The ARP used to cover all of the cost of seminary for ARP students at Erskine. Several financial factors/events/issues later, they still pay 80% of the cost of seminary.

Tim didn't borrow any money. We had no children yet, so I worked 1.5 jobs, and Tim worked part-time as well.

__________________
Anna
Wife of Tim/Marrow Man
Louisville, KY
Member of Midlane Park Presbyterian (Associate Reformed Presbyterian)

For the record, the very title of this thread is biased and inaccurate.

The seminaries aren't enslaving anyone.

You would do well to restate the title as "Students going off to seminary without the ability to pay for it." That would be more accurate.

A couple things:

1. I agree that denominations and churches, in a perfect world, would pay for or at least subsidize the education of potential ministers. However, we don't live in a perfect world. Instead we live in a world in which churches and presbyteries frequently rubber stamp anyone who "feels" called to the ministry with the end result being that our seminaries are filled with people who really have no sense of definite call to anything other than studying God's word. I personally know many men who went off to school only to graduate and decide that they weren't called to vocational ministry after all. Now, most denominations and churches have very limited resources. I'm guessing most would go broke if they subsidized even a fraction of the men they supposedly endorse for entry into seminary. Perhaps the answer is that denominations and presbyteries and churches should really clamp down and put some really strict perimeters around who they'll endorse... but even then, the problem is with the church or presbytery, NOT the seminary.

2. It keeps coming down to the question of "why does it cost so much to get a degree?" It needs to be stated and restated that the belief that a perceived calling to ministry means that one should be able to go off and get an MDiv without much hardship, and that if it is "too expensive" it is a sign of sinful greed on the part of the seminary rather than perhaps a sign that God has NOT called you at this point in time... that belief in fact amounts to a proletariatian entitlement mindset. The schools are not rich. The professors are not fat cats busy applauding themselves as they watch their portfolios swell at the expense of the poor seminarian. On the contrary, most are barely making it themselves.

So I pose that would-be seminarians consider their financial state of affairs and consider that maybe, just maybe, if God has called you to the ministry, then He's called you to meet the requirements for ordination, and if He's done that then He can be counted on to make a way. And if "a way" has not been made, and if you cannot get a seminary education without financial ruin, then perhaps, just perhaps, God has not called you at this time. Is there anyone really prepared to even consider such a prospect?

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

I agree Ben.

It's interesting that I was just reading Idols for Destruction the other day and one of the points that the author was making about a non-Christian humanitarianism is this condescending custodial attitude toward people. People are too stupid or helpless to care for themselves so let us make decisions for them.

It must be the Marine Officer in me but I would find it a personal affront to my maturity as a leader if someone had to ask me very simple questions that are expected out of a Marine leader. The time for checking my mettle as a leader has long since passed. My maturity is assumed and every time I check into a new unit my personal integrity and maturity are presumed to be excellent. Why, because well before I was commissioned those kinds of things were being observed. Nobody has to tell me how to balance my checkbook, to get a good night's sleep, or a number of other things we expect out of adults.

If Seminaries have to check up on all these details as the Nannies for grown men who are being trained to be leaders in the Church then it says more about the men who are going to be leaders in the Church and the Churches who are calling them then it does about the Seminaries themselves.

The title is inappropriate. One might as well title the same: "When are Seminarians going to stop forcing grown men to sin?"

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I actually was thoroughly offended by the title of this thread, and thought to re-title it myself. A man is responsible for his own actions, and Seminaries are in NO WAY responsible for "enslaving" men by charging tuition. If a man cannot afford to go, then he should not. If he can afford to go but can only do so by borrowing money to do it, then that is his call. Never could it be argued that a seminary has any responsibility whatsoever for a man's choice to attend and pay the tuition that they are charging (for good reason - tuition is perfectly reasonable for any institution of higher education to charge its students). I think some folks need simply to back off and consider who the real target of their criticism ought to be, rather than make slanderous remarks and inappropriate accusations.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

The problem with your argumentation is that you're ignoring that fact that a seminary degree is not a Bibilical requirement for the ministry but it is something required by most Reformed denominations.

I know that some of you (Ben). Are going to respond back and call me and others immature or selfish for making this statement or asking a question.

Everytime we have asked a question about the cost of seminary and the requirement of seminary you have insulted us. If that is how they taught you to defend your position in Seminary then I don't believe I would want to attend.

You refuse to show the biblical mandate for the requirement of a minister going through the modern-day seminary system. The fact is, it is not required biblically but the charge that it is is continually made. Saying that if God has called someone to the ministry they should have to meet the requirements is true...but adding something other than God requires and forcing someone to come up with payment and calling them weak if they cannot is absolutely ridiculous.

__________________
Willie Grills
Trinity Presbyterian Church
OPC
Huntington, WV

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least as I understand it, it's not the seminaries that actually lend the money, but other private lending institutions.

__________________
Patrick
MDiv, RTS Jackson
Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church (OPC), Lisbon, NY

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.
"Let us not please ourselves that we have deep understandings, but let us shew our understandings by our practice." Richard Sibbes

That actually is a great point.

You may want to spend some time thinking about this:
There is no specific Scriptural requirement to teach children how to read either.

I know, but there are strict Scriptural requirements for ministers and their qualifications. And please don't take my remarks to mean that I do not want an educated clergy

Yes, but I am responding to your contention that what a Church considers to be prudent in its Christian government must be "proof-texted" in order to be valid. The "Chapter and Verse" requirement you have laid out is no more valid than a child contending with his father to prove to him that he must go to school to learn arithmetic because there is no verse supporting his father's requirement.

Willie, you are correct that there is no chapter and verse requiring an MDiv for the ministry. But the Bible does require a teacher to be able to accurately handle God's Word and the doctrines therein. Though some disagree, this pretty much requires a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. Additionally, the studies of theology and history which are expositions of God's Word and work in history respectively, need to be done.

While it is certainly possible, however improbable, that someone can attain the level of competency required to satisfy an ordaining body's understanding of what it means to be academically prepared without going off to seminary, the sheer improbability of it happening without a formal classroom environment provides warrant for ordaining bodies to require, as a condition of ordination in their fellowship, a formal theological education. Further warrant is found in the fact that self-study or study under one man often leads to "lop-sided" or stunted growth. Ordaining bodies want mature men who have been prepared to intellectually interpret, process, and apply God's word in an environment where their ideas are subject to the scrutiny of others who have both different perspectives as well as a more thorough knowledge of the material. Again, academic preparation can possibly occur in an informal way... and as such I think ordaining bodies would be wise to leave open the possibility that someone can be academically prepared without ever stepping foot in a classroom... but those would be the exceptions rather than the rule. And you make normative policies around the rule, not the exceptions.

In my opinion, when it comes to the prepatory process for ordination, it is not the seminary's job to ensure that the candidate is holy. (Of course, if they notice anything egregious, they should report it.) It is not the seminary's job to ensure that the candidate has a robust devotional life. It is my opinion that in those areas, the church should be overseeing their candidates. In my opinion, the seminary should almost exclusively focus on the area of academic preparedness. Seminary is a place to buckle down and get the knowledge one needs to accurately interact with God's word, not a place to try to deal with some besetting sin.

So, a presbytery or church has grounds for believing it is most prudent to trust that a seminary education will do the academic preparation.... the preparation that IS required if one is to have a faithful ministry. The church is to be faulted if it vests more responsibility or trust in a seminary to do anything other than it's job of academic training, particuarly if what they're divesting is their own pastoral responsibility. But as far as the academic part goes, the ordaining bodies have far better reason to presume competence in someone who has undergone the trials of a respectable seminary than a man who says he is self educated.

Excellent answer. Thank you very very much. That is exactly what I was hoping to hear. Your observations are very helpful.

I appreciate your clear and thought out response and your are aboslutly correct IMHO.

Please, don't take any of my previous posts as overly polemical or anything of sort. I was just really trying to press for an answer is all.

Again I cannot thank you enough for your response.

No problem! Just trying to help.

Depends on the person.....

The arguments about personal relationship against internet seminary could possibly be fulfilled in part by receiving pastoral training in conjunction with the internet seminary (such as with GPTS mentor program).

The arguments against academic discipline are a false assumption that internet students are automatically lazy. That is an argument against individual students, not against internet seminary and is an insufficient argument to make.

The argument against "pastor training the student" type of education is that it lacks sufficient academics. Again, if pastoral training is in conjunction with internet seminary, is that not easily answerable?

We have a married guy with two kids in our church going to online seminary. A brilliant Chinese man working in biochemical research. He is doing all kinds of stuff at church and is mentored by the pastor and relates to the elders and staff. I can't imagine that it would be better for him/his family living at a school.

Now if one of my kids wanted to go to online seminary I would tie them up and drop them on the doorstep of a good school, and go throw the circuit breaker in the basement that feeds juice to their computer. A lot depends on the person!

__________________
Lynnie

PCA

Central NJ

I guess I am going to have to disagree with most of you. I think loans for seminary can be a great thing, in the right circumstances, and in moderation.

Tell me, all of the people on this forum, who are unwilling to take a loan for seminary education: how many of you are driving a reasonably nice car, that you make payments on? How many of you have a nice house, that you are making payments on?

It would be absolutely hypocritical, for a person to denounce taking out a loan for Godly education, while making loan payments on material things. How much more valuable is the education in theology and scripture?

I will tell you what I did. Me and my wife got rid of our expensive truck. We bought a cheap one for cash. We now have two bills, that equal less than 600 dollars per month. I work part time as a youth Minister, which covers our bills. My wife will start working next year: she is finishing up some medical assistant training. I utilize subsidized federal loans to go to seminary, presently, and when our income gets high enough, we will stop using loans.
Of course, I attained my Bachelor's debt free, and my tuition at seminary, after discounts, is only about 2500 dollars per semester (including books); I am taking the max of 15 CH's per semester.


Considering that my seminary loans will cost far less, in the end, than the car most of you are probably driving (And the Seminary education will last long after your car is a pile of rust), I do not consider this a bad deal.

What I think is a shame, is that so many Seminaries do not participate in title IV loans, which are interest free until graduation, but will offer students private loans that accrue interest immediately, and at much higher rates, at that. This is absolutely unconscionable, in my opinion.

__________________
Damon Rambo
Southern Baptist Convention
Member of Brazosport Baptist Temple, South Texas
Youth Pastor/Evangelist

Straight Walk Ministries is my home.

Damon,

I think that what some of the people are objecting to is the amount of indebtedness incured by some (many?) seminarians. For example, I know one guy who decided that he didn't want to have to work (!) during seminary, so he took out almost 30k per year in loans... graduating with almost 100k in seminary debt (and who knows how much he owed for his bachelors degree). (As an aside: I lay all the blame for his indebtedness at his feet. His priorities and choices resulted in his debt load. It wasn't like the school prohibited him from working...)

I believe that those to whom you're responding would argue that taking out 100k for advanced education is an acceptably investment for, let's say an MD is fine because the career towards which the education is headed is one that pays enough to recoup the cost and then some. 100k for a degree that leads to a career paying 40 or 50k suddenly doesn't seem so prudent because this creates a level of income which can not be met by many churches.

While I agree with you - that some indebtedness is not necessarily bad and that there is a degree to which your seminary debt is an investment - and while I agree with those who are opposed to "excessive" indebtedness in ministerial candidates because it DOES create a very heavy burden, I want to make it clear that I think this matter is one that needs to be addressed by the prospective student.

Good point. My argument was just a rebuttal against the generalization arguments of Dr. Clark. It really does depend on the person. It would be wise for a session or a presbytery to say "no, I don't think your doing online seminary is the most beneficial" to those people, because, like you said, it does depend on the person.

__________________
Nathan Riese
Under Care, PCA
Trinity Presbyterian Church, Aledo, Illinois
Current student at MBBC
Future student of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
www.gpts.edu

Do you think such a man meets the Biblical qualifications for ordination as an elder? It seems that there would be stewardship as well as household management issues. And looking at Scripture again, perhaps even 'good testimony'.

