Online Vs. in-Person Education: Theological Training Is Supposed to Be Hard

[Larry]

No one has argued it should be hard for the sake of being hard. So why respond to that? No one is saying that. So if you are going to retort, at least retort to something that was said.

But let’s move past the silliness:

1. Do you deny that there is a mindset of convenience among some people when it comes to education? (It has already been admitted, including here on this very board.)
2. Do you believe that young men training for ministry are beyond being challenged about their mindset towards preparation and the best way to do it?

Larry, the article did make the argument that seminary education is supposed to be difficult, and that those who try to make their seminary experience less difficult (or make it more convenient) are somehow less qualified to pastor a church. Then, it misquoted Scripture to prove the point.

Of all the arguments against on-line seminary education, this is the dumbest I’ve read so far.

But, back to your questions. #1) Yes, so what? #2) No, so what? The answers to both of these questions are irrelevant.

I would argue that it is actually harder in some cases to complete your MDiv on-line. It took me 6 years to complete mine. How many pastors who complete seminary on campus in 3 years stay in their pastorate for 6 six years? According to Thom Rainer, the average tenure of a pastor is less than 4 years before they move on. Based on this, I could argue that completing seminary in 3 years is actually teaching men to view ministry as a short-term gig. Here’s my proof text to make my argument sound biblical: Matthew 24:13.

EDIT

Btw, I do agree with this statement from the article:

If you choose an online degree, a shorter program, or a program without a biblical language requirement because of convenience, what does that say about your commitment to the task you claim God has given you?

I believe this is true, not because it makes you a slacker, but because you’re not properly equipped to handle the Word of God.

THoward wrote:

Of all the arguments against on-line seminary education, this is the dumbest I’ve read so far.

Thanks THoward. I wonder if you might refresh my memory about your education and seminary experience. You have probably mentioned it and I have forgotten.

Larry, the article did make the argument that the more difficult the better when it comes to seminary education, and that those who try to make their seminary experience less difficult (or make it more convenient) are somehow less qualified to pastor a church.

I am not sure you are representing the article properly here. I was at DBTS and I know they could make it harder. But I think the overall point is different than what you are representing here.

Then, it misquoted Scripture to prove the point.

No, I think the quote was actually correct. What part of the quotation was misquoted?

Of all the arguments against on-line seminary education, this is the dumbest I’ve read so far.

Might that say something about you, particularly since you seem (by your answers below) to agree with the concern of the article? How is it a dumb argument to suggest that those wanting to take the easiest way out should reconsider their qualifications for ministry? Perhaps you could enlarge on that a bit so I could undestand it.

But, back to your questions. #1) Yes, so what? #2) No, so what? The answers to both of these questions are irrelevant.

So what? You admit that the problem is real (#1) and the young men should be challenged on it (#2). So you seem to agree with the article’s intent, if not the full application of it. So it seems relevant not only to the broader picture of training but also to your particular comments. How can you object or consider it dumb when someone addresses the problem you admit exists?

I would argue that is it actually harder in some cases to complete your MDiv on-line.

Tim Miller, in the Jan 2 article, said essentially this same thing. So again, it seems like you agree. He talks there, as does Ben, about the kind of students that typically do better in online or virtual education.

How many pastors who complete seminary on campus in 3 years stay in their pastorate for 6 six years?

Not sure. Do you have any stats on the average tenure of a pastor with an MDiv? Because if you don’t, your attempt at an argument is actually irrelevant.

According to Thom Rainer, the average tenure of a pastor is less than 4 years before they move on.

And? How does this help anything? Let’s say this is true and it is wrong to stay so short. But what if that pastor goes on to pastor, say, 8 churches for a period of 4 years each. That’s 32 years of ministry built on a 3 year educational investment. And maybe that short tenure is due to a lack of educational and ministry preparation. Again, without stats, we don’t know. So the argument doesn’t help anything.

