# Education True and False



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 15, 2009)

Part 1 - genuine education

Part 2 - qualified faculty

Part 3 - accreditation


----------



## mvdm (Aug 15, 2009)

Ironically, in Edwardsean fashion, the articles lay out marks to distinguish between genuine and false seminary education. 

A "Quest for Unquestioned Academic Certainty" perhaps.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 15, 2009)

Mark,

The Belgic Confession (and lots of Reformed writers) used this approach long before Edwards.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 15, 2009)

I predict a riot.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 15, 2009)

JonathanHunt said:


> I predict a riot.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 15, 2009)

I have a question concerning this paragraph under part 2:



> There is also a class of so-called “professional” doctoral degrees, e.g. DMin which are aimed at busy professionals who do not have time to leave their profession to return to school for a traditional academic course of study. The professional doctoral degree does not usually meet the tests set out above for an academic degree. In the interests of full disclosure, WSC had a DMin program for many years but we closed our program at the same time many seminaries in North America began theirs. Typically these programs do not require knowledge of original or foreign languages nor do they require original academic research. This is not to say that there are no good DMin projects, there are but they are the exception rather than the rule. The nature and proliferation of this degree is such that David Wells complained, in print, some years back about the “DMin-ization” of the church. He was getting at the problem which lies beneath the need for pastors to augment their credibility by becoming “Rev Dr So and So, DMin.” There are schools who have faculty members whose credential is a DMin. Again, this is not fatal but, caveat emptor. It is fair to ask why a faculty member has a professional and not academic degree and whether that degree is sufficient preparation for the course of study in which instructor teaches. I’m not thinking here of visiting or adjunct faculty but rather about full-time, residential faculty.



I am more or less in agreement with the statements (i.e., I recognize that a number of D.Min. degrees might not be quite up to snuff), but my concern is this paragraph: "This is not to say that there are no good DMin projects, there are but they are the exception rather than the rule." What schools out there have good D.Min. programs?

As to my own circumstance, I am currently in the pastorate full-time. I have no desire to resign a call and pick up and move somewhere to pursue a full-time degree (family circumstances are arising that prevent this). I am 42 and have no modern language background apart from two years of high school Spanish (i.e., I cannot read German or French at all). I do have two Master-level degrees (M.Ed., M.Div.), and I am currently finishing up a third (M.Th.), all from accredited institutions. As I said I do not wish to leave the pastorate, but I might like to teach one day in an academic setting (I was once a high school teacher and part-time college prof), but in an adjunct/part-time position.

Would a D.Min. bear any consideration given these circumstances? And, if so, are there any D.Min. programs you would recommend, Dr. Clark?


----------



## cbryant (Aug 15, 2009)

I think a lot of what Dr. Clark says in these blog post are spot on. One thing that I always hear as a joke, but I think it cements some of the anti-intellectualism in the minds of people is the comment: "Now that (insert name here) is finished with seminary he can now get out and do the real work of ministry." Also, I have seen first hand the anti-intellectualism among ordained ministers. Usually it happens when you get men who have a lot of ministry responsibility at a young age (typically 19/20/21 year-old youth ministers who then go to seminary are prone to this) then just view the seminary as a waste of time and have no practical import into their ministries. Just my  on the matter, though I probably have about $1.50 I could say


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 15, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> I have a question concerning this paragraph under part 2:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Tim,

I didn't say that there are good DMin _programs_. I said that there are good DMin _projects_. I think at least a few of our DMin projects were helpful. Art Azurdia's book began as a WSC DMin project. Jim Garretson's book on Princeton was a WSC Dmin project. John Carrick's book was a WSC DMin project. These last two tended to look more like traditional PhD projects than they did typical DMin projects. 

I think WSC did the DMin thing as well as it can be done and we closed ours. Different folk at WSC would give different reasons for closing it. Speaking only for myself, I was dissatisfied with the quality of most of the projects. Like Wells, I'm skeptical about the very nature of the DMin (and other such professional degrees). 

My advice is to build on your ThM research and try to write a really solidly researched and well written essay every year. Make a contribution that way and if opportunity comes to teach, go for it, but don't spend time on a program that isn't worthy. If you improve your scholarship then take some language classes at a local college. C. S. Lewis didn't have a DPhil/PhD. He didn't need one. I have one and I'm not worthy to shine Lewis' academic shoes.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 15, 2009)

C.S. Lewis also thought it was impertinent when some students asked what degree Charles Williams had, after Lewis got Williams to lecture on Milton.


----------



## KMK (Aug 15, 2009)

mvdm said:


> Ironically, in Edwardsean fashion, the articles lay out marks to distinguish between genuine and false seminary education.
> 
> A "Quest for Unquestioned Academic Certainty" perhaps.



Yes, but does it bear the three 'perspectivals'?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 16, 2009)

Ah...

In the Army we will often summarize by referring to the BLUF (bottom line up front). 

Here's my take away after reading the three blog entries...

BLUF: While many if not most degree programs and academic institutions are borderline fraudulent, there are a few places you can attend in order to get what the Dr. Scott Clark believes is a legitimate education, but you're taking your chances... unless, of course, you come to Westminster Seminary California.


----------



## christianyouth (Aug 16, 2009)

> Real learning is often painful because it requires a genuine student to put to death familiar and cherished notions and to confront new and unfamiliar ones. It causes self-examination and that is usually painful. It requires the acquisition not only of new skills, which can be difficult, but it also requires the formation of new ways of thinking which is never easy. True education is a counter-cultural undertaking. One must break from the prevailing culture of “busy-ness” and enterprise (whether commercial or religious) in order to become educated because real learning takes time, patience, and sacrifice.