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

titlw changed.

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

First, It isn't "communism" for a school to refuse to heavily indebt a student. Your earlier statement describing this as "communism" bears no resemblance to what communism is. Especially given the fact that government coercion is nowhere involved.

Now more to the point, I would agree that seminary students are responsible for their actions but I would also hold that an evangelical school is also accountable for theirs.

Consider Nehemiah 5. The chapter begins with the "cry" of three different Jewish groups going into debt to their Jewish nobles (and brethren) for various reasons. The nobles were sharply rebuked by Nehemiah. He charged "You are exacting interest, each from his brother" (v. 7). He doesn't say how much interest they were charging, simply that they were. And he intimates that heinousness of their sin proceeded more from their relationship to the borrowers than from the deed itself. Through the lending of money and the charging of interest, they were bringing their brethren into bondage!

There are some real parallels in this instance to the question presently under consideration. For one, we are discussing the propriety of godly schools (overseen by our brethren in Christ) "exacting interest" upon their students (& brethren) and in many cases bringing them under an excessive financial burden. Now it isn't my intention to absolve the borrower of all responsibility for their financial dealings, but to simply say that these otherwise godly schools are not free from any impropriety, and do indeed bear a certain amount of responsibility for their brethren's hardships.

In the judgement of God, both the borrower and the lender must stand to account for their dealings.

-----Added 10/31/2009 at 09:24:52 EST-----

"Thoroughly offended" - Really? Would you perhaps agree that this an overstatement? This charge would be unkind to the original poster (myself) unless you were genuinely and thoroughly offended.

However, if you were genuinely offended, then please accept my sincerest apologies. It was not my intention to offend anyone and did not consider the title of the post to contain anything offensive. What's more, I had hoped that the body of the post as a whole would be taken into consideration with the title thereby clarifying any confusion.

Additionally, I must take issue with a misunderstanding you have regarding my original post. You stated "Never could it be argued that a seminary has any responsibility whatsoever for a man's choice to attend and pay the tuition that they are charging" I never charged any impropriety for a school charging tuition. That would be ludicrous! My original post dealt with student loans and the interest attached to them, not paying tuition.

As I finish this post I have realized that the thread was retitled. Have you retitled it?

Regardless of what moderator renamed the thread, it manifests a hyper-sensitivity on their part and a lack of it toward myself. There was simply no grounds or justification for such an action.

__________________
C. M. Sheffield - Pastor
Smith Street Baptist Church
Vidalia, Georgia
www.sacredsimplicity.org

Uh uh, friend. He is NOT attacking the people who are lending the money. He is attacking the nobles who are heavily taxing the people, causing them to HAVE to borrow money...

Neh 5:4 And there were those who said, "We have borrowed money for the king's tax on our fields and our vineyards.
Neh 5:5 Now our flesh is as the flesh of our brothers, our children are as their children. Yet we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have already been enslaved,


Then in verse 7, it says they are exacting interest (demanding) and when the people can't pay it, they are literally selling them as slaves. This is not some kind of euphemism for placing a heavy burden of debt on them.

Also, if this WERE true, this would be one more strike against the seminaries which do not participate in title IV (interest free) federal loans.

You are incorrect. I would encourage you to study this text in more detail.

He is indeed rebuking the lenders. The "Nobles" are Jewish nobles lending their Jewish brethren the money to pay taxes to the Persian King. The whole rebuilding process is undertaken under the auspices of the king of Persia to whom they were still in bondage and still owed tribute! Certain Jews, unable to pay the kings tax, were borrowing from their own Jewish nobles to pay their taxes. Nehemiah rebukes these Jewish nobles for taking advantage of their brethren by charging them interest.

Even if you are correct, the context is them demanding the interest, and causing their brethren to go into literal slavery. It is not the actual charging of interest, nor desiring for the money to be paid back. Slavery in this passage, is not a euphemism for "debt" the way you are trying to make it.

I never said that slavery in this passage was a euphemism for debt. I was using that language from the start of this thread based on passages like Proverbs 22:7.

