Observation on accreditation & orthodoxy

[john_Mark]

I want to first state that I am not trying to diminish the value of an accredited degree. This is just an observation in this debate. I present the two scenarios below.

A. There have been orthodox Christian leaders who do not have accredited degrees that have done some great apologetic work, etc. Sometimes these men have been taken to task because they don't have an accredited degree regardless of their work. I have seen and interacted with this position and the degrees are called phony and the person deceitful.

B. On the other hand let's take the example of Greg Boyd and John D. Crossan. They both have accredited degrees from "fine" institutions. (There are others we could bring up too) Now, these men are judged not on their educational institution, but on their theological positions and teachings, etc. They are judged and held to account on a biblical basis.

I see this as the orthodox as being judged by worldly accrediting bodies while the heretics get the biblical judgment when it comes to evaluating each one's education and work. Maybe I am not thinking this through enough as I am jotting this down quickly due to time contraints.

What do you think? Let's think this through.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

This is similiar to North's argument in _Crossed Fingers_.
Accreditation has a very different set of rules than does orthodoxy.
It governs degrees for the professors to the number of books and journals in the library. None of which has anything to with either preserving or extending orthodoxy.

If the church is interested in orthodoxy then it would control the seminaries.
This is the difference between RTS and Westminster versus Covenant in the PCA.
the OPC has no direct control over any seminary. It is an interesting study to compare the effects in the mainline Northern Presbyterian Church from 1880's to 1936 between Union in New York and Princeton. Union left denominational control and in the 30's the liberal church government asserted control over conservative Princeton.

but in either case, secular accreditation plays no part in the issues.
North argues that every Presbytery have it's own inhouse seminary and organized OJT for pastors.
....

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]

 

[john_Mark]

Richard, that is interesting. Thanks. Let me add this to the mix. How about when we have an unordained PhD seminary professor who argues against an ordained churchman on doctrine? Who do we look to to set the standard the churchman or the professor?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

It does not advance the discussion to make ad hominem arguments. One's personal qualities are not in question.

It is also helpful to distinguish between degrees. There is some difference between an unaccredited BA, MA/MDiv and PhD. An unaccredited BA is slightly less problematic than an unaccredited advanced degree and that less problematic than an unaccredited terminal degree.

A PhD signifies that one has made some contribution to learning and passed a series of rigorous tests, including the completion (and sometimes publication of) a 100,000 to 200,000 MS working in original languages and interacting critically with older and contemporary scholarship and an oral defense of the same before a panel of scholars.

Those who pass these tests are judged by other scholars ready to enter into professional academic discussions and to function in the academy.

To earn a degree that substantially varies from this pattern or does not meet these tests subverts the process and weakens the quality control.

I agree with Richard here, nothing about a University PhD guarantees or is intended to guarantee orthodoxy. The control of orthodoxy, as has been mentioned, is an ecclesiastical matter of confessional integrity and diligence.

As to who should control seminaries, as an old side, old schooler, I should support ecclesiastical control of seminaries, and in principle I do. I am mindful, however, that Machen founded WTS on the principle that educational institutions are not properly within the purview of the church.

Because the church is "spiritual," (i.e., its functions belong to the Kingdom of God and not the kingdom of man, because it is ordained to minister the keys only) it is not commissioned by Christ to oversee liberal arts education, of which a seminary is an extension. He associated the seminary with the sphere of the family rather than the sphere of the church.

He argued that ministers are not qualified or called to oversee the Greek curriculum or history or other specialized disciplines. Not everyone is convinced by these arguments, but they are worth considering.

For what it's worth, at WSC, our entire full-time voting faculty is ordained ministers. We are all called by our churches (in some cases presbyteries and in some cases consistories) to serve here. We are not without significant ecclesiastical oversight and responsibility. We preach and on a regular basis and report regularly to our churches on our work and are subject to their rigorous discipline. The seminary also has internal controls and is able to discipline and even fire faculty who deviate from the "system of doctrine." We all swear ex animo our subscription to the Reformed confessions. We take these oaths quite seriously.

Boyd and Crossan, otoh, live in quite different and obviously non-Presbyterian environments. Boyd's denomination was unwilling to discipline him for Open Theism! Arguably, according to Belgic Confession Art. 29, he is a member of "sect" and therefore not a member of a church at all. Crossan is a member of what BC 29 calls a "false church" whose "head," according to WCF 25.6 is the Anti-Christ!

Their problem is not primarily academic (though their scholarship is open to serious question!) but ecclesiastical.

As to every presbytery operating a seminary. GN earned a PhD in economics. He did not conduct either his theological or economic studies in small, under funded, understaffed and under equipped, regional, unaccredited schools. Why would he wish that on others?

Remember, there are only about 500,000 confessional Reformed folk in the USA. In contrast there are about 18million Southern Baptists by record. There are at least 5 RTS campuses, WTS operates at least 2, then there is WSC, Covenant, GPTS, RPTS, MARS (that's a dozen so far) and I'm probably forgetting some. We hardly need 5-dozen more seminaries!

It is difficult enough to fund existing schools and maintain basic standards. Tuition covers only about 40% of educating a student (and no, the profs are not getting wealthy - our local pastors, some of whom were our students a few months ago are making considerably more than we do). The rest comes from generous donors.

Does anyone know how much a single set of Luther's Works (i.e., the Luthers Werke) costs? The critical edition of Thomas' Summa Theologiae? How much it costs to keep a periodical room (no, they're not all on the web, indeed most are not), or keep current and classic books on the library shelves (no they are not all available electronically, only books publ. prior to 1840 in many cases)?

At WSC, we spend about $50K annually on books and about $25K on periodicals. Is each presbytery going to do this? No. The result? A less educated ministry.

As I've said, the choice is between an educated and uneducated ministry. Unless we have a Pentecostal/primitivist hermeneutic (e.g., "Peter didn't go to seminary" -- well Peter also spoke foreign languages by divine power and put people to death; if you can do those things, more power to you!) then we must choose for an educated ministry. An educated ministry means a system like (not that it can't be perfected) the present system.

rsc

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[RamistThomist]

Does anyone know how much a single set of Luther's Works (i.e., the Luthers Werke) costs? The critical edition of Thomas' Summa Theologiae? How much it costs to keep a periodical room (no, they're not all on the web, indeed most are not), or keep current and classic books on the library shelves (no they are not all available electronically, only books publ. prior to 1840 in many cases)?

I worked in a college libary most of my time at college; I hear ya on that one. I shelved a lot of periodicals and occasionally saw the order form receipts--I shuddered afterwards.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

And another thing...

Nathan Hatch wrote some years ago about the effects of the American spirit and experience of radical democratization on evangelicalism.

It should be clear from the history of Reformed Christianity (whether Dutch, German, or Scots and Scots-Irish) that we rejected the radical democratization of ministerial education. We did not send uneducated lay-preachers west.

The rise of homespun seminaries appeals to that American egalitarian spirit: "Who do those professionals think they are? Why, we don't need them to form a seminary. We can do it ourselves."

I submit that our approach to education (this discussion occurring on the PURITANBOARD -- the confessionally orthodox Puritans were typically educated at places such as Oxford and Cambridge, and not always in sympathetic circumstances) is shaped by confessional values not shared by American Evangelicalism.

We are confessional people. It takes a certain degree of education to appreciate and value those confessions. The activist, egalitarian evangelicals (of which I was once one) have no time for fine distinctions concerning the two natures, the three persons, the uses of the law, and offices in the church.

We valued an educated ministry because we valued the church. Again, this distinguishes us from the revivalists and Anabaptist radicals (see below). We always insisted on the best training for our pastors because we valued the visible, institutional, church founded by Christ. We knew from our experience in the middle ages that vast numbers of illiterate priests did great damage to the spiritual well being of God's people.

Since the early 18th century, American revivalism or evangelicalism (they are synonymous since then) has not typically valued education (See Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) because an activist spirit drives it. It values busy-ness over reflection.

This attitude stems from the dominant evangelical definition of theology: theology is what we do (whether application, as in Frame's definition or piety as in Ockham's, Ames' and Edwards' definition).

The typical Reformed definition of theology is that it is "partly theoretical, partly practical." By that "partim...partim" definition they meant to say that the Christian life flows out of doctrine/theology. One must know some theology before one can live the Christian life. Life flows from doctrine. Sure some folks live well without much (explicit) doctrinal instruction, but the exception proves/tests the rule.

The Reformed/Presbyterian value of an educated ministry is antithetical to the eclectic "emerging church," subjectivist religious culture of generic "spirituality" that dominates evangelicalism today.

The educational stance of the revivalists is Anabaptist more than Reformed. The Anabaptists were quite suspicious of those highly educated, pointed- headed academic Calvinist and Lutheran pastors. Like Modern revivalists, they rejected fine distinctions, such as those between "law" and "gospel."

Our busy-ness tends come in two forms:

1. The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC), which manifests itself in religiously based cultural conservativism ("take back America for Christ") or forms of fundamentalism (e.g., geocentrism, the Authorized Version was good enough for Paul, its good enough for me);

2. The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE), which manifests itself in egalitarian "ministry" (e.g., campfire choruses in place of the Psalms, the "softball ministry") or revivalism/pietism (searching for religious excitement and enthusiasm).

The Reformed approach to church and ministry was to think in terms of Preaching the Word and the administration of the sacraments and discipline. To do these things properly, the Reformed/Presbyterians believed a man had to be highly educated.

An educated minister needed to be able to read God's Word fluently in the original languages. They would NEVER be satisfied to let students learn to use Bible Works well as a substitute for actually reading Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic). Machen would roll over in his grave if he knew what passes for "Greek" in some schools in America (then again, he was well aware of the American anti-intellectualism and criticized it frequently).

That is why our forefathers insisted that theological students be steeped in the history and theology of the Western church. That is why they required students to engage the confessional Reformed tradition carefully. Prior to the publication of Hodge's System, Princeton students memorized, recited and discussed the LATIN text of Turretin's Institutes. Today, I fear that many of our ministerial candidates have never even read Turretin in English, let alone Latin.

This commitment to an educated ministry is why they insisted that students take pains to learn to defend the faith by learning what the critics (be they Socinian, Roman, Remonstrant or Modernist) were actually saying, in their own words.

They never allowed students to demur from engaging the critics under the guise that we should be satisfied only to engage solely with pious writers.

I just finished reading an MA thesis on J A Alexander written by one of our students. I am reminded that the old Princetonians are part of the great crowd of witnesses calling us to hold on to the highest standards for the sake of our churches and for the sake of God's people. The ministry of Word and sacrament demands no less.

rsc

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[sastark]

Dr. Clark,

Thank you for this last post. It was a beautiful defense of an educated ministry.

I have recently encountered some who do not believe higher education is necessary for church leaders. "After all," goes the reasoning, "I already know more than my pastor."

Sadly, I believe this man does know more than his pastor, which in no way justifies his disdain for education, but only shows the prevalent anti-education mindset of the evangelical church today.

 

[Robin]

Selah, Dr. Clark!

R.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

That is why our forefathers insisted that theological students be steeped in the history and theology of the Western church. That is why they required students to engage the confessional Reformed tradition carefully. Prior to the publication of Hodge's System, Princeton students memorized, recited and discussed the LATIN text of Turretin's Institutes. Today, I fear that many of our ministerial candidates have never even read Turretin in English, let alone Latin.

This commitment to an educated ministry is why they insisted that students take pains to learn to defend the faith by learning what the critics (be they Socinian, Roman, Remonstrant or Modernist) were actually saying, in their own words.

They never allowed students to demur from engaging the critics under the guise that we should be satisfied only to engage solely with pious writers.

I just finished reading an MA thesis on J A Alexander written by one of our students. I am reminded that the old Princetonians are part of the great crowd of witnesses calling us to hold on to the highest standards for the sake of our churches and for the sake of God's people. The ministry of Word and sacrament demands no less.

rsc

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by R. Scott Clark]

Dr. Clark,

While I sympathize with many of your comments -- and I am not inexperienced here, being both a Ruling Elder, a one-time Virtual Seminary Student, a Chairman of a Presbytery Candidates' Committee, a member of the PCA GA Theological Examining Committee and a current onsite RTS Jackson student -- I think there are some cautions here. Why?

1. How many of the best Reformed seminaries require that you read ANY Turretin? If any, how many more than a couple of pages? Your post makes it sound as if seminaries regularly do that. In my experience, none do. For that matter how much Hodge is even read?

2. How many seminaries have a REQUIRED course in Calvin? Required readings in Calvin?

3. How many have a REQUIRED course in Covenant theology?

4. How many have a required course in How to run a Sunday school?

5. Are we in the position of saying that the early Presbyterian ministerial training (the Log College, etc) was "uneducated?"

In my opinion (and again, I speak as a brick-and-mortar student who appreciates his faculty) there is a great deal of difference between a rigorous local "school of the prophets" and a hastily conceived fly by night training. After all, at their origins, WTS, RTS and GPTS were very little different from such.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Fred,

If you are complaining that standards are not high enough, AMEN.

That said, I think the curriculum at WSC addresses at least some of your concerns.

We require our students to read a good bit of Turretin (in English) in several of our systematics and historical courses. I can't speak to what other seminaries do - I have mainly anecdotes and observations from the floor of Classis. My impression is that most American Reformed seminary students are not well read in classic Reformed theology. We are doing what we can here to remedy that, but we are only one school.

2. We require our students to read considerable amounts of Calvin's Institutes in our systematics and historical courses.

3. We do not have a required course in covenant theology. I offer a regular elective. In our defense, however, I add that David VanDrunen, Mike Horton and I all teach our systematics from a tri-covenantal (pactum, covenant of works, covenant of grace) perspective so that our entire systematics curriculum is covenantal. DVD outlines this in his essay in the Strimple festschrift. Our students are graduating with a better grasp of classic covenant theology, which we believe is biblical covenant theology, than I did in 1987.

We do have required PT courses that address Christian ed and curriculum etc.

There is a reason that Princeton Seminary succeeded the Log Cabin. It wasn't the best system.

This isn't the 18th century. In certain respects, the grammar school education received by most of those ministers was superior to what is required of some (many?) university undergraduates today.

rsc

 

[fredtgreco]

Yes,

I am complaining that standards are not high enough.

Let me just probe a bit further here with your last comment:

I agree completely with your statement about 18th century education vs. modern education. So a question: in the main, which is more academically rigorous, formal grade school, or homeschooling? Which produces the best students? Which the ones with the best understanding?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Fred,

I'm not competent to say certainly. I haven't made a serious study of results of various kinds of schools.

We home school and my experience of home scholars (both here and at Wheaton) is that they are typically very well educated. That said, I've known graduates of genuine classical schools and British public and grammar schools who were just as well educated.

Any setting where children are made to learn the Trivium (and later the Quadrivium) is a good one. If they are learning their letters and Latin (grammar), made to learn to think clearly (logic and math) and to speak and write well (rhetoric), they're ahead of the pack.

See Dorothy Sayers "Lost Art of Learning." I've applied the traditional scheme to catechetics: http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/memcat.htm

Before the modern model of educational factories, private tutors often taught the trivium to young children. At a certain point, they typically moved to a preparatory school or perhaps to University, depending on how precocious they were (P. Melanchthon had earned his MA at 14 and they wouldn't give it to him because he was too young!)

rsc

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

The typical Reformed definition of theology is that it is "partly theoretical, partly practical." By that "partim...partim" definition they meant to say that the Christian life flows out of doctrine/theology. One must know some theology before one can live the Christian life. Life flows from doctrine. Sure some folks live well without much (explicit) doctrinal instruction, but the exception proves/tests the rule.

where do i read more about this?
thanks.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

See Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd edn, 4 vols (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), vol. 1

rsc

 

[john_Mark]

Fred

Were you trying to draw some sort of parallelism between home schooling vs. public schooling and state accredited universities vs. a church sanctioned education? I hope that came out right.

A passing thought. There are schools like Columbia Evangelical Seminary (CES) that have produced good churchmen. Some of there students have been accepted by fully accredited seminaries and some of their graduates teach as accredited seