R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
I'm aware that there have been recent discussions on these topics on this board. I understand too that feelings run high on both.
I also understand that, because I work at a seminary I might seem unduly self-interested in the outcome of this discussion. To this objection I can only say that I reached my present conclusions, in principle, before I had any professional stake in the outcome.
I understand too that there are folks who want an education who do not believe that they are able to get one in the ordinary way or who are presently prevented by circumstances beyond their control. There are, however, some who simply refuse to get proper training, who believe the very process of education is corrupting.
I also understand that there is a general suspicion among conservative Christians about accreditation and that sometimes distance ed is seen as a way to avoid both the liabilities of traditional programs and the supposed liberal bias of accreditation agencies.
With those caveats, I offer some thoughts as one who works in the education field and has served as the accreditation liaison (1997-2001) officer for an accredited school and as one who has evaluated both non-accredited programs and distance ed programs.
1. As tempting a distance ed is for those who are in difficult circumstances (e.g., father of 4, has a job, difficult to relocate etc) a man who intends to present himself as a ministerial candidate to a confessional Reformed/Presbyterian denomination who is presently unable to earn a traditional, seminary degree from a confessional Reformed seminary should not pursue the pastoral ministry until he is able to earn a degree from an educationally and theologically sound seminary.
This is even truer of one who will not submit himself to the normal process of seminary training. I will try to substantiate this claim below.
I know this view may seem harsh and unreasonable to some. I am not without sympathy for those who want an education but are prevented by circumstances. The distance ed answer, however, assumes that everyone is entitled to "œeducation" NOW. Perhaps, in the providence of God, if one can´t get a proper education now, then one should wait until it is possible?
We need to question some of the cultural assumptions we bring to this question. As Americans we tend to assume that we have a God-given right to do what we want, the way we want. Is this a biblical assumption? Is it consonant with historic Reformed theology and practice?
The Confessional Reformed churches have a long history of theological education in our tradition. Ministerial education did not come into existence from nothing in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the 16th and 17th centuries our ministers went to great personal expense to get a traditional liberal arts and theological education. We're not the first generation to face those challenges. We are, however, perhaps the first generation to face those challenges with the temptation of internet/video education as a plausible solution.
There are remedies before distance ed. In American churches tend to pay for the education after seminary, rather than before. That is, churches don´t seem to mind paying for the education of their minister, but they are more reluctant to pay for the training of the ministers of other congregations.
This is a very unhappy short-sightedness. A man who is someone else´s minister today may well become your minister tomorrow. Is it not in everyone´s interests to have a well-educated ministry?
If a man is gifted for ministry, then his congregation or presbytery or classis or Synod or GA has a duty to see to it that he has the means to fulfill that calling.
Whatever the difficulties of getting a man to seminary (and they do exist), there are good reasons for thinking that distance education is not proper preparation for pastoral ministry. I've detailed some of them here: http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Seminary.html
In brief, put the question this way: A potential candidate for ministry says: "I want to be a physician. I believe I have a calling and the gifts, but I just don't have the freedom to attend a traditional medical school. Therefore, I think I should have a right to prepare to practice medicine through a distance program in conjunction with a local mentor." Would you trust your health or your children's health to a physician trained this way?
Further, would you trust your health to someone who had the opportunity and means to attend a first class medical school but who refused because he thought that the sort of training he would gain there would actually corrupt his practice of medicine? In my experience, those who are most unwilling to undergo the tests of a traditional education are those who need that discipline the most. More than technical skills are learned in seminary. Students learn the virtues of patience and humility, virtues on which faithful pastors call every day for strength.
If it is obviously inappropriate for a physician to be trained by distance or to be untrained, why are we willing to consider it for pastoral training? Is pastoral training less rigorous? Is it less academic? Is it less practical? Is it less technical? Is the demand for excellence in training made by the practice of ministry less than in medicine? The answer to all these question is no.
