I have been sitting out this thread because of my respect for Dr. Clark and desire not to be too contentious.
After participating in 450-500 ordination exams over the past 27 years, I think that some of us are missing the point. The issue is not an "educated" clergy vs. a non-educated one. If the standards identify outcomes and remain the same, then the question should be about delivery systems.
People who have invested 9-12 years in college, seminary, and graduate school classrooms (with the tens of thousands of dollars of debt that go with it) have an understandable prejudice in favor of traditional tracks. Also, some of us who spent our years and dollars on that approach have a defensiveness for it as well (it was good enough for me . . . ). Unfortunately, since all educational delivery options carry unintended consequences, we must also weigh the negative effects that go with them.
Traditional academic preparation delivers all of the values identified in this thread. It excels at teaching biblical languages, allows for good give-and-take between learners and instructors, and looks on paper like the ideal model. Yet it also tends to abstract people frm their original context, socialize them in ways that often makes them less effective with the people who sent them off to get a theological education, and frequently feeds their pride. I have seen third world nationals come to America to get their education, and finish seminary less able to return to their people. Some of them become so habituated to American culture that they don't go back at all!
I have commented on this thread before that in my own circles, I have observed ministers graduate from seminary demonstrably LESS competent to minister than they were before matriculating.
If your goal is competence "outcomes," you can identify various objective standards and hold the line on quality without prescribing a one-size-fits-all delivery system. How can anyone say that a person who completes a M.Div. (for instance) by distance education is any less "academically" prepared? Frankly, some of the empirical data on DE suggests that tests scores and actual proficiencies are higher for those who complete a DE degree than one who does it through bricks and mortar.
And, when ministerial preparation is the goal, I would much rather see a person who has been mentored by a competenet pastor over one who has merely sat in a classroom lecture hall with 150 other students (actually some of my bricks and mortar seminary classes were larger than this!). You Presbyterians seem to do a better job of having PhDs who are also Godly and effective pastors doing the seminary teaching. Most of my profs were either utterly inexperienced in pastoral ministry or failures at it who retreated to the academy in response.
In a world of MP3s distributed for free on the internet, streaming video, and free (or practically free) books and Bible software online, the game has changed. One need not quit his job, travel to Philadelphia, Dallas, Greenville, Pasadena, or Grand Rapids, and rack up gazillions of dollars in debt in order to receive quality instruction. Church based models utilizing readily available lectures, innovative online instructional techniques, and patoral mentoring structures show great promise for delivering the SAME level of theological and biblical education at a fraction of the current cost.
In my view, the "best" theological education would combine top rate content (e.g., many of the BEST Reformed teachers have courses available for free that include EVERY word spoken by the professor to the class including mention of when the course projects are due!) + unyielding academic accountability for learning the "content" of the discipline + adequate mentorship in the practice of ministry + provision for a "community of learners."
How do you find this formula in the real world? Some of our seminaries do a very capable job of delivery. Many do not. The innovative programs being proposed today take advantage of computers and the internet to produce other delivery systems equal in quality but without some of the unintended consequences of traditonal bricks and mortar seminaries.
One of my sons was privileged to complete his theological education using a hybrid model that I find quite attractive. He completed a traditional B.A. with 60+ units of Bible/theology (including a year of Greek). Then, during seminary, he used a modular program. Several times each year he took courses on the bricks and mortar campus. Preparation involved reading the same number of books/pages prior to class, being on campus for the same number of lecture hours (10 per unit) compressed into a single week, and have a month to complete the written work following the course lectures. Courses were team taught by a traditional seminary prof (PhD etc.) AND a proven ministerial practitioner. This model allowed my son to be in full time ministry under the mentorship of an experienced pastor, continue learning and serving on an effective ministry team, AND finish an accredited bricks and mortar degree.
