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.
- 64 views
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.
"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.] 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?
"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
[Mike Durning]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.[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?
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.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
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.
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.
[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…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.
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.
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.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Westminster Theological Seminary
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Dallas Theological Seminary
Grace Theological Seminary
Marquette University
University of Toronto
Southern Baptist Seminary
University of Pennsylvania
University of Illinois
Temple University
Concordia Seminary
University of Southern California
Nova Southeastern University
If you throw in the adjunct professors this list becomes longer and wider. And, of course, there are professors who worked on their doctorates at three or four Fundamentalist institutions (and I don’t mean to include places like Pensacola).
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:
Columbia University
University of South Florida
Arizona State University
Southern Illinois University
Dallas Theological Seminary
Florida State University
Argosy University
University of South Carolina
University of Arkansas
University of Kentucky
Ohio State University
Pennsylvania State University
Westminster Theological Seminary
University of Toledo
University of the Free State, South Africa
University of Alabama
University of Cincinnati
Nova University
University of Georgia
Michigan State University
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.
It is true that one contingent of Fundamentalism tends to be rather insular academically. I don’t think that this is a fair accusation against the entire movement.
[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.
[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.
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: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.
…
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.
If you had phrased it that way (“I would have said that SACS (a regional accreditation association) has a reputation for having more stringent standards than national accreditation associations. “) you would have been mistaken. SACS is less stringent than some national associations, and quite a bit more stringent than some regional ones. The way that SACS applies its standards does not always contribute to superior education. That I why I chose the word “thornier.” SACS is just plain hard to work with.
[Paul J. Scharf] I would have to say, No.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.
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.
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.
If TRACS were the problem, then CHEA would simply dump TRACS.
If you want to talk about TRACS accredited institutions, then talk about Central Seminary. Even our small faculty has done their doctoral preparation at:
Dallas Theological Seminary
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Southern Baptist Seminary
Westminster Theological Seminary
Grace Theological Seminary
All of these are accredited by regional or ATS schools.
Our graduates have never had any difficulty getting into credible Ph.D. programs, nor have they had trouble finding teaching positions in other institutions. A couple of years we drew up a list of places that our grads had taught at. There were around thirty or forty colleges and seminaries, including mostly regionally accredited institutions. Right now we have our doctoral graduates teaching in a number of regionally accredited institutions.
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary has chosen not to pursue accreditation at all. Yet their faculty has done doctoral work at:
Grace Theological Seminary
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Baptist Bible Seminary
Southern Baptist Seminary
Detroit has also had very good success getting its graduates into doctoral programs and into the classrooms of other institutions.
Ironically, one of the weakest seminary faculties (in terms of faculty degrees and diversity—they are still good guys who know their stuff) is to be found in a REGIONALLY accredited seminary (no, I am not going to name it). Like I said, the regionals don’t know what to do with seminaries.
Again, the Feds are not after TRACS. The Feds are after accreditation.
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.
Discussion