching and training, as well as carrying out the work of the ministry, which includes preaching, counseling, visitation, etc. If only one man is doing all that, he will not have time to also be an effective teacher of new pastors AND take care of his family. Some fundamental men want to have their own college/seminary and mission board, but they don’t want anything to do with being a “mega” church with as many people as the early church at Jerusalem.
Like the church at Jerusalem, there is a church in our area of about 4000 or so members. It would probably be considered a CE church rather than a fundamental one, but even if so, the pastors are strong on the Bible and on holy living, so it’s not your typical Evangelical church. This church does have its own seminary and enough pastors/instructors to carry out both the church ministry and seminary teaching. Also, since this seminary is under the auspices of a single church, they are not a para-church organization, and all the students get practical as well as theoretical ministry experience. Many fundamentalists would consider such a church to be too large, but because of their size, they can have all those extra ministries in house without needing outside seminaries, boards, etc.
The point is, we can’t just pick and choose what we want from the early church model. Of course, we can’t create our own apostles, or any of the ministry of miracles, but we could have larger churches, with a number of pastors/elders that would be able to handle the teaching and missions ministries in house. A church of 100 people with a single pastor is not going to be able to do all those things well, at least not without the help of outside ministries. Those ministries exist by and large to help smaller churches. The Bible refers to the church (singular) at each city of Corinth, Rome, etc. If those outside ministries have no scriptural warrant, perhaps splintering churches into a bunch of smaller ministries in the same town doesn’t either.
Dave Barnhart
Dave,
I agree with much of what you say. You bring up some of the things that need to be seriously considered—size, resources, and a staff that is “apt to teach.”
I didn’t say that EVERY church needs to have a seminary, but that the local church paradigm seems to me to be the best situation for doing seminary type training. And even as Dr. Bauder mentions…they don’t need to assign degrees after the European University model, but they certainly should not skimp on a good education in preparing ministers that are expert in handling the Word and ministering to people.
As in the area where you live, there is a church in my area that has started a seminary. It is a large church (almost 2,000 members, I think) and has the resources to do a seminary well. I laud them for their desire to build a seminary in a local church setting.
I agree with much of what you say. You bring up some of the things that need to be seriously considered—size, resources, and a staff that is “apt to teach.”
I didn’t say that EVERY church needs to have a seminary, but that the local church paradigm seems to me to be the best situation for doing seminary type training. And even as Dr. Bauder mentions…they don’t need to assign degrees after the European University model, but they certainly should not skimp on a good education in preparing ministers that are expert in handling the Word and ministering to people.
As in the area where you live, there is a church in my area that has started a seminary. It is a large church (almost 2,000 members, I think) and has the resources to do a seminary well. I laud them for their desire to build a seminary in a local church setting.
Shawn Haynie
Aren’t we assuming that there is such a number of called and qualified men needing training that would require a large pooling of resources? Is that assumption accurate?
[dcbii]Not to mention, of course, that they all already spoke fluent Greek.
It’s pretty easy to claim that what worked for the early church is exactly what our churches should do, but unfortunately, most churches today are not in the position of the early church, and frankly, lack the resources.
your arguments pretty much follow the party line of accreditation. You are still espousing the old line thinking about accreditation that is pretty much passe. Most forward thinking educators realize that the old concepts of accreditation are no longer adequate for today’s educational world. The whole concept is being questioned as to value in indicating quality and it is being reconstructed along different lines. Overall, I find your contentions trivial, lacking knowledge, and pretty much directed against BJU rather than discussing the whole concept in an abstract sense.Roland,
Please explain this reconstruction and what it looks like. How is it better for today’s educational world? What deficiencies in the “old system” does it improve upon? How does it better indicate quality to prospective customers/employers/students?
[Audrey Cahilly]And if well educated according to the standards of the time, they were well versed in logic and rhetoric. Not to mention, if not knowledgeable in Hebrew, they had easy access to believers who were.[dcbii]Not to mention, of course, that they all already spoke fluent Greek.
It’s pretty easy to claim that what worked for the early church is exactly what our churches should do, but unfortunately, most churches today are not in the position of the early church, and frankly, lack the resources.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
The old model of accreditation had to do with what I call the “brick and mortar” concept. It focused more on peripherals, which may or may not have had an impact on the quality of education. These things included building space, volumes in the library, laboratories, faculty salaries, lounge and recreational facilities for students, etc. I am NOT arguing that these things are totally irrelevant but I’m saying that they in themselves did not necessarily produce a quality education. For example, quality instruction and learning has taken place in less than desirable surroundings and adverse conditions.I do not see focus or over-emphasis on the physical resources with the regional accreditation agencies I’ve investigated. If anything, when they mention facilities, it is in the general “appropriate to support the mission of the institution” vein. And, NO ONE is saying that facilities produce a quality education in, and of, themselves.