So whether or not its used here in Neh. 5 that way, it is elsewhere and is an appropriate and biblical description of financial debt.

As far as proverbs 22:7 goes, the same thing can be said of any obligation. This is not necessarily a bad arrangement. Wives and husbands are said to be servants or slaves of each other. This is not negative. Nor is it negative that we are slaves of Christ.

Yes, when we take out a loan, we are obliged to the person lending the money.

Again: is your car paid for? Your house? Do you have credit cards?

In scripture, slavery is not the real issue. The issue is to what or whom one is enslaved to. If Christ, then great! If sin, then woe unto you! If the lender, then woe unto you as well.

But again your argument is with things I haven't necessarily said. But I get the feeling that you'd rather disagree on semantics than frame the conversation around the questions I originally posted.

At this point, I feel its necessary to clarify my position.
Interpreting my statements in that manner will only serve to sidetrack the discussion. So I would ask others not to characterize my position in that way. No one has, but I feel it could quickly go in that direction.

Ok, fair enough. I am certainly not trying to mis-characterize you. Could you clarify, in a better way, what you ARE saying in regards to student loans? Certainly you are not saying that it is O.K. to have loans for material goods, but it is not O.K. to get a much more valuable education in God's Word?

I am honestly trying to understand your position. Seminaries cannot afford to run for free: scripture is very clear that teachers are to be paid. I would say some are exorbitantly overpriced.

Well, I'm not sure I have a real clear position on this issue. My opening post consisted entirely of questions for that reason. I'm interested in what others think. In hindsight the only thing I would have changed in the title, "Seminaries Enslaving their Students" would have been to put a question mark (?) at the end of it.

There are two things that I feel pretty sure of however. First, that its sinful for someone to shackle themselves with inordinate debt to pay for their schooling. An expensive seminary education is not a necessity. If someone is in a denomination that requires an M.Div. to be a teaching elder, they should either look for less expensive options (e.g. Whitefield Theological Seminary is very cheap and accepted by the OPC & PCA, I think). Or if that's not an option they should consider serving somewhere that doesn't see an M.Div. as equal to a real, spiritual, and divine understanding of the Word and doctrine. Bottom line, going into deep debt to pay for school will seriously encumber one's ministerial efforts and possibly bring harm upon the church.

Second, it is sinful for seminaries to allow and even encourage a student to strap himself with heavy debt to pay for their educations. I now know that some schools do not do this. But for the one's that do, I believe they too are bringing harm upon these young men, their ministries, and the Church.

The real thing I'd like to discuss is alternatives to debt for someone gifted for the ministry and desiring to enter the ministry but lacking the financial resources. Like cheaper programs, church or denominational support, &c.

I think this is an area of conversation that would be helpful for schools, students and churches alike.

O.K. You are going to have to define what "inordinate" debt is. In my mind, you should be willing to spend more on your seminary education than your car. I would go so far as to say if someone is driving a 30k dollar car, and skimps on seminary education, this would effectively be breaking the first and second commandments.

Another problem with what you are saying, is that it is nearly impossible to find a cheap education, that is as rigorous as a more expensive one. There are exceptions to this (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary comes to mind, at least for us reformed Baptists), but not many.

I think RTS is a great example of what you are talking about. While RTS is a great school, the tuition is a bit outrageous (360-450 CH I believe). Westminster too: (400 to 700 per credit hour).

I think the problem is the amount Seminaries are charging. It is amazing to me that Reformed Seminaries, which place such an emphasis on the importance of theological education, are so expensive. While schools like Liberty Seminary, New Orleans Baptist, and Southwestern, are so inexpensive. Liberty for instance, has a tuition cap of 1750 per semester (for residential students), for 15 CH's. That means your M.Div, total including books, end up costing you about 12 thousand dollars. Very manageable.

But I do not think it is the Seminaries job to limit loans. It is the individuals, and the home church which is recommending them. I would be all for a maximum loan amount, to be included on the Pastor recommendation form (which nearly every seminary requires.) This would force the pastor, and the individual, to sit down and discuss the issue.