-

[R. Scott Clark]

For Computers though I think that DE is a good way because it entails you use the medium that your going to use in your career.

Sure, there subjects that can be taught by DE, but a college/university education should not be reduced to mere vocational training.

College/university isn't first about "getting a job." It's about "getting an education." It is about become a thoughtful, intelligent, well-rounded person.

Sure there's a place for vo-tech schools, but we're not talking about vo-tech education here. We're talking about a liberal arts education, about what it takes to become not a technician, but a learned person.

This is not to say there is no practical value in becoming a learned person.

If current trends continue and folks change jobs/careers 4-6 times in their life, almost no one will remain at the present position for the rest of their life. In our economy the motto is adapt or die. The only ones who will be able to adapt are those who are students.

Another of my favorites, P. G. Wodehouse, turned his classical education into banking job (biding his time) thence into a journalism career, and finally into a career as a writer of short stories and comic novels. Plum never had a 'writing course' in his life, but he had read the classics (in Greek and Latin!) and was a genuinely learned man. Few writers were as acclaimed for their graceful use of the language as PGW.

Even engineers and computer majors must take some liberal arts courses.

We have a surprising number of students who have computer/engineering backgrounds who are forced to learn the liberal arts in graduate school. When they began their strictly vocational approach to undergraduate education, they had no idea they would end up in seminary, so they never bothered to learn read well and write discursively. Now, in my courses, they face stringent reading and writing requirements for the first time and they wish they could take composition 101 again etc.

rsc

 

[fredtgreco]

As further proof of how all things can be abused, all you have to do is peruse Communio Sanctorum, to see Paul Owen try to beat up his orthodox critics with his degree from Scotland:

Furthermore, the simple fact of the matter is that (unlike my critic) I have an earned doctorate from one of the world´s top universities, in New Testament studies. I have proven my competence as a New Testament scholar, outside the safe and secure playground of evangelicalism. So if I am being asked why I presume to have something to say on these matters, I can simply note that I have published in places such as the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, and the Library of Second Temple Studies. I have presented papers at the national meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature. My doctoral dissertation ( "œJewish Eschatology as a Matrix for Understanding the Death of Jesus in Early Christianity") has been accepted (pending revisions) by a major academic publisher. My vocal critic, on the other hand, has yet to demonstrate the capacity to even successfully navigate the course of study of a masters degree program at a satellite campus of an evangelical seminary. Yet he regularly takes it upon himself to correct the "œerrors" of seasoned scholars who have a proven track record of academic excellence and credibility. Maybe he should wait until he has at least completed the modest task of finishing graduate school with a decent GPA, before pontificating about issues which are quite evidently beyond his present grasp and realm of competence.

from:
http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=121

I have been asked to put some thoughts down on exegesis of the Bible. Though I have a PhD in New Testament from a credible university (Edinburgh), have published mainstream articles in the fields of New Testament and apocalyptic literature, and teach biblical studies at the undergraduate level, I by no means consider myself an expert in the discipline. But I think I do qualify as a student of the task, and so from one student to others, I pass on some of the following theses:

from:
http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=118

Now does this mean that no one should go to Scotland for a PhD? Of course not. But it is prima facie evidence that a NT degree from an established secular institution may simply make a man more dangerous and arrogant than he was before. Give me a shoemaker with a 6th grade education to teach my kids before I put them near the poisonous arrogance of this "scholar"

 

[historyb]

College/university isn't first about "getting a job." It's about "getting an education." It is about become a thoughtful, intelligent, well-rounded person.

Sometimes as is in my case it is about getting a job. I wish I had time for getting a proper education, but at this stage of my life it's about getting a job. Hopefully after 11 yrs in my present College I got some kind of Education.

With all due respect Dr. Scott all education is about getting a job, a career is just a job that is more fulfilling in scope that a "job" would be.



[Edited on 12-16-2005 by historyb]

 

[gwine]

Maybe so, Doug, but having an education can open doors to a career as opposed to just a job.

Even engineers and computer majors must take some liberal arts courses.

So true. I went through a technical degree. If all you ever learn in college is just how to do your 'job' then you are indeed impoverished. I went through high school and college never having read Shakespeare or studied the classics (logic, philosophy) and it is harder now to cram new ideas into this old brain. But I enjoy reading and learning - it just takes more time because I didn't have a good foundation.

If I could do it all again, knowing what I know . . .

 

[historyb]

I have to say I did get a liberal arts degree, mostly because I took all the courses offered at my Community college. I had no idea abut education or anything when I went to college and most of high school sure didn't help any to prepare me or anyone for College for that matter.

I did experience a year of classical education when I was a junior in High School, I had a body cast on and my Teacher came to the house and ask me what type of education I wanted, I told him a classical one not knowing anything about it just that CS Lewis seemed to have one. (I was just discovering all his writings) That was the best year of all my Hish School time.

Believe or not that is what most people learn at College, at least at the Communtiy college level is how to do thier chosen job. Most people (with the exception of young people) do not have the time anymore to invest to get the type of education which is classical in nature. Not sure what I'm trying to say seems I' just rambling on so I stop now.

 

[JOwen]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

For Computers though I think that DE is a good way because it entails you use the medium that your going to use in your career.

Sure, there subjects that can be taught by DE, but a college/university education should not be reduced to mere vocational training.

College/university isn't first about "getting a job." It's about "getting an education." It is about become a thoughtful, intelligent, well-rounded person.

rsc

A college/university education does not make one a "well-rounded person" any more than a Fu Manchu makes one Chinese. The education system is solely for the purpose of obtaining qualifications to aid one in gainful employment. Dr. Scott is not more intelligent, thoughtful, or well rounded a person 5 min after his PhD than he was 5 min before. Perhaps a more well rounded academic, but intelligence, thoughtfulness, and "œperson[ness]" are altogether separate qualities usually gained by a godly upbringing, discipline, love, and hard work.

Are the most thoughtful, intelligent, and well rounded people only those with an academic degree? If memory serves, Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Are they also the most beautiful? I think you have far too high an opinion of academic success Scott. It's a means to an end, it does not make one a better human.

If you want to be a well rounded person (thoughtful, intelligent) "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God" (Mic 6:8).

JHL

 

[gwine]

The education system is solely for the purpose of obtaining qualifications to aid one in gainful employment.

I would hope that there is more to it than that, but you are probably right in that most (?) schools and students see it that way. I have the means but not a strong enough motivation to go back to school, and the reason I wish to go back is because there was much lacking in my education beyond the basics. Sure, I can read and write, but my appreciation for the arts and my ability to reason fall short of what I would like.

Coming up on 53 revolutions with a reasonably secure job, I am grateful to have the opportunity to even consider this. I pray that my son, who will be getting his degree in Mechanical Engineering this December, will be so favored.

I follow this discussion because I can't decide between the DE and B&M. I dislike the idea of travelling 1 1/2 hours to class but I wonder if my motivation is high enough to stick with DE. The other issues are important, too, and I need to weigh them as well.

 

[JOwen]

Originally posted by gwine

The education system is solely for the purpose of obtaining qualifications to aid one in gainful employment.

I would hope that there is more to it than that, but you are probably right in that most (?) schools and students see it that way.

Whatever else one might gain from a college or university education, in my opinion, is secondary to its prima facia use, and could be learned, perhaps better in the real world of joy and pain. My disagreement with Dr. Clark's statement regarding "well-roundedness" stems from a belief that life itself the best teacher; especially when looking to the holy and perfect example of Jesus in the scriptures.

Kind regards,

JHL

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by JOwen]

 

[wsw201]

Josh,

Just to through my 2 cents in, a couple of things you ought to consider whether you go DE or B&M, is what you want to do with that undergraduate Degree? Since it appears you want to end up going to Seminary and eventually being a Pastor, and assuming you are going to stay on the Reformed Baptist side you might want to take some courses that will help you "make tents". I am sure Phillip Way would love to devote all his time to the Church, but finances won't let him so he is "bivocational". I would hazard to guess that if you do end up as a Pastor, you may end up in the same situation and taking some courses that will help you make a living for you and your family will be very helpful.

Now its time for a little rant!

Josh,

Are you sure about going to a Reformed College that will prepare you for Seminary? is YOUR calling being a man who will stand in the pulpit and speak to God's people on His behalf? Has God blessed you with the necessary gifts to take on this calling? Have others seen these gifts in you? Do you see going this route as being the best and only way to serve Christ and His Church? This is something you need to continually pray long and hard about. It takes a lot more than a Seminary degree to stand in that pulpit. Unfortunately there are a number of men out there who went to Seminary (whether DE or D&M) who do not belong in the pulpit. Scripture is very clear regarding those who look to be Elders. Though it is something that is worth seeking, those who are "teachers of Israel" will be under a harsher judgment than those who are not. If going this route is your calling and you have counted the cost, then God will bless your endeavors whether its via DE or B&M. And I certainly pray that if you go this route, you will be one of the very precious few out there who will rightly preach the whole counsel of God (and make all of us on the PB proud to have known you!)

But I do have one caveat. Being a Minister is not the only way anyone can serve Christ's Church. Speaking as a Presbyterian, the Presbyterian system is not built on the Minister with an MDiv. Though it goes without saying that the Teaching Elder is extremely important, Presbyterianism is built on the Ruling Elder. Without the Ruling Elder, there is no church. You can have all the TE's you want, but without RE's, no congregation can be considered a "particular" church. I don't know about the Baptist system, but I would hazard to guess that the Board of Deacons or Elders are just as important. RE's and Deacons are not required to be Seminary trained or even to have gone to a Reformed college, but they serve Christ's church just the same.

One of the responsibilities of an RE is to make sure what's coming out of that pulpit is biblical and within the Standards of the Church. You want to stop FV/NPP/Shepherdism and any other aberrant excuse for theology that come down the pike? have sound RE's who are well grounded in the Scriptures and the Standards and are willing to say "enough!". And if the TE is not willing to submit to the brethren, then maybe he just gets the BOOT! The RE is where the "rubber meets the road". Plus Seminaries would stop teaching this garbage if their Seminarians couldn't get calls to be TE's.