I liked this part of the article. This is very true!


----------



## mvdm (Aug 16, 2009)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Mark,
> 
> The Belgic Confession (and lots of Reformed writers) used this approach long before Edwards.



Happy to see you come to recognize that.

-----Added 8/16/2009 at 09:51:45 EST-----

A line from his last blog entry on accreditation:

_...a *real* accreditation (i.e. one recognized by the Department of Education)_ {emphasis added}.

If the government doesn't recognize the accreditation, it isn't "real"? Should Christian institutions accept this premise?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 16, 2009)

Mark,

There are two ways to respond. In the world as it now is there are bogus "accreditation" agencies. Such agencies don't actually provide a real accreditation. They don't do what accreditation agencies do. They do give the illusion of accreditation to schools that can't get a real accreditation. 

It's _theoretically possible_ for schools with high standards to abandon the current system and covenant together to hold each other accountable, to form accreditation teams, to spend the resources to do the self-studies, to form the visiting teams and even, to penalize each other for failing to uphold the agreed standards but to veer back to the real world momentarily, this is unlikely. 

Accreditation is difficult, painful, even expensive. It forces academics to do things for which they have not trained and which they are not inclined to do. It's hard to imagine non-profit organizations generally spending time and resources on accreditation without a strong external stimulus.

There was a world where accreditation wasn't necessary but I guess that time and place is no more. 



mvdm said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Mark,
> ...


----------



## mvdm (Aug 16, 2009)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Mark,
> 
> There are two ways to respond. In the world as it now is there are bogus "accreditation" agencies. Such agencies don't actually provide a real accreditation. They don't do what accreditation agencies do. They do give the illusion of accreditation to schools that can't get a real accreditation.
> 
> ...



Well, not hard to imagine at all, since in the real world I have contributed committee work for one institution, and separately chaired such the Accreditation committee for another institution. Without external stimuli, and over the course of 1 1/2 years, we devoted the resources, conducted the self-studies, interacted with the visiting teams, wrote reports, and incorporated the standards to which the institution will be held. It was not painful, but joyful and highly beneficial. 

And while this accreditation process WAS recognized by the government and served the dual purpose to give us a governmental accreditation, I would never concede that the government's recognition of the process certifies its authenticity.


----------



## lynnie (Aug 16, 2009)

I would think everyone at a forum like PB would want future pastors, as well as bible teachers in any capacity, to get the best possible education. Certainly we'd want them to study under men with impeccable doctrinal standards and personal character at an excellent Reformed Seminary. And yes, Greek and Hebrew is a must. I don't think anybody would disagree with the general position you take, at least not now. ( I can see a day where political correctness will require the loss of accreditation for any school that holds to biblical morality).

I've had to struggle with this subject myself, as my PCA church is in between WestminsterTS and PrincetonTS, and we've had 2 interns from the first and three from the second during the last 3 years, plus a PTS church history PhD student who did a Calvin Seminar.

I have been sooooooo critical of people choosing to attend PTS, I mean, one token evangelical professor that PTS holds up defends Pete Enn's book forcefully, and I could go on but why bother. I spent a couple years just trying to wrap my brain around the fact that these really, really nice guys at my church who are solidly reformed go to PTS. I just inwardly gagged in a sort of contemptuous horror that anybody would go there when WTS is an option for this geographic area. Its like reliving Machen's split every time the subject comes up, and you just cannot figure it out. Why don't Reformed people pick the very best education? Why settle for something so much less (in this case doctrinally/spiritually if not intellectually). PTS is not even "less", it is outright unacceptable at many points.

I've had to lay aside my criticism because the bottom line is that PTS has such huge endowments that guys can go for free who would end up owing a hundred grand after WTS, if not more. They end up with the degree, they can get a confessional pastorate or teaching job, and they are not saddled with paying 1,000 a month for the next 30 years. I've been down the "so what", "the debt is worth it", "try trusting God and having faith for money" attitude roads, but after maybe two years I had to accept that this is a Romans 14 matter of conscience. 

Many guys are married and have or want to start a family, the wife is working, and they just do not want to spend the money. And to stay out of debt, or borrow as little as possible, is a very biblical thing and righteous thing to do, even if it means a Seminary that is not on the educational level with yours. If WSC decides to start offering free tuition, room and board, I can guarantee you'll see a lot more interest . Hub went to WTS fully paid by his parents; I cannot imagine if we had gotten married and had to repay a loan, his starting salary was so low.

It would be good if we all try to keep this economy, and the financial problems for men who want to be ministers, in prayer. I know my own pastor would like to be able to help kids go to WTS instead of a place like PTS, but my church is small and that sort of money just isn't available. I have no doubt the same is true for some who would love to attend WSC.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 16, 2009)

I never understood why Westminster Calis don't like Edwards. As for D.Min. Is that fair to call even call it a doctoral degree? In all honesty is we look historically it seems like its just a way for those with MDIVs to get a title given the academic world is less and less starting to consider MDivs master level work (which usually it is not and historically it was called the Bac. of divinity).


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 16, 2009)

J. P.

It's not accurate to say that there is hostility at WSC toward Edwards. I think the historians at WSC want to take a careful, balanced, historical approach to Edwards. 