Based on this, I could argue that completing seminary in 3 years is actually teaching men to view ministry as a short-term gig. Here’s my proof text to make my argument sound biblical: Matthew 24:13.

You could only argue this legitimately if you see ministry as an objective list of tasks to accomplish. And there is some validity here. Some people are church planters who go to spend a specific amount of time starting a church and then hand it off to someone else to pastor so they can go and do it again. There’s nothing wrong with that. It depends on gifting and calling and desire. But typically, pastoral ministry is not a curriculum of 90-something hours to complete. So you can’t legitimately argue this is the same thing.

But hey, it’s SI. No limit on the kinds of attempts are arguments that can be made.

I am not sure you are representing the article properly here.

I edited my response before you posted to make sure I did better represent the article. My point stands.

What part of the quotation was misquoted?

The quotations were used out of context.

So what? You admit that the problem is real (#1) and the young men should be challenged on it (#2). So you seem to agree with the article’s intent, if not the full application of it.

Having a “mindset of convenience” may or may not be a problem. It depends on the situation. But to assert that wanting to make one’s education more convenient necessarily implies someone is a slacker and not qualified to pastor is absurd.

Again, we do all kinds of things in our life to simplify tasks and to accomplish better and faster results. I remember I was the first person in my undergrad classes to use a laptop in class. It made taking notes quicker and easier. I remember moving from creating Hebrew vocab flashcards by hand to getting the Hebrew flashcard app on my phone. It made learning Hebrew vocab easier and more convenient. Based on this, you could say I have a “mindset of convenience.” So what?

A few years ago, an acquaintance of mine wanted to pursue an engineering degree. He was a bright kid (got a perfect score on the math/science section of his college entrance exam) and could have gone to any one of several schools without shelling out a dime. But those degree programs were not competitive and held out only minimal prospects. So he applied and was accepted into a more rigorous program of study.

Those four years were not easy. The classes were really hard. It was expensive. He had to work a lot of hours. He had to do a lot of driving in the best transportation $800 could buy. He went to every class in person because, in the engineering field, the weaknesses of online instruction are uniformly acknowledged. When he got married, he moved to an apartment in a less-than-perfectly-safe part of town and his wife went without a lot of the conveniences that her peers enjoyed. But at the end of four brutal years, they got what they wanted, and now that decision is paying dividends.

The series under review is not suggesting that Paul was advocating for a difficult commute, that suffering is inherently noble, or that online education is necessarily substandard. What it is suggesting is that the decision-making process by which seminary degree programs are chosen should not begin with questions such as (1) Will I have to relocate or get a different job? (2) Will this be hard for my family? (3) Can I do this from the comfort of my home? (4) Will I have to forego some of the conveniences to which I have become accustomed?

These questions are not superfluous, and need not be excluded from the decision-making process. Still, it is troubling when these questions are the first (and even the only) questions that prospective students ask. If students in medicine or the hard sciences don’t make their academic decisions based firstly on answers to questions such as these, why would a theology student, who actually signs up for suffering, make this his first line of evaluation?

MAS

Your comments are good and correct. So are mine:

In-person theological training in a formal graduate setting isn’t the biblical model for theological education. It isn’t even necessarily the best model. It’s just the model we’re used to.

Whatever else may be said in this thread, that bolded statement will always remain true. Remember that.

You get out of a program what you put into it, no matter where you go or in what format you attend class. This is true in any field. Here are two of my own anecdotes:

• At work, our Attorney Manager defeated the former WA Attorney General (who was in private practice) in a particular litigation. The former AG went to University of Chicago law school, where he was on the law review. Our Attorney Manager attended a state school with much less “prestige.” He won anyway. Why? Because he’s good.
• I remember working a sexual assault case, and we were obligated to bring in NCIS. The agent was clueless. He had far more “formal training” than I did, and was a Federal 1811 series criminal investigator. He was still clueless. Yet, there I was with on the job training and a certificate from the U.S. Naval Security Forces Academy, and I had to coach him on what to do.