The foremost thinking about accreditation today is more toward outcomes rather than process as in the past. There are many ideas, of course, about how measure outcomes. The emphasis is shifting to requiring institutions to clarify their goals and design a strategy for achieving them. Of course, it’s more involved and complicated than this generalized, simple statement. Accreditation is based more on the institution’s self-study and movement toward established goals than “bricks and mortar.” This outlook is more amendable and consistent with the role of DE and digital media.Again, I do not see emphasis on bricks-and-mortar specifically in regional accreditation associations. I especially do not see it at the expense of measuring outcomes and developing strategies to achieve the institutional mission.
“[D] iscussing the whole concept in an abstract sense” is largely unproductive if we do not agree on the facts to begin with. I say “X,” and you say, “Clearly that is actually Y.” There is no way for us to have an abstract discussion.
[RPittman]Brother Pittman, I am assuming men like Apollos and Aqulia while not educated to the level of Paul had for their day a fairly good education. Remember, up to the 1920s, for a man to be educated meant he had a working knowledge of Latin to get into college. I’m not saying early Believers were all brainiacs. The point is they all spoke and in many cases read the language of the New Testament. That is not the case today.[Rob Fall]Oh, how do we know? Other than possibly Paul, can you name other first century Christians who were highly educated? It seems that the common people were the ones who heard Jesus gladly and Paul spoke of not many wise or noble being called. Do you have evidence to the contrary?[Audrey Cahilly]And if well educated according to the standards of the time, they were well versed in logic and rhetoric. Not to mention, if not knowledgeable in Hebrew, they had easy access to believers who were.[dcbii]Not to mention, of course, that they all already spoke fluent Greek.
It’s pretty easy to claim that what worked for the early church is exactly what our churches should do, but unfortunately, most churches today are not in the position of the early church, and frankly, lack the resources.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[RPittman] Although I am a teacher, education is an American fetish. In 1900, there were less than 100,000 high school graduates and less than 30,000 college graduates. People were knowledgeable but they didn’t have the formal education. I understand your position, which I probably held at one time, but I think the early church was pretty much a commoner class akin to the great awakenings in America. Christianity is not based on intellectual qualities but it is something common and in reach of all. Establishmentarian religion tends to make it intellectual because it has little else to offer. Paul is pretty clear that his preaching was not with intellectual persuasion or enticement. Intellectual prowess tends to exalt itself against God.Roland - I think society has changed just a little since the 1900s. The US has moved from a rural, agrarian based lifestyle to urban, industrialized (mechanized?) one. While I won’t disagree with you that Christianity flourishes in the “commoner class” (see I Cor. 1:26-2:13), and I certainly don’t mean to knock the “commoner class” (whatever that is and means), it seems like you, of all people (since you are a teacher by your own admission), ought to recognize that we’ve learned a LOT about theology and scripture, and we ought to make every effort to use whatever we can so long as it is subordinate to correct doctrine.
I am not saying that education doesn’t puff up, but rejecting education just because it might puff up seems to be silly at best and laziness at it’s worst. Besides, the role of the preacher is to take the stuff in God’s Word and make it accessible - more accessible - to everyone else. Education seems to be at least tacitly blessed in the Scriptures. Are we not commanded to study (I Timothy 3:14-16)?
Intellectual ignorance for the sake of ignorance (in order “to remain humble”) is no virtue.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[RPittman]Bro. Pittman- forgive me for not making my question clearer. What I’m thinking is that we are talking as if there are hundreds if not thousands of young men out there called and qualified for ministry. Is that a valid assumption? Is it not more likely that there are very few young men who are called AND qualified who require the kind of training we are speaking of? It seems to me that the very presence of seminaries and Bible colleges has allowed too many young men to call themselves into ministry and qualify themselves with a degree and secure a position in a church with little more than a piece of paper, and there is no sifting process whatsoever to verify their call or qualifications.[Susan R] Aren’t we assuming that there is such a number of called and qualified men needing training that would require a large pooling of resources? Is that assumption accurate?With the advance of digital media, quality large scale can be made available through the local church in a mentorship-apprentice model. The cost is much less than the traditional model and the quality can be comparable. And, the lack of face-to-face interaction is compensated by the pastor mentorship. However, I think traditional institutions resist this because of significant investments in brick and mortar things.
If the number of young men suited for ministry is as small as I think it is, much of this concern over the ability of churches to meet the challenge of teaching and training men for ministry is moot. Can’t a few pastors and elders mentor a couple of young men in their church for a few years? What do we think mentoring entails anyway?