One difficulty is that there is so much unqualified adoration of Edwards that _any_ criticism, however, careful sounds harsh in contrast. Edwards was a genius, a truly amazing intellect. He was also a product of his time. Often his more devoted followers neglect to account for the times in which he lived and the influence the intellectual currents of his day had on him. Marsden does this brilliantly.

-----Added 8/16/2009 at 10:05:30 EST-----

Lynnie,

Student debt is a problem but in my experience since 1997 I've not seen anyone graduate from WSC with that sort of debt from seminary nor is it the case that students with loan debt necessarily have to carry that burden on their own.

Most of the time, if the will is there, finances do not have to be the decisive factor about where one attends seminary. My advice is that prospective students should decide on principle which seminary will best prepare one for a lifetime of ministry and then work out the finances. 

Call the seminary's financial aid office (760) 480 8474 x 137 and talk to them and to Mark MacVey, our Director of Admissions. There are ways of minimizing debt. 

By saying this I'm not saying that debt is not a problem, it is, but it can be managed. First, students need to be wise about their expenses (do you NEED that $4.00 latte?). Second, they need to plan a bit. Frequently students spend more than they should during their undergrad years and then find themselves in a bind because they only think about seminary late in the game. Third, one of our students has set up a non-profit charity to which supporters can donate. This is brilliant and anyone can do it. Fourth, congregations, churches, presbyteries, classes need to step in earlier to help students attend a quality seminary. It's a little unfair to ask the calling churches to bear the entire burden of educating students (by helping them repay student loans). My brothers in the RCUS have the right idea. We should all do as they do and pay the tuition of our seminary students. Our churches, classes, presbyteries could easily set up a fund for seminary students. Finally students should ask for help from their home congregations. A given congregation may not be able to help but they might be able to help raise support.


----------



## lynnie (Aug 17, 2009)

_congregations, churches, presbyteries, classes need to step in earlier to help students attend a quality seminary. It's a little unfair to ask the calling churches to bear the entire burden of educating students (by helping them repay student loans). My brothers in the RCUS have the right idea. We should all do as they do and pay the tuition of our seminary students. Our churches, classes, presbyteries could easily set up a fund for seminary students. Finally students should ask for help from their home congregations. _

I could not agree more. It would be a wonderful thing to see the body of Christ help substantially with seminary tuitions! Thanks for the reply, and maybe it will help someone who feels resigned to a local, cheaper, "lesser" option, to look into other possibilities.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 17, 2009)

*This will probably be a waste of breath... er... keystrokes...*

I really mean no insult at all, in fact, I find this "tri"-atribe something to pity. 

I pity the fact that it needs to be said. I pity the fact that any amount of theological education needs to be looked down upon, trampled underfoot, ignored, and marginalized. I pity men who believe themselves to be the judge or measure of what another man needs to learn and where he needs to learn it in order to shepherd the flock of God. I pity an education system that teaches myriads of ways to interpret, dissect, and divide the Word of truth, yet places so much emphasis on a worldly interpretation of godly education without one mention of true biblical discipleship. Where is the pouring out of oneself into another, as in a drink offering? Where is the many hours of prayer and striving? Where is the bearing of sons in the faith? I pity those who believe their own lectures are these very birth pains. I pity those who seem to rise above the church and remove the discipleship out of her very gates. I pity those who make equal the discipleship of men and their heavenly vocation akin to a worldly profession. I pity those who would say they make heralds of the King, yet do not teach these men within the courts of the church; the kingdom of God on earth. I pity those who grade a disciple based upon his head knowledge, and not upon his heart knowledge. I pity those who cannot see that knowledge puffs up and drives a wedge between a man and his calling. I pity those who would reduce the pastor's qualifications to a piece of paper. I pity members of the flock who will only follow a man of particular education. I pity those who believe any particular man of 26 years who has met the requirements of a theological pedigree may properly bishop and deacon the flock of God. I pity those who believe Greek and Hebrew may only be learned from certain professors. I pity those who believe church history can only be learned by lecture. I pity when young men learn multitudinous volumes about the Bible, but rarely learn the treasures in the Bible.

I pity the whole system. And yet I hope for it.

I hope that men will maintain a proper conceit of themselves. I hope that men may glean great insight and fortitude to fight the good fight. I hope that the process instills in the undershepherds of Christ's flock, the willingness, the empathy, the patience, and the wisdom needed to feed the little lambs, as well as the fully mature adult sheep. I hope that men will cease to be theological innovators, and real reformers. I hope that orthopraxy and orthodoxy is given as two heads of one coin. I hope that professors and teachers undertake, with great humilty, the further discipleship of those who would be teachers and preachers. I hope that they can regain and maintain the sense of pouring themselves into their students. I hope that they will see themselves as churchmen first, even suffering the institution for the cause of the church courts. I hope they will lay down the weapons of the intellect when called upon to fight real spiritual battles. I hope that they will take the classroom away from edifaces erected in the modern sense of the world in order to establish their halls within the church. I hope that the resources expended in the endeavor to educate the next generation of ministers is thought of as an investment and not a debt to be paid. I hope that the hearts of men would be seen as a place to deposit the treasures of the kingdom, and not a place to withdraw the fleshly substance of earthly wealth and prosperity. I hope that teachers will overcome the pride of their minds in order to facilitate other views than their own. I hope that when professors grade the performance of a student, they consider their own ability to teach the subject; where the student has failed to grasp, the teacher has failed to teach. I hope that the final analysis is less what isn't made, as much as what is made. I hope that institutions would not see lack of education as much as potential for even more. I hope that institutions would not see the satisifaction of requirements as a goal, but the satisfaction of the church, and the glory of Christ as the goal.

I'm sure that my pities and hopes will be conveniently brushed away as a non-intellectual argument. After all, I've not earned any degree, so what could I possibly know? If I pity these things, what makes my judgment stand? If I hope for these things, what does that show but only my ignorance of the system as a whole? What are my credentials? Who is my accrediting body? In the end, it is only my opinion.

But for the Doctors of our religion, what elevates their opinion above that of any member of any church? Who gave them authority? (I am not speaking against any denomination who makes these men evangelists serving the church. But these ordaining bodies are not elevating them to the status of judge or arbiter of what true godly education is, nor are they giving over true apostolic succession, the keys of the kingdom, or ordination of ministry to them.) Are they not subordinate to the church? Are they not sent by authority? Do they have a derived authority and autonomy? Are they endowed with certain spiritual gifts that do not exist in the church of Jesus Christ? Does the Spirit work through them differently? Are they not secondary, subordinate means?

Are they not a parachurch organization? Do they not insinuate themselves into the kingdom as academies outside the Church's charter?

Ask yourself this question, "What educational entity has ever stayed the course?" Why have they all lost their mission? Why has orthodoxy waned, and orthopraxy waxed? Has it been because of improvement? Are they getting better with each iteration? Or are they born from decline? Do they owe their very existence to the fact that men have failed? To receive approval from them here and now is one thing. But time will come when their approval is an albatross; that they become a desert in which only certain men of some ilk proceed.

We are told that pastors are not equipped to train the young man in doctrine and in righteousness. When did that happen? Are they not charged like Timothy with the example of Paul? "If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed... be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity... give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Do not neglect the gift that is in you... Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you... observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality... keep yourself pure... But you, O man of God, flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life... Guard what was committed to your trust... stir up the gift of God which is in you... do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord... Hold fast the pattern of sound words... That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit... be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ... Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth... And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition... But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work... Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching... be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."

Anti-intellectual? Strawman. Paul was not telling Timothy to be anti-intellectual. Yet was he saying that Timothy's education was lacking in any way? Was it because he didn't have access to a good library? Was it because he didn't have the constant oversight and attention of professors who could interact with him on a personal level? Was it because Dr. Luke had to go through medical school and thus, he should have gone through the same type of training? Was it because Paul was too busy with ministry (and prison) and really didn't have time to teach him? Was it because he was limited in his knowledge of Hebrew because there were no experts to teach him? Was it because there was a school in Ephesus, but it wasn't accredited? Was it because Paul didn't charge tuition?

We could throw all sorts of arguments made for the brick and mortar seminaries at Timothy and they would all bounce off. "Yeah, but, he's in the Bible. He was taught by an apostle." So Timothy is different? I'll grant that I would give him more respect because of Paul. But really, at the very basis of it all, was that he was called, commissioned, and illuminated by the self-same Spirit as we are. Did Paul lead Timothy into all truth? Did Paul, because he sat at the feet of Gamaliel, have a curriculum that surpassed all the best schools? Was Timothy a brilliant scholar who went on to found the first seminary in Ephesus? 

I think it is very interesting that the churches want Timothies. But do they want to be Paul's in that process? Would they rather hire Paul's for that process?

Theological education is the domain of the church. It is only because of the decided lack of leadership in this area that churches have given over their future leaders to "professionals" whose mission is to produce, by curriculum, a man ready to be the first and lowliest servant in the church.

The argument is one of the seminary experience. Which pastor will look back at seminary and any particular curriculum and say that it had a profound impact on his ability to serve the church? Rather, isn't it the impact made from the relationship and circumstance he had while there? Academics _alone_ will not produce one iota of spiritual insight. It is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture that produces insight. It is His illumination through these and many other means that strikes a man to his core, and chisels off the edges of wrong thinking and ignorance in spiritual matters. It is the Holy Spirit who leads the man through the desert of the mind, through the dark places of sin, through the valley of the shadow of death; and once on the other side of it, much more than a diploma from an accredited institution is received. He receives the crown of life. He receives men's souls back from the dead. He snatches little ones away from hell's fire. Any academic experience will not bring him to this crown. He is told, "Well done," not because of which seminary he attended or which accrediting body affirmed him. He receives the crown for things he was taught, not merely by men with academic vestures, but by the Holy Spirit leading him to the revelation of the truth of God in Christ.

The argument is one of resources. The church simply does not have the resources to accomplish it. How can we say that given the example of Paul and Timothy? Sure the church may not have the resources to do it in 3 years. But who said it needed to be done in 3 years? Sure the church may not have the libraries, but why can't we make the books more affordable so they can? Interlibrary loan? Sure the pastors in Reformed churches are busy. But do we not make time for the most important investments? 

The argument is also one from modern education. The church simply does not have the "experts" required for a proper education. Shouldn't these experts be able to teach in more than one place? Can't doctors and professors teach in any classroom? Where is it written that these experts should all be located in the same place and have their teaching as a profession? There are many adjunct faculty out there, couldn't every professor be adjunct? Couldn't they be bi-vocational? What about accrediation? Sure the education gotten through the church is not accredited. Who said it needed to be? Shouldn't the curriculum be approved by the church? Shouldn't the level of requirement be approved by the church? Shouldn't the church answer for the level of proficiency? What about costs? How many ministers could be trained without having to pay the livelihood of professional scholars? How many ministers could be trained without having to pay for costly edifaces? How many ministers could be trained without having to pay for expensive church construction and facilities? What is it we care about most? Do we care more how the building looks, or how many ministers of the gospel have been sent out? Do we care more about how many books we have in the library, than how many times a man has asked his wife to provide for the family while he is in school? Do we care more about how many faculty have been published, than how many souls have been recovered from the enemy camp?

When we really think about what we're doing, we may resign ourselves to the thought that this is the best thing we have. The answer may well be seminary. But we need to take another look at the question. No doubt, seminary is the better of all things, but to my thinking, it is not the best way. And, if we're truly Reformed, that better way can only be accomplished within the church and not without. 

In Christ,

KC


----------



## mvdm (Aug 17, 2009)

R. Scott Clark said:


> J. P.
> 
> It's not accurate to say that there is hostility at WSC toward Edwards. I think the historians at WSC want to take a careful, balanced, historical approach to Edwards.



Citations to where this has occurred, please.


----------



## lynnie (Aug 17, 2009)

KC...I found your post to be very moving and in many parts quite beautiful. 

But I think you are all wrong here: _The argument is one of the seminary experience. Which pastor will look back at seminary and any particular curriculum and say that it had a profound impact on his ability to serve the church? Rather, isn't it the impact made from the relationship and circumstance he had while there? Academics will not produce one iota of spiritual insight. _

When my husband went to WTS in the 70s out of the great Jesus Revival, the entire cultural hippy mindset was so rebellious and independent and stupid. (I got saved and they gave me a bible and Hal Lindsey's book on the rapture.) The church was a doctrinal mess. Going to Seminary was one of the greatest blessings on earth for many young guys who knew little of the great Reformation doctrines or church history or anything else. It was life changing. For both of us, reading theology books now is, well, tremendous. Bible study is a lifelong thing, we will never ever stop learning. Academics produce enormous insight. A good seminary is a treasure. Books are a treasure. Good teachers are a gift from the ascended Lord to the church.


Renewing the mind is one part of sanctification. You appeal to a lot of other areas of sanctification and you are right about all of them. The heart, the prayer life, relationships, evangelism, they all matter, and they matter a lot. But let me tell you from sad experience that I've seen over and over again, if you have all that without the sound doctrine you eventually go off the rails. It all has to go together.

Why should a seminary try and be a church? Hub went and learned his academics but was very intensely involved in a local church, as were the 3 friends from WTS he still keeps in touch with. All of them had their iron sharpening iron with small groups, discipleship, pastoral care. It didn't happen at Seminary particularly. ( then they got married, ha, that's a great way to get sin exposed real quick).

Right now we have interns from two seminaries at my church. They work with kids and adults and do some preaching and meet with the pastor every week and so on. Why should any of that happen at seminary? It is with the church that their heart and walk with God gets refined. If they have some problem with lust or worry or unbelief, is that for the professors, or the elders to guard over?

I went through this at our last Christian school. We had two good ones in PA but the one in NJ after we moved ( 4 boys, now all done with highschool) started to try and be the church, at school. The final 2 years it was more than teaching academics from a Christian and biblical worldview, it was usurping the church. They tried to turn the chapel and other meetings into something that didn't belong to them and it was perhaps well meant, but an abuse/misuse of their authority. We were so annoyed and had to help our youngest with a couple issues. If the public school wasn't so bad we'd have pulled him out. I'm homeschooling my youngest now, I will never send her back to a school that wants to be the church elders (or parents).

All that to say the problem is not with seminaries being devoted to the mind and to academics. For 30 grand a year you better learn Greek and Hebrew and church history and doctrine, and not sit around having a therapy session about your traumatic childhood and how you are angry now. Let the Seminaries do the academics and do them well. Let the church elders guard the flock.

The problem may be when it comes time to choose a pastor. Yeah, I suppose there may be cases where they grill you for two hours on the doctrine of justification, and never ask how your prayer life is, or what your wife thinks about your headship in the home. It sometimes does sound like ordination is very head oriented, but I'm not ordained so what do I know . But even there, that is a church problem, not a seminary problem. Is it up to the profs to make sure that students are active in a local church, and don't end up as pastors if they can't love people? I don't think so. It is up to the individual churches not to choose a candidate who is proud, puffed up, and all head and not heart. It isn't up to seminaries to give degrees based on private prayer life and compassion.

All that said, the pastors we know who did the CCEF classes available in conjunction with WTS said the training was invaluable. They invariably have people end up in the church with depression, bad marriages, problem kids, PTSS, teen girls that cut themselves, bi polars, lust, and all the normal average sins. The sort of insight and help from the guys like Tripp and all the rest of the CCEF crowd is enormously beneficial. The recent debates at WTS about going back to a more narrow Machenite "training pastors to preach doctrine almost exclusively" vision have been a hot topic. Pastors often say that one counseling class at WTS was not enough, you need the whole CCEF certification course to be well prepared to deal with sinful folks today. 

Personally I think counseling is very doctrinal, and dealing with nitty gritty human messes draws in a great deal of doctrine. And I think WTS and WSC may lose folks to places like Redeemer-Dallas (a former Westminster) because there is a broader course offering there. But then I think of John Piper, who preached an ivory tower series on the holiness of God, and worried that his flock had so many problems and he was just talking for two months about the doctrine of God's attributes with zero practical application. Then somebody came up to him and said the only thing that had gotten them through the past two months, after their teen girl was molested by a relative, was hearing about God's holiness every week. I feel that way sometimes...agonizing about some situation for weeks and some dry bit of theology brings an inner breakthough. 

Well, I better stop rambling.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 18, 2009)

*Lynnie...*



lynnie said:


> KC...I found your post to be very moving and in many parts quite beautiful.
> 
> But I think you are all wrong here: _The argument is one of the seminary experience. Which pastor will look back at seminary and any particular curriculum and say that it had a profound impact on his ability to serve the church? Rather, isn't it the impact made from the relationship and circumstance he had while there? Academics will not produce one iota of spiritual insight. _
> 
> When my husband went to WTS in the 70s out of the great Jesus Revival, the entire cultural hippy mindset was so rebellious and independent and stupid. (I got saved and they gave me a bible and Hal Lindsey's book on the rapture.) The church was a doctrinal mess. Going to Seminary was one of the greatest blessings on earth for many young guys who knew little of the great Reformation doctrines or church history or anything else. It was life changing. For both of us, reading theology books now is, well, tremendous. Bible study is a lifelong thing, we will never ever stop learning. Academics produce enormous insight. A good seminary is a treasure. Books are a treasure. Good teachers are a gift from the ascended Lord to the church.



I should have been more clear. I should have said Academics _alone_ will not produce one iota of spiritual insight.



> Renewing the mind is one part of sanctification. You appeal to a lot of other areas of sanctification and you are right about all of them. The heart, the prayer life, relationships, evangelism, they all matter, and they matter a lot. But let me tell you from sad experience that I've seen over and over again, if you have all that without the sound doctrine you eventually go off the rails. It all has to go together.



I agree.



> Why should a seminary try and be a church? Hub went and learned his academics but was very intensely involved in a local church, as were the 3 friends from WTS he still keeps in touch with. All of them had their iron sharpening iron with small groups, discipleship, pastoral care. It didn't happen at Seminary particularly. ( then they got married, ha, that's a great way to get sin exposed real quick).



I don't think the seminary should try and be a church. I think the church should try to be a seminary. That's the way I would view the early church.



> Right now we have interns from two seminaries at my church. They work with kids and adults and do some preaching and meet with the pastor every week and so on. Why should any of that happen at seminary? It is with the church that their heart and walk with God gets refined. If they have some problem with lust or worry or unbelief, is that for the professors, or the elders to guard over?



That's partially the problem. Most good seminaries require field education through practical application and ministerial training. But because the student is usually not at his home church, he cannot have the kind of oversight that would be preferred. Additionally, if all of the students are trying to learn practical application of their studies, they're competing with one another for time in the local churches. In some areas, there just aren't enough churches to have a place for everyone. In my case, while enrolled at GPTS through the distance program, I was allowed to teach and exhort quite frequently compared to others who were in Greenville. But the distance program is frowned upon by many who do not see it as viable theological education.



> I went through this at our last Christian school. We had two good ones in PA but the one in NJ after we moved ( 4 boys, now all done with highschool) started to try and be the church, at school. The final 2 years it was more than teaching academics from a Christian and biblical worldview, it was usurping the church. They tried to turn the chapel and other meetings into something that didn't belong to them and it was perhaps well meant, but an abuse/misuse of their authority. We were so annoyed and had to help our youngest with a couple issues. If the public school wasn't so bad we'd have pulled him out. I'm homeschooling my youngest now, I will never send her back to a school that wants to be the church elders (or parents).



I think this may be inevitable in seminaries as well. Most of the professors, if not all, have been pastors or elders. As such, they cannot divorce that part of their lives from the professorial. Additionally, the students often look to them for advice, share confidences, and foster in all ways the kind of relationship a sheep would have to an undershepherd. But they are not a session, consistory, presbytery, synod, or general assembly. This is why I'm arguing that the seminary moves behind and below the church, not before and above it. 



> All that to say the problem is not with seminaries being devoted to the mind and to academics. For 30 grand a year you better learn Greek and Hebrew and church history and doctrine, and not sit around having a therapy session about your traumatic childhood and how you are angry now. Let the Seminaries do the academics and do them well. Let the church elders guard the flock.



I agree. But I would also argue that the reason they (seminaries) exist in the first place is because of the errant assumption that men cannot be taught all they need to know within the walls of the church. This encompasses Paul's words to Timothy. He was to guard, to teach, and to pass on, the doctrines of the faith. But Paul did not tell him to setup St. Paul's Academy in Ephesus after he passed into glory. I think it is clear that all the instruction needed to go on in the church.



> The problem may be when it comes time to choose a pastor. Yeah, I suppose there may be cases where they grill you for two hours on the doctrine of justification, and never ask how your prayer life is, or what your wife thinks about your headship in the home. It sometimes does sound like ordination is very head oriented, but I'm not ordained so what do I know . But even there, that is a church problem, not a seminary problem. Is it up to the profs to make sure that students are active in a local church, and don't end up as pastors if they can't love people? I don't think so. It is up to the individual churches not to choose a candidate who is proud, puffed up, and all head and not heart. It isn't up to seminaries to give degrees based on private prayer life and compassion.



This can obviously be well done as well as poorly done. And I do think most presbyteries or synods do try to get this right, because they do not want to foist an ill-suited man upon any flock. However, the primary duty of a pastor is to preach and teach. And as such, the need exists to ensure that a man is not ignorant or weak and has proper theological training in all the doctrines of the church. And hopefully, during the entire process he has also been trained in how to shepherd sheep. This should be a careful and prudent series of events, ensuring that when a man is ready to be ordained, he is ready in heart and mind.

This also speaks to how long we think this process should take. History tells us that when there is great demand for pastors, as there is now in some parts of the world, but particularly early in the frontier parts of America, there is a tendency to shortcut the process in order to get pastors in churches. That was part of the intent in the Plan of Union of 1801. There was too much territory and not enough men to cover it all, so Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches decided to ban together. While this may have been an expedient attempt to solve a problem, it caused many others to include the diluting effect of ill-prepared men in the churches. I am not suggesting that given more time, the Plan of Union would have worked. But I am suggesting that it would have been better not to have the union at all and to have patiently waited for the Lord to raise up godly men to work in his fields.

The business of three years of training after a four year bachelor degree is not, in most cases, prudent and careful. There are men in the ministry now who look back and admit they were not ready. And perhaps, in God's providence, they needed those early years in order to be what they are now. But just because it has worked out, does not mean that we should continue the practice. Paul took quite a few years (perhaps 10) in Antioch after many years of training as a disciple of the Pharisees. The three years may be more than enough for some, but they would be an exception. 10 years would not be enough for some.



> All that said, the pastors we know who did the CCEF classes available in conjunction with WTS said the training was invaluable. They invariably have people end up in the church with depression, bad marriages, problem kids, PTSS, teen girls that cut themselves, bi polars, lust, and all the normal average sins. The sort of insight and help from the guys like Tripp and all the rest of the CCEF crowd is enormously beneficial. The recent debates at WTS about going back to a more narrow Machenite "training pastors to preach doctrine almost exclusively" vision have been a hot topic. Pastors often say that one counseling class at WTS was not enough, you need the whole CCEF certification course to be well prepared to deal with sinful folks today.



Or just plain old life experience. I knew everything when I was 20, now that I'm 40, I realize how little I knew, and perhaps more importantly, how much more I need to learn. 

I know everyone has seen this. A man of, say, 27 years, with a wife and two small children, is now the new pastor of a church. He has never really worked in the private sector because he's been in school. His children aren't grown, his parents are probably still alive, and the biggest thing he's been through are the rigors of academia. Perhaps he had some traumatic experiences other than that, but he's probably never helped someone through a death in the family, a wayward child, spousal infidelity, etc. Now he is supposed to shepherd. I know that experience alone does not make a difference. Each situation is different, as is the grace and mercy of the moment. But mistakes are made, albeit honest ones. And I think, while the mistakes are beneficial and may be forgiven, the sheep in the flock of God deserve more. They should expect more.

I don't know where we've gotten the idea that a man has to be rushed through his training so he can get on to his real calling. The real calling is here and now. The real calling is living life as a sheep having an undershepherd, and the great shepherd to care for you. If one has barely had the experience of what it means to be shepherded, I don't see how we expect that this one can shepherd after taking 20 or 30 classes and doing bits and pieces of ministry here and there.

It has nothing to do with age. I am not against young men being in ministry. But that young man needs to be an exception and not a rule. We need mature men who have lived life to be the undershepherds of the church.



> Personally I think counseling is very doctrinal, and dealing with nitty gritty human messes draws in a great deal of doctrine. And I think WTS and WSC may lose folks to places like Redeemer-Dallas (a former Westminster) because there is a broader course offering there. But then I think of John Piper, who preached an ivory tower series on the holiness of God, and worried that his flock had so many problems and he was just talking for two months about the doctrine of God's attributes with zero practical application. Then somebody came up to him and said the only thing that had gotten them through the past two months, after their teen girl was molested by a relative, was hearing about God's holiness every week. I feel that way sometimes...agonizing about some situation for weeks and some dry bit of theology brings an inner breakthough.
> 
> Well, I better stop rambling.



Thanks so much for your comments.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## lynnie (Aug 18, 2009)

That was so interesting. Thank you so much.

I know Timothy had spent perhaps a dozen years or so in ministry and was in his early 30's before Paul said not to let people look down on his youth. He wasn't 24-25, fresh out of school w/o any experience. I'd say ideally I'd agree...._The business of three years of training after a four year bachelor degree is not, in most cases, prudent and careful. There are men in the ministry now who look back and admit they were not ready. And perhaps, in God's providence, they needed those early years in order to be what they are now. But just because it has worked out, does not mean that we should continue the practice. Paul took quite a few years (perhaps 10) in Antioch after many years of training as a disciple of the Pharisees. The three years may be more than enough for some, but they would be an exception. 10 years would not be enough for some_.

My hub got out of seminary and was almost immediately put in position at the church where he had been active, as the assistant pastor. It went well for two years and then he was asked to take over a struggling sister church that had dropped from about 250 members to 40 over two years, after the pastor and leading elder and their wives were excommunicated ( very long story and probably only the pastor's was a valid excommunication, but we didn't know that at the time). The church was divided internally, 20 pro the excommunication and about 20 against, and the two groups didn't get along well. I was about to have my first baby when we went out.

I look back and just shake my head. Maybe now, 28 years later, it might have worked. Everybody loved hubby and for me it was a nice time, but he/we were just so clueless and nieve and unequipped to deal with traumatized sheep, especially emotional women. He shut it down after 3 years in great discouragment. (not that I minded, I felt like Anatoly Sharansky getting out of the Soviet union when hub went into secular work. Aahh, freedom ) The people were so appreciative that they finally had their own pastor again after 2 years of mess and limbo, and they LOVED his solid preaching, and I can look back and see God's grace despite hub's lack of full equipping, but I'd say to anybody now to wait. Be an assistant until your mid 30s unless clearly directed otherwise.