As a former academic dean, I can testify that there is a real difference in the quality of education done by distance and done locally in a proper setting. I have seen the fruit of well-intentioned distance education for both pastors and those in MA programs. That fruit is one of the reasons I am not enthusiastic about distance education. For more on this, see the web article linked above.
2. On accreditation. The basic function of accrediting agencies (we have two, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, WASC and the Association of Theological Schools or ATS) is to see that we fulfill the promises that we make to our students, their churches, and those we make to prospective students. These are private agencies, by the way, not governmental. They are composed of academics from private and public, secular and religious, colleges and universities.
Accrediting agencies do not and cannot make us do anything contrary to our stated theological principles. For example, at Westminster Seminary California, as a matter of conviction, we do not admit females to our MDiv program (unlike many other seminaries, even some Reformed seminaries). We do not have female board members, since our board members must be ordained elders or ministers. Indeed, all our voting faculty members are ministers in Reformed confessional denominations (OPC, PCA, URCNA).
Our accrediting agencies may not like our view, but they respect our conviction. They only ask that we act consistently with our stated principles.
The ugly truth is that non-accredited schools (or schools with phony accreditation) are often diploma mills. They often have poor standards or none. Their faculty members are not always well educated and thus are ill prepared to educate others. I recognize that there are poor accredited schools, but at least with the accreditation process, a school has an incentive to improve.
Some of the criticism of accreditation in Reformed circles seems to assume that everyone knows how to "do education" better than the educated and educators. This is a strange assumption.
If you want to evaulate a plumber, don't you ask another plumber? Do you ask a fry-cook? Why should it be any different with education?
The truth is that it takes a long time, much hard work and sacrifice to teach at an accredited seminary such as WSC. We all have not only BA degrees but masters (MDiv and MA) and PhD´s. The average PhD takes 5 years to earn.
In theological terms, education is a covenant of works, not a covenant of grace. It takes about 12 years to earn those degrees. This has been the pattern for most of the last 1000 years. It is the pattern Martin Luther followed and it is the pattern that virtually all of the orthodox Reformed theologians followed in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Accreditation is performed by fellow educators who are best prepared to make the sorts of judgments necessary.
Accreditation does not elminate or reduce the need for ecclesiastical oversight. All our MDiv graduates must sustain presbytery or classical trials and we meet frequently with committees from our various consituent denominations. Indeed, we have made many currciular changes over the years in response to the needs of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches.
In contrast, because non-accredited schools are not accountable to overseeing agencies staffed by trained professionals, they do not have to meet minimum standards for libraries, classrooms, the quality of the faculty and other basic standards that must be met by an accredited school.
When you go into a restaurant, do you look for the health dept sign that says "œA"? Why? Because it signifies that the establishment has met some basic standards. The staff washes their hands before they handle food. They store food at the proper temperature. They take proper care for the well being of their patrons. So it is for students and schools. Students need not only ecclesiastical assurance that a school is confessionally orthodox (this is essential), but also the assurance from other educational professionals (i.e., those who work in the field and know what a good education is) that a school is not fraudulent, that the educational product, as to were (to stretch the metaphor), is handled properly and is safe for consumption.
I haven´t addressed thus far the inadequacy of distance ed for the MA degree, but I do not have space or time. Suffice it to say that if one intends to earn an advanced degree, an MA earned by distance ed will not help him much toward academic progress. Those who have made the sacrifice to earn a traditional degree may not look kindly on those who did not.
Not everyone will be happy with these arguments and views, but I do hope that they give pause to those who argue for distance ed and to those who are encouraging students to consider unaccredited schools.
In our tradition we have always upheld the highest educational standards AND devout piety. We have never set them against each other.
At WSC we are strongly committed to the model of Old Princeton (and behind them, Leiden, Franecker, Utrecht, Heidelberg and Geneva) of praying while we study and studying while we pray.
I hope all our ministerial candidates are also committed to these ideals.
rsc
[Edited on 5-12-2005 by R. Scott Clark]
I also understand that, because I work at a seminary I might seem unduly self-interested in the outcome of this discussion. To this objection I can only say that I reached my present conclusions, in principle, before I had any professional stake in the outcome.
I understand too that there are folks who want an education who do not believe that they are able to get one in the ordinary way or who are presently prevented by circumstances beyond their control. There are, however, some who simply refuse to get proper training, who believe the very process of education is corrupting.
I also understand that there is a general suspicion among conservative Christians about accreditation and that sometimes distance ed is seen as a way to avoid both the liabilities of traditional programs and the supposed liberal bias of accreditation agencies.
With those caveats, I offer some thoughts as one who works in the education field and has served as the accreditation liaison (1997-2001) officer for an accredited school and as one who has evaluated both non-accredited programs and distance ed programs.
1. As tempting a distance ed is for those who are in difficult circumstances (e.g., father of 4, has a job, difficult to relocate etc) a man who intends to present himself as a ministerial candidate to a confessional Reformed/Presbyterian denomination who is presently unable to earn a traditional, seminary degree from a confessional Reformed seminary should not pursue the pastoral ministry until he is able to earn a degree from an educationally and theologically sound seminary.
This is even truer of one who will not submit himself to the normal process of seminary training. I will try to substantiate this claim below.
I know this view may seem harsh and unreasonable to some. I am not without sympathy for those who want an education but are prevented by circumstances. The distance ed answer, however, assumes that everyone is entitled to "œeducation" NOW. Perhaps, in the providence of God, if one can´t get a proper education now, then one should wait until it is possible?
We need to question some of the cultural assumptions we bring to this question. As Americans we tend to assume that we have a God-given right to do what we want, the way we want. Is this a biblical assumption? Is it consonant with historic Reformed theology and practice?
The Confessional Reformed churches have a long history of theological education in our tradition. Ministerial education did not come into existence from nothing in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the 16th and 17th centuries our ministers went to great personal expense to get a traditional liberal arts and theological education. We're not the first generation to face those challenges. We are, however, perhaps the first generation to face those challenges with the temptation of internet/video education as a plausible solution.
There are remedies before distance ed. In American churches tend to pay for the education after seminary, rather than before. That is, churches don´t seem to mind paying for the education of their minister, but they are more reluctant to pay for the training of the ministers of other congregations.
This is a very unhappy short-sightedness. A man who is someone else´s minister today may well become your minister tomorrow. Is it not in everyone´s interests to have a well-educated ministry?
If a man is gifted for ministry, then his congregation or presbytery or classis or Synod or GA has a duty to see to it that he has the means to fulfill that calling.
Whatever the difficulties of getting a man to seminary (and they do exist), there are good reasons for thinking that distance education is not proper preparation for pastoral ministry. I've detailed some of them here: http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Seminary.html
In brief, put the question this way: A potential candidate for ministry says: "I want to be a physician. I believe I have a calling and the gifts, but I just don't have the freedom to attend a traditional medical school. Therefore, I think I should have a right to prepare to practice medicine through a distance program in conjunction with a local mentor." Would you trust your health or your children's health to a physician trained this way?
Further, would you trust your health to someone who had the opportunity and means to attend a first class medical school but who refused because he thought that the sort of training he would gain there would actually corrupt his practice of medicine? In my experience, those who are most unwilling to undergo the tests of a traditional education are those who need that discipline the most. More than technical skills are learned in seminary. Students learn the virtues of patience and humility, virtues on which faithful pastors call every day for strength.
If it is obviously inappropriate for a physician to be trained by distance or to be untrained, why are we willing to consider it for pastoral training? Is pastoral training less rigorous? Is it less academic? Is it less practical? Is it less technical? Is the demand for excellence in training made by the practice of ministry less than in medicine? The answer to all these question is no.
As a former academic dean, I can testify that there is a real difference in the quality of education done by distance and done locally in a proper setting. I have seen the fruit of well-intentioned distance education for both pastors and those in MA programs. That fruit is one of the reasons I am not enthusiastic about distance education. For more on this, see the web article linked above.
2. On accreditation. The basic function of accrediting agencies (we have two, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, WASC and the Association of Theological Schools or ATS) is to see that we fulfill the promises that we make to our students, their churches, and those we make to prospective students. These are private agencies, by the way, not governmental. They are composed of academics from private and public, secular and religious, colleges and universities.
Accrediting agencies do not and cannot make us do anything contrary to our stated theological principles. For example, at Westminster Seminary California, as a matter of conviction, we do not admit females to our MDiv program (unlike many other seminaries, even some Reformed seminaries). We do not have female board members, since our board members must be ordained elders or ministers. Indeed, all our voting faculty members are ministers in Reformed confessional denominations (OPC, PCA, URCNA).
Our accrediting agencies may not like our view, but they respect our conviction. They only ask that we act consistently with our stated principles.
The ugly truth is that non-accredited schools (or schools with phony accreditation) are often diploma mills. They often have poor standards or none. Their faculty members are not always well educated and thus are ill prepared to educate others. I recognize that there are poor accredited schools, but at least with the accreditation process, a school has an incentive to improve.
Some of the criticism of accreditation in Reformed circles seems to assume that everyone knows how to "do education" better than the educated and educators. This is a strange assumption.
If you want to evaulate a plumber, don't you ask another plumber? Do you ask a fry-cook? Why should it be any different with education?
The truth is that it takes a long time, much hard work and sacrifice to teach at an accredited seminary such as WSC. We all have not only BA degrees but masters (MDiv and MA) and PhD´s. The average PhD takes 5 years to earn.
In theological terms, education is a covenant of works, not a covenant of grace. It takes about 12 years to earn those degrees. This has been the pattern for most of the last 1000 years. It is the pattern Martin Luther followed and it is the pattern that virtually all of the orthodox Reformed theologians followed in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Accreditation is performed by fellow educators who are best prepared to make the sorts of judgments necessary.
Accreditation does not elminate or reduce the need for ecclesiastical oversight. All our MDiv graduates must sustain presbytery or classical trials and we meet frequently with committees from our various consituent denominations. Indeed, we have made many currciular changes over the years in response to the needs of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches.
In contrast, because non-accredited schools are not accountable to overseeing agencies staffed by trained professionals, they do not have to meet minimum standards for libraries, classrooms, the quality of the faculty and other basic standards that must be met by an accredited school.
When you go into a restaurant, do you look for the health dept sign that says "œA"? Why? Because it signifies that the establishment has met some basic standards. The staff washes their hands before they handle food. They store food at the proper temperature. They take proper care for the well being of their patrons. So it is for students and schools. Students need not only ecclesiastical assurance that a school is confessionally orthodox (this is essential), but also the assurance from other educational professionals (i.e., those who work in the field and know what a good education is) that a school is not fraudulent, that the educational product, as to were (to stretch the metaphor), is handled properly and is safe for consumption.
I haven´t addressed thus far the inadequacy of distance ed for the MA degree, but I do not have space or time. Suffice it to say that if one intends to earn an advanced degree, an MA earned by distance ed will not help him much toward academic progress. Those who have made the sacrifice to earn a traditional degree may not look kindly on those who did not.
Not everyone will be happy with these arguments and views, but I do hope that they give pause to those who argue for distance ed and to those who are encouraging students to consider unaccredited schools.
In our tradition we have always upheld the highest educational standards AND devout piety. We have never set them against each other.
At WSC we are strongly committed to the model of Old Princeton (and behind them, Leiden, Franecker, Utrecht, Heidelberg and Geneva) of praying while we study and studying while we pray.
I hope all our ministerial candidates are also committed to these ideals.
rsc
[Edited on 5-12-2005 by R. Scott Clark]