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.
- 89 views
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
[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..
Discussion