We spent some time in a PDI (now SGM) church in the 90s. For us it was a good church and good time, but they started a pastors college and stuck young guys in it for 9 months and then gave them senior pastorates in their mid twenties, or with little experience. A lot of bad authority horror stories out there that I blame just on youth, not even lack of training or bad hearts. Just plain being too inexperienced and young and made a senior pastor in a group that stresses pastoral authority. One couple we know was having trouble with their teens and the senior pastor invited them over to watch how he and his wife related to their kids, to help them learn how to relate to the teens. Problem was the pastor's kids were like 6 and 4 and 2. Clueless 

Worked for Spurgeon though. 

_ But I would also argue that the reason they (seminaries) exist in the first place is because of the errant assumption that men cannot be taught all they need to know within the walls of the church. This encompasses Paul's words to Timothy. He was to guard, to teach, and to pass on, the doctrines of the faith. But Paul did not tell him to setup St. Paul's Academy in Ephesus after he passed into glory. I think it is clear that all the instruction needed to go on in the church._

Well......I don't know about that. The pastor has to spend a lot of time just preparing sermons, and the elders have jobs and families. You want them to train a handful of guys in all the things a fine Reformed Seminary teaches? Greek, Hebrew, Church History, OT, NT, ST, etc? Maybe in a big city church with thousands of people, but definitely not in a rural or suburban one with 80-100 folks. 

I'm praying for another great awakening, another reformation. I don't know how it will look if that happens and the churches are flooded, and how converts will be discipled. I would imagine we'll need all the Seminary grads we can get, as well as much more intensive bible classes at churches. A good lending library in every church for sure. 

Going back to the original post though, if you do want academics at a Seminary, you do want to go to one that is really solid. You don't want them compromising on inerrancy and sufficiency or sliding into Federal Vision or Emerging Church. If you are going to shell out the bucks for a degree, no point going somewhere with liberals on the faculty and so forth.


----------



## xapis (Aug 20, 2009)

With all due respect to Dr. Clark, I don’t think part 3 holds water. Nor do I think it is nearly as convincing an argument as parts 1 and 2. The implication of the title of this series of blog posts is that any school not meeting all of these criteria is, by definition, a “false” school. As I read part 3 and the insistence that all “true” Reformed seminaries must have the blessing of the U.S. Department of Education, I couldn’t help but wonder, “What Would Machen Do?”

Looking at it from my personal perspective, holding the firm belief that I have been called to the gospel ministry, I take my seminary education very seriously. And, to be honest, I did, for various reasons, weed out all but one of the unaccredited schools early on in my search. But after much time, thought, and prayer in looking for the right seminary for my overall situation, I settled with GPTS.

Here’s the statement on accreditation from their catalog. 



> In order to guarantee complete freedom for Greenville Seminary to operate under the Lord of the church, without subjection to outside influences, the Seminary does not plan to apply for accreditation with any of the regional or national agencies. The Seminary is committed to maintaining academic standards equal to or higher than those set by accrediting agencies.
> 
> Accreditation cannot guarantee that any school indeed provides a quality education. To a great extent, the quality of education delivered by a school depends on _intangibles_—things that cannot be measured, such as the teaching ability of the professors, their dedication to their task, and the commitment of the students to profit from the education they are offered. Accreditation, however, depends on _measurability_—such things as the percentage of professors with an earned doctorate in their field; the number of books and journals housed in the library; the availability of computers to the students.
> 
> ...



This statement, in tandem with the commitment I discerned during my visit to the Seminary from the faculty to rightly train ministers of the Word, was enough to quell any concerns I had with regards to the quality of education I would receive there.

I agree with Dr. Clark to the end that accreditation should be seriously considered when choosing a school. Lack of accreditation should give the prospective student pause to ask the all the proper questions as to _why_ the school is unaccredited. But, depending upon the end goals of the prospective student, "proper accreditation" may not matter. If, for example, a man is called to pastoral ministry, his session and presbytery approve of his path, and that path involves being educated in an unaccredited school that, nevertheless, has been approved by his denomination and presbytery, then I must ask: What else is there to stand in his way? It seems presumptuous to me to discredit (no pun intended) all schools that lack accreditation at the outset. If I am correct in my own research, there is at least one very solid and sound Reformed seminary out there that seems to defy these standards for judging a “true” educational institution.


----------



## mvdm (Aug 20, 2009)

xapis said:


> With all due respect to Dr. Clark, I don’t think part 3 holds water. Nor do I think it is nearly as convincing an argument as parts 1 and 2. The implication of the title of this series of blog posts is that any school not meeting all of these criteria is, by definition, a “false” school. As I read part 3 and the insistence that all “true” Reformed seminaries must have the blessing of the U.S. Department of Education, I couldn’t help but wonder, “What Would Machen Do?”



This from Trinity Baptist Seminary, arguing the same point made here and above:

_Misconceptions that people have about accreditation:

Many people believe a degree must be recognized by the US Department of Education. The US Department of Education does not, and has never had a responsibility to recognize college or university degrees. There are Regional, National and Professional accrediting agencies, which are non-governmental, peer review, third party organizations that the US Department of Education recognizes for the purpose of Title VI federal tuition loans. This has nothing to do with making the college or university legitimate._

Accreditation

The fact is, historically, the authenticity of a seminary education never turned on the government saying it is so. Suggesting otherwise is an unfortunate modern Quest for Unquestioned Academic Certainty {QUAC}. After reviewing the DOE and PRTS website, as far as I can tell, Beeke's Puritan Reformed Seminary would not pass Clark's QUAC test.


----------