I know we all know this, but perhaps we forget it? You get out of a program what you put into it. You can succeed very well in-person, online or virtually. It depends on you and your context.

I thank you for your kind endorsement, but I am afraid I cannot reciprocate. It is neither good or correct to say that “you get out of a program what you put into it, no matter where you go or in what format you attend class.” It is true, of course, that those who put nothing into their classes will get little out of them. Still, the idea that it makes no difference at all where one attends school is surely not an accepted one.

I’m not saying it doesn’t matter if someone goes to, for example, Fuller. I had hoped that would be understood. I mean to say that if you go to a good school with good academic standards, and a statement of faith and philosophy you can get behind, it doesn’t matter what format the classes are delivered in - you get out of it what you put into it.

I am interested in some interaction on this point from the purists (my term for the various flavors of “on-site onlyists”):

In-person theological training in a formal graduate setting isn’t the biblical model for theological education. It isn’t even necessarily the best model. It’s just the model we’re used to.

Whatever else may be said in this thread, that bolded statement will always remain true. Remember that.

It seems that some people are not understanding what I was trying to say, which could be because I was not clear when I wrote it, they are not reading me rightly/fairly, or some combination of the two. So let me try to clarify.

First: I have no intention of shaming someone who does not choose in-person education. In fact, I actually state in my article that distance education is the right option for some. “When these factors are all considered, some students may find that the value of distance education compares favorably with the value of in-person education.”

Second: I agree wholeheartedly that claiming in-person education is better simply because it is harder would be dumb—which is why I was not making that claim. My previous post was designed to make the claim that in-person education is superior—all other things being equal. This post was a follow-up to that.

Think of it this way: someone agrees with my first post, “yes, all other things being equal, in-person education is better. But it’s really inconvenient to go that route, and other options seem easier, so we should choose those other options.” To that person, I’d say “That’s not the right mindset to have. The Christian life is not about what is easiest and most convenient, but about doing what God requires. And he has told us repeatedly that what He requires entails hardship. If you think you found an easy, convenient path to serve Christ, you probably found the wrong path, because that’s not what serving Christ looks like. Instead, it looks like denying yourself now so that you can enjoy eternal glory later. Don’t choose the easy path. Choose the better one.” So this post was not an argument for the superiority of in-person education, but a pushback against one of the criticisms of in-person education (i.e., it’s not convenient). Any theological education done right will be hard, whether distance or in-person, so don’t eliminate options simply because they are not convenient.

Third: Is it wrong to want convenience? Not necessarily. It is wrong to want convenience at the expense of what is right and good. I think most examples that have been given about things that are “more convenient” were not actually decided on the basis of convenience but on the basis of what is better: more efficient (not the same as convenient) and more effective. IOW, the contrast I’m laying out is not between choosing something that is easy vs. choosing something that is hard, but between choosing something that is not as good just because it is easy vs. not choosing something that is right/good because it is harder.

So, to pick one example, would it be wrong to use electronic flashcards rather than creating Hebrew vocab cards yourself? No, unless it meant you were not able to learn Hebrew as well. To use another example: using a computer to take notes is not the most convenient choice—not taking notes and just looking at someone else’s is. Would that be wrong? It would if you learned better by taking notes but didn’t want to put in that effort.

Hopefully this makes my point a little more clear.

Tyler,

By your definition, I am not a “purist,” and know few if any “purists.” Here at DBTS I teach online students every semester, and have no delusions that a formal classroom is the “only” setting in which ministerial education occurs. As you regularly observe, pastoral mentorship is a vital part of ministry preparation, and this has always been a point of emphasis at DBTS. So I agree, firstly, that “in-person theological training in a formal graduate setting isn’t the biblical model for theological education.”