Whereas there may appear to be a glut of men with seminary diplomas, they are unwilling or unsuited temperamentally, spiritually, or otherwise to supply the needs. Thus, I would conclude that we need more training and educating to build a larger pool for drawing suitable candidates for the ministry.Roland’s statement above basically touches on the reasons why I am so concerned about the typical seminary training model:
1. Most men graduate with theological student debt. That’s a huge problem, especially since most churches can’t afford to pay enough for a family, house, car, and debt, if they can afford a F/T pastor to begin with.
2. Graduates, after specializing in ministry for their undergrad and grad schooling, really are at a disadvantage if they can’t find work “in ministry”. Potential employers look at them as not having marketable skills or being overqualified, and expect the graduate to take the position that they would normally offer as a six month stopgap until a church opens up. Without a job, they can’t pay their debts, which keeps them from getting a church that does eventually open up.
3. Graduates also usually have an unsaid assumption that they will be going to churches with a fully funded, fully benefit salaried position. Those F/T positions are rare and hard to get…men who are interested or willing to take a position of a pastor in the Colorado Rockies with a church of ten after getting an M.Div are also incredibly hard to find.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.]This quote made me smile. I see the Lord’s hand in how He has guided my life to this point because I have avoided much of the problems of points 1 & 2 by His providence. At first I thought I was a poor sap who wasted his college on a business degree and was called to ministry too late. I had a family and a job. Now I see that the Lord uses folks like myself in situations like the one listed above in # 3. I’ve spent the last 6 years as a hedge fund accountant and part time associate pastor while I complete seminary. What I previously saw as a waste of time, I now know is God preparing me for situations where I would have to work a job as well as pastor a church.Whereas there may appear to be a glut of men with seminary diplomas, they are unwilling or unsuited temperamentally, spiritually, or otherwise to supply the needs. Thus, I would conclude that we need more training and educating to build a larger pool for drawing suitable candidates for the ministry.Roland’s statement above basically touches on the reasons why I am so concerned about the typical seminary training model:
1. Most men graduate with theological student debt. That’s a huge problem, especially since most churches can’t afford to pay enough for a family, house, car, and debt, if they can afford a F/T pastor to begin with.
2. Graduates, after specializing in ministry for their undergrad and grad schooling, really are at a disadvantage if they can’t find work “in ministry”. Potential employers look at them as not having marketable skills or being overqualified, and expect the graduate to take the position that they would normally offer as a six month stopgap until a church opens up. Without a job, they can’t pay their debts, which keeps them from getting a church that does eventually open up.
3. Graduates also usually have an unsaid assumption that they will be going to churches with a fully funded, fully benefit salaried position. Those F/T positions are rare and hard to get…men who are interested or willing to take a position of a pastor in the Colorado Rockies with a church of ten after getting an M.Div are also incredibly hard to find.
http://www.edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=24…] H.R. 2117, The Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act
THE PROBLEM:Read the bill summary http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_2117_Bill_Summary.pdf] here . Call your U.S. Rep if you want them to support this bill.
Late last year, the Department of Education released a package of regulations they claimed would improve student financial aid programs. Two of these so-called “program integrity regulations” – the credit hour and state authorization regulations – would put the federal government in the middle of issues that have historically been the responsibility of individual academic institutions or states.
THE SOLUTION:
Congress needs to prevent federal overreach in academic affairs and protect student choice in higher education. That’s why Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has introduced the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act (H.R. 2117) to permanently repeal the unnecessary credit hour and state authorization regulations.
Thanks for that Susan.
I hope a bit of damage can be slowed or reversed.
I hope a bit of damage can be slowed or reversed.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Regionally accredited community colleges in Arizona will not accept transfer credits from institutions accredited by national accreditors such as TRACS. This is pure bias and prejudice. But, since this is the case, how can anyone recommend institutions that are not regionally accredited?
In other words, why not just become accredited by a regional accrediting agency.
MBBC did. Why not NIU or BJU?
In other words, why not just become accredited by a regional accrediting agency.
MBBC did. Why not NIU or BJU?
how can anyone recommend institutions that are not regionally accredited?If the only thing that mattered about a school was the acceptance of its credits by regionally accredited schools, the implied answer there would clearly be “we can’t.” But as it is, lots of other things matter.
For example, since I’ve never personally sought a degree at a regionally accredited school, it didn’t matter that my previous degree was also not from a regionally accredited school. So in my own experience, regional accreditation has never mattered. It was not even on the list of “things that matter in a school” to me.
All the same, I do think these schools should move in that direction with whatever speed their mix of priorities will allow.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion