Seminaries and Student Loan Debt

[C. M. Sheffield]

"The borrower is the slave of the lender." - Proverbs 22:7

​

Should sound Evangelical seminaries be allowing their students to go deep into debt in order to pay for their educations?

Isn't there some immorality or impropriety in letting their students barrow to the hilt?

Should these institutions reform their practices in this regard?

And if they do, what alternatives can they offer to students lacking the funds to attend?

 

[Nathan Riese]

i noticed when I was researching which seminary to go to that lots of seminaries only allow their students to borrow up to a certain amount and no further. I believe that if one is going to allow students to take any loans that this is a good practice. So, I don't know exactly which seminaries you are referring to, but I agree with you, that those seminaries who do not put a limit on the amount of loans should enforce some limitation.

However, should seminaries allow students to go into any debt whatsoever?

Has modern theological education become such a product that it is something to be bought? If I'm not mistaken, the church or presbytery of the one called to ministry should be taking more initiative in actually training that individual, and if not, provide the finances for it. Ministerial education should not be something that any person can reach on the shelf at the seminary store and purchase, but that's more and more what it is becoming--a business.

If you ask me for my personal opinion, no seminary should allow debt, because every ministerial student should be trained by his own session/presbytery or, at the very least, financially supported by the presbytery, otherwise, like i said, it becomes a purchased product by any person.

 

[SolaSaint]

Nate,

I like what you say, this is a good point. If a certain church body feels a man is called to the ministry then they should help in the finances, but they will probably rather spend it on a better sound system instead.

 

[carlgobelman]

If a certain church body feels a man is called to the ministry then they should help in the finances, but they will probably rather spend it on a better sound system instead.

We're not generalizing too much, are we? Is that a fair statement to make?

 

[DMcFadden]

My tenure on my denomination's ordination committee is now nearing 30 years which amounts to almost 500 ordination candidates. Of late, it has been my observation that students are coming to be ordained with debts between $50,000 and $100,000. I'm sure you Reformed brethren pay much better than my Baptist buds, but it is VERY difficult to get out from under that kind of load!

 

[MamaArcher]

We ended up taking out loans when hubby went. Still paying on them too after many, many years. The seminary told us the practice they encouraged was for the wife to go to work and support the hubby during his training. We already had 3 preschoolers and firmly believe I was stay home to teach and train them. Not two very good options to choose from at the time but I still believe staying home was the better.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Should sound Evangelical seminaries be allowing their students to go deep into debt in order to pay for their educations?

Isn't there some immorality or impropriety in letting their students barrow to the hilt?

Should these institutions reform their practices in this regard?

And if they do, what alternatives can they offer to students lacking the funds to attend?

I am not a "big brother" socialist. I believe in the free market and in personal responsibility for one's financial situation. It is rank communism to say that the school should "protect" the person from their own decisions. If the person wants to borrow up to the hilt, then that is their decision... even if it seems financially silly to you given the amount of income they can reasonably anticipate upon graduation.

Schools can provide as much or as little as they want. It is the student's job to be responsible and decide if they can afford the price of the school.

-----Added 10/30/2009 at 06:30:45 EST-----

If a certain church body feels a man is called to the ministry then they should help in the finances, but they will probably rather spend it on a better sound system instead.

We're not generalizing too much, are we? Is that a fair statement to make?

I think it is.

 

[Grillsy]

Ben,

You make a good point, people can make their own decisions.

But I think you miss the point of the question. Is it right to force someone to go into debt simply by going to seminary in order for them to be ordained?

You would be hard pressed to find any minister who didn't have to borrow something in order to afford seminary.

Certainly there was a time when there were ministers before the expensive seminary. Please do not take that as an insult or aversion to seminary education. I certainly believe in it, it is just that the cost of this required education is outrageous. I realize that seminaries as the exist now can under no circumstances be free. But as a person, who certainly feels called to the ministry, but who took on a lot of loan debt to get his first Bachelor's degrees form a private Christian university, there is no way that I will be able to afford seminary and therefore no hope of ordination.

 

[SolaScriptura]

But I think you miss the point of the question. Is it right to force someone to go into debt simply by going to seminary in order for them to be ordained?

No one is forcing anyone to go to seminary. And as far as those who believe that God wants them to go to seminary... ok, go. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Too many people want world class educations on community college tuition levels. Don't get me wrong, churches should be supporting the men they send to seminary... but that issue isn't the seminary's concern.

You would be hard pressed to find any minister who did have to borrow something in order to afford seminary.

I believe you meant to say hard pressed to find someone who DIDN'T have to borrow... well, I'm one of these rare ministers. I didn't borrow a cent. I went slower because I had to work full-time in college, I intentionally sought out what I believed to be the best balance between cost and quality... in short, I did my homework and I made HUGE sacrifices. But we did it debt free.

There are options. Granted, they're options most aren't willing to consider... but I have little sympathy for people who claim to not be able to make it when they COULD make it if they were actually willing to exhaust the options before them... too many are actually saying, "I'm only willing to go so far and then if it doesn't happen, I'm not willing to go any further..." Pride, laziness, or something else... but I just wish more people would truly exhaust every possible means.

 

[LeeJUk]

Well I can only speak for my own country,

but here the practice is that

(church of scotland)

the church pays for your first 2 years at seminary (total of 4 years)

as for the other 2 years, as far as I know all British people are given a government grant from SAAS that will be good for about half or more of the fee's of your education whether it be college or university - depending I think on your income and past uses of this grant.

As for the rest, we get student loans that we dont start paying until we get a job and our salaries reach a certain point e.g. start your church of scotland ministry.
and our government does pretty well on things like this so it shouldnt' be too steep, nothing in the region of 50,000 or 100,000 dollars like someone said above.

 

[matt01]

Should sound Evangelical seminaries be allowing their students to go deep into debt in order to pay for their educations?

Isn't there some immorality or impropriety in letting their students barrow to the hilt?

Should these institutions reform their practices in this regard?

And if they do, what alternatives can they offer to students lacking the funds to attend?

Students and potential students are not forced to go into debt to further their educations. There are many non-traditional programs that allow the potential elder to gain the necessary education. Students must choose if they are willing to pay for the name on the diploma.

Schools are selling a product. There is no issue of morality, with the cost being outside of the range of some students. They need to exercise wise judgment, and realize that not everyone need attend Westminster or one of the higher priced seminaries.

No. The tuition is based on what the market will bear. If you want to study at a particular school, you are going to have to find funding for it. This may be loans, or maybe local churches supporting their aspirants, or maybe the realization that not everyone who goes to seminary belongs there.

I don't understand why it is the seminaries responsibility to ensure a low cost education. The tuition is higher than some would estimate appropriate based on the reality of higher quality faculty, desiring to have needed resources, etc...If people don't need/desire these things, there are schools which charge much less. Of course those schools come with less of a distinction in regard to name, faculty, and accreditation.

 

[Christusregnat]

This is what City Seminary is seeking to avoid:

City Seminary of Sacramento

Cheers,

 

[SolaSaint]

If a certain church body feels a man is called to the ministry then they should help in the finances, but they will probably rather spend it on a better sound system instead.

We're not generalizing too much, are we? Is that a fair statement to make?

I'm sorry, that was my opinion, I should have stated so.

 

[Edward]

But as a person, who certainly feels called to the ministry, but who took on a lot of loan debt to get his first Bachelor's degrees form a private Christian university, there is no way that I will be able to afford seminary and therefore no hope of ordination.

That isn't the seminary's fault, is it?

 

[William Price]

I would love to attend seminary, but I cannot afford it. I only make slightly above 26,000/year as a Head Custodian.

 

[The Mexican Puritan]

Going to one of those expensive, ATS-accredited seminaries doesn't mean anything. I know of one WTS graduate who holds that the universe and everything in it was NOT created in six literal days. All that money and time was wasted in his case. The elders need to get busy and start training their own. Each Reformed denomination ought to set up its own seminary, taking a percentage of a man's wages that won't break him. Or pastors ought to have some sort of apprenticeship program set up.

 

[Grillsy]

But as a person, who certainly feels called to the ministry, but who took on a lot of loan debt to get his first Bachelor's degrees form a private Christian university, there is no way that I will be able to afford seminary and therefore no hope of ordination.

That isn't the seminary's fault, is it?

Nope, and the problem isn't the seminaries at all.

All I am trying to do is echo the original question about whether or not the huge cost of seminary is ethical.

 

[SolaScriptura]

All I am trying to do is echo the original question about whether or not the huge cost of seminary is ethical.

It costs money to operate a seminary. I don't know of any seminary professors or administrators that are rich. It simply costs money. Larger schools with larger endowments and revenue streams from their denominations (ie, my alma mater, Southern Seminary) are able to charge less than schools that want to retain "big name" professors and yet don't have the income to offset that cost.


The market is the best method for controlling cost. Let the market work.

 

[Christusregnat]

Perhaps a breakoff from this thread could be the office of doctor as an ecclesiastical office, as generally believed by the earlier Reformers and by the Westminster Assembly.

 

[Nathan Riese]

Some people commenting here sound like they believe that seminary = ordination.

Why is that the generally acceptable view of our culture? Even in the presbyteries doing the ordination, that is the the most preferable route. Why? How is purchasing a $40,000 M.Div. a qualification for the pastorate?

Sorry, just not finding that in the Bible. I agree with the view that seminary education is beneficial and secondary. Education for the pastorate should be education from the pastorate.

Sure, it might not be wrong for a seminary to offer a product such as the M.Div., but let's face it, the M.Div. is meant for the pastorate, and seminaries are now selling pastorate qualification certificates, leaving the student in debt. Doesn't sound preferable to me.

 

[lynnie]

I know of one WTS graduate who holds that the universe and everything in it was NOT created in six literal days.

One? Try hundreds. Not to knock WTS (hub went there) but you can't fight BB Warfield.