Whether it is the best model depends in part, I think, on one’s milieu. In our 21st-century American setting, it is hard to improve on the idea of educational centers with (1) terminally-educated instructors in each field and (2) highly-developed resource collections. There is great value in being able to interact face-to-face with such instructors and also to access a library that has resources that far exceed what may be found generally in most local settings. (I am aware, of course, that EBSCO and Logos and the Worldwide Web are expanding daily, but none of these is keeping up with, say, technical monographs in a way that a seminary library can.) Is it the BEST setting? As an academic, I try to avoid universals, but it is a historically well-attested approach.

Where I would disagree, however, is that formal classroom training is “just the model we’re used to.” The idea that seminaries are simply limping along doing what we’ve always done because we’ve always done it that way is simply untrue. I teach at seminary because I feel it is the most productive and effective way that I can serve my church with the gifts God has given me and to do my part to take “the things that I have learned in the presence of many witnesses and entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.”

Mark wrote:

Where I would disagree, however, is that formal classroom training is “just the model we’re used to.” The idea that seminaries are simply limping along doing what we’ve always done because we’ve always done it that way is simply untrue.

That wasn’t what I was implying. I appreciate what you folks are doing and like your seminary.

Ben - no worries; I where you’re coming from, now.

Now, as a general warning for all, prepare to be triggered and (if necessary) seek a safe space …

Go MBU!

[Ben Edwards] Think of it this way: someone agrees with my first post, “yes, all other things being equal, in-person education is better. But it’s really inconvenient to go that route, and other options seem easier, so we should choose those other options.” To that person, I’d say “That’s not the right mindset to have. The Christian life is not about what is easiest and most convenient, but about doing what God requires. And he has told us repeatedly that what He requires entails hardship. If you think you found an easy, convenient path to serve Christ, you probably found the wrong path, because that’s not what serving Christ looks like. Instead, it looks like denying yourself now so that you can enjoy eternal glory later. Don’t choose the easy path. Choose the better one.” So this post was not an argument for the superiority of in-person education, but a pushback against one of the criticisms of in-person education (i.e., it’s not convenient). Any theological education done right will be hard, whether distance or in-person, so don’t eliminate options simply because they are not convenient.

Ben, I appreciate the last sentence in the quote above. That being said, “doing what God requires” does not mean purposely seeking out hardship and suffering when it can be avoided or mitigated within the bounds of Scripture. Hardship and suffering will come, we’ve been promised that, but God doesn’t require us to purposely seek out the road of greatest hardship and difficulty in every aspect of life. We’re not masochists. Thus, the premise of your argument is invalid. Sometimes the “better path” can be the easier path.

As it relates to seminary, if someone wants a quality theological education and doesn’t want to uproot his family and quit his job to do it that doesn’t say anything about his ability to be a pastor or to suffer hardship for Christ. That just means he’s found a way to get a quality theological education while being a good steward of his time, family, and money.

T Howard

I assume the invalid premise you are referring to is something like: “Doing what God requires means purposely seeking out hardship and suffering when it can be avoided or mitigated within the bounds of Scripture.” But as I already stated, that is not a premise in my argument. I think you are reading that in to what I am saying for some reason.

Let me try to explain it this way: Suppose someone comes to me and says, “I believe God has called me to ministry, and I want to find a way to accomplish this goal by sacrificing as little as I possibly can.” I think that would say something about his ability to be a pastor or to suffer for Christ. But the correction would not be to say “Instead, find a way to accomplish this goal by sacrificing as much as you possibly can” (something I’ve never said). Rather, it would be to encourage him to think “I want to serve Christ, and I am willing to sacrifice whatever it takes in order to serve my Savior in the best way I possibly can.”

The discussion has been helpful to me.

It looks to me like these are points of agreement:

• In-person isn’t always the best option for everyone
• We don’t want to make training harder just for the sake of making it harder (suffering is a byproduct of means chosen for reasons other than producing suffering)

And I think also…

• Some are choosing online options without due consideration for the quality of the training they’re getting
• They shouldn’t do that

Am I right that these points are not in dispute?