But to be well grounded, RE's and Deacons need to be well trained in the Scriptures and Standards so they can spot these errors.

This is where I think distance education can be very beneficial, that is training RE's and Deacons. As a Ruling Elder with a full time job, I neither have the time nor the inclination to go over the WTS-Dallas and get a post graduate degree. I have 2 degrees already and don't need another one. But taking courses over the internet or whatever, at my convenience is a great idea.

So that's it. Nothing like free advise

 

[pastorway]

ditto to Wayne.

Get a degree that will provide a means of support for you and your family first, then think about seminary if that is where God is calling you!!!

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

Did anyone else see the summary of the latest literacy report on the news tonight?

I believe that they said that only 31% of college graduates have a sufficient literacy level to read a newspaper or magazine. This is down from 40% in 1991. I guess all those skyrocketing tuitions (take a look at what schools cost in 1991, and now, and then try and factor in the very small inflation rates over that span) have done us incredible good.

 

[doulosChristou]

Just as a footnote, Frame has mellowed quite a bit since his proposal 35 years ago regarding parish-training:

"Postscript, 2001

It's hard to believe that nearly thirty years has elapsed since I wrote this paper. It's also fun for me to see what I was saying when I was younger, bolder, more radical. I've probably mellowed somewhat since that time, but my heart is still in the 'Proposal.'

The paper has not been widely acclaimed, but it has generated enough interest for me to remark occasionally, without any seriousness at all, that it has a 'cult following.'

The 'situation' I describe in the paper may have been a bit overdrawn then. Today, there are a number of attempts to get beyond the academic model of theological education. Quite a number of churches have their own seminaries today. In my own Presbyterian Church in America, there is Knox Seminary, closely associated with Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, and seminaries associated with Spanish River Presbyterian Church in Boca Raton, FL, and Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama. The latter two sometimes offer accredited courses taught by professors from Reformed Theological Seminary. These make a serious attempt to integrate practical and theological training.

On the other hand, some traditional seminaries do a good job at preparing men for ministry. I probably exaggerated, in 1972, the deficiencies of the seminaries. As of now, I'd be delighted to have my sons study at Reformed Theological Seminary if God were to lead them in that direction. There are, however, other seminaries I'd tell them to avoid like the plague. But we can and should do better.

As for myself, I have always taught at a traditional, academic seminary, and probably will for the rest of my life. That is what I'm gifted to do. I don't believe I would do very well as a teacher at a school such as that described in the Proposal. I lack the people skills. My skills seem to be exclusively academic, though my interests seem to be largely practical. I live with that tension. And I would not be successful at trying to start a seminary following the Proposal or to raise funds for it.

The economics of theological training is a subject that needs to be explored in this context. I am not the one to do it. But is there some way that the people of God can be moved by a vision for theological education, as they are often moved by appeals for support of missions? Something like that would have to happen, if churches are to become seminaries in the spirit of my Proposal."

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/refo..._of_frame/ST1_Proposal for a New Seminary.doc

[Edited on 12-17-2005 by doulosChristou]

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Did anyone else see the summary of the latest literacy report on the news tonight?

I believe that they said that only 31% of college graduates have a sufficient literacy level to read a newspaper or magazine. This is down from 40% in 1991. I guess all those skyrocketing tuitions (take a look at what schools cost in 1991, and now, and then try and factor in the very small inflation rates over that span) have done us incredible good.

Hey! As a college graduate I'll have you know that I'm not illiterate! My momma and my poppa were married 2 years before I was born.

But seriously, those figures are depressing. Even when I was in the college scene 20 years ago the first 2 weeks or more involved "remedial" catch-up because high-schoolers were deficient in math and English.

 

[CDM]

My argument about cost touches on the bankruptcy of the system in general. Higher education is the last great vestage of the welfare state. If you look at the statistics, the increases in the cost of education over the past two decades is astronomical. No other industry comes even close. Other businesses have increases in operating costs, but are not able to increase prices with no reference to market. Why can higher education instititutions do this? Because they have absolutely no consumer accountability. Higher education is completely accountability-free; student loans have increased the debt of our nation unbelievably.

You could also argue that this ever increasing appetitte of education institutions has had one of the most deliterious effects on our nation in the past two decades. Because the average debt of college graduates is more than most home mortgages, the increasing trend of people is to put off marriage, put off children, and to focus on the almighty dollar in order to pay off loans. Look at the average age of marriages and first births since the 1970s.

 

[Plimoth Thom]

Originally posted by gwine
But seriously, those figures are depressing. Even when I was in the college scene 20 years ago the first 2 weeks or more involved "remedial" catch-up because high-schoolers were deficient in math and English.

These days the first 2 years of college are catch-up. The general ed. requirements of most colleges are nothing but your high school classes all over again. That's why I went to the local community college for the first two years to get all my gen. ed. out of the way for only $12 a credit, then transferred to a state university for my major requirements.