Going back to the OP, my church is not too far from Princeton and we get quite a few Princeton Seminary students, who as far as I know are all truly saved. For some, they actually want to go there because the Princeton degree is the best ticket to a teaching job afterwards. But for some, the almost free degree, due to all the plush endowments, is just too attractive compared to Reformed seminary debt. The bottom line is money, and they don't want the debt, even if they are in a sewer of liberalism.

The people here condemning the debt are unwittingly supporting the decision to get a nearly free MDiv from a spiritual cesspool like Princeton. I offended two students in the past three years asking them how they handle the doctrine as a believer; it is obviously a touchy subject. I think men who choose to make a great financial sacrifice to soak their mind in great theology, instead of applying to liberal divinity schools offering big scholarships, should be honored.

R Scott Clark had a post here a while back about ways to lessen the cost at WSC at least, if anybody is interested in that Seminary. Maybe you can find what he said if you search.

 

[Grillsy]

All I am trying to do is echo the original question about whether or not the huge cost of seminary is ethical.

It costs money to operate a seminary. I don't know of any seminary professors or administrators that are rich. It simply costs money. Larger schools with larger endowments and revenue streams from their denominations (ie, my alma mater, Southern Seminary) are able to charge less than schools that want to retain "big name" professors and yet don't have the income to offset that cost.


The market is the best method for controlling cost. Let the market work.

I know it costs money. I have acknowledged that. But the question is whether or not it is ethical to require this for ordination considering the huge monetary cost.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I know it costs money. I have acknowledged that. But the question is whether or not it is ethical to require this for ordination considering the huge monetary cost.

Yes, it is ethical.

Perhaps you think that just because someone - or a group of men - thinks that a person is called to ministry that they are therefore entitled to an "inexpensive" education, and that therefore other men are obligated to make a pittance living so that this man who thinks he's called can get a cheap education?

Again, the cost is only "huge" if you make it that way. There are ways to make it managable.

 

[Brian Withnell]

"The borrower is the slave of the lender." - Proverbs 22:7

​

Should sound Evangelical seminaries be allowing their students to go deep into debt in order to pay for their educations?

Isn't there some immorality or impropriety in letting their students barrow to the hilt?

Should these institutions reform their practices in this regard?

And if they do, what alternatives can they offer to students lacking the funds to attend?

A seminary ought to be a ministry of a denomination. It ought not be a "break even" business, but ought to have a continual infusion of cash from the denomination that oversees their teaching (and yes, every seminary ought to be overseen by a denomination for multiple reasons). If a seminary has no choice but to make enough money to cover their costs, then they very well might not be able to support the future training of pastors for the denomination they serve without factoring money into the mix. In the long run, it makes a seminary beholding not to pure teaching of the word, but to a bottom line of having income meet expense. That can only lead to looking at including those that ought be weeded out, and looking for money from those that cannot afford it.

I would rather see a seminary loosing money every year knowing they keep their standards high than have them breaking even by lowering standards so more students will pay tuition.

 

[Michael Doyle]

There are certainly a slew of options for those who are called to the ministry. The PCA has LAMP Seminary, which provides the necessary load for ordination at a very reasonable cost and works through the local church elders.

I am relatively sure there are other programs available as well. Is this as effective as an WSC or RTS, perhaps not, perhaps not by a long shot, that I am not sure of. What I do know is that God has provided a means for training for his called at least within the context of the PCA.

I agree with Ben. The free market will inevitably work itself out. If people choose wisely and are incapable of reasonably affording the major seminaries then eventually other avenues will inevitably come to light. My

 

[SolaSaint]

Unless one wants a brick and mortar institution check out Trinity Graduate School of Apologetics and Theology. It's a tuition free online graduate school offering Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral diplomas. Its accredited by ICAATS out of India. They are conservative but not beholden to any denomination.

 

[puritanpilgrim]

By the grace of God, I worked 45 hrs a week as a server. It was a good restaurant, therefore I made over 1,000 a week. I went to school, and I wife stayed home. We didn't borrow any money. I had two goals, one was not going on welfare because I went to seminary and the other was not going into debt.

 

[Grillsy]

I know it costs money. I have acknowledged that. But the question is whether or not it is ethical to require this for ordination considering the huge monetary cost.

Yes, it is ethical.

Perhaps you think that just because someone - or a group of men - thinks that a person is called to ministry that they are therefore entitled to an "inexpensive" education, and that therefore other men are obligated to make a pittance living so that this man who thinks he's called can get a cheap education?

Again, the cost is only "huge" if you make it that way. There are ways to make it managable.

I'm not sure if my tone is coming across as harsh or something but I really don't mean to sound that way.

I am only trying to ask honest questions that I have.
I will ask this question now. Does the Bible require those who are ordained ministers to attend such institutions? I want to qualify that question with the fact, that I believe in an educated clergy, but I want to know if the Bible requires it be done in the typical seminary fashion.

I am not trying to be a smartaleck. Please, no more needlessly polemic responses. There is far too much of that on this board.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Westminster Seminary California faculty

 

[charliejunfan]

How about more of the godly men(I hope to be one day ) on this board talk to Larry Bray about becoming mentors for The North American Reformed Seminary(TNARS.net) so that men who are called to the ministry can have a free but effective seminary education.