Federal Intervention in Higher Education

NickImage

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!”

Discussion

Kevin,

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

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

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

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

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

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

Thanks Dr. Bauder for the heads up.

Shawn Haynie

This possibility was one of the arguments against seeking accreditation.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Rob Fall] This possibility was one of the arguments against seeking accreditation.
I know that this argument was made, but was it correct?

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

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

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

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

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

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

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

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rachel hits on a good point when she states:
But this also speaks to Louise’s post: BJU (and many other Christian schools) would not qualify for regional accreditation because so many of the faculty there either do not have terminal degrees, or do not have terminal degrees in the field in which they teach.
One of these days, I’d really like to know just how many BJU faculty - just the teaching faculty - got their degrees from BJU and not elsewhere. I think that could be an interesting study. Of course, it’s not just BJU, too.

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

[/BJU discussion]

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jay C.] Rachel hits on a good point when she states:
But this also speaks to Louise’s post: BJU (and many other Christian schools) would not qualify for regional accreditation because so many of the faculty there either do not have terminal degrees, or do not have terminal degrees in the field in which they teach.
One of these days, I’d really like to know just how many BJU faculty - just the teaching faculty - got their degrees from BJU and not elsewhere. I think that could be an interesting study. Of course, it’s not just BJU, too.

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

[/BJU discussion] SNIP
You’re right on the existence of those schools. But, I’m not up on the academic politics of the period especially on the later two.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

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

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

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

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

Someone already said it, but BJU and Bauder’s seminary are in exactly the same position concerning national v. regional accreditation.
But they don’t have anything to do with each other or anything to do with the article, at least so far as I can see. The article seems to be more about the whole process of educational accreditation.

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

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

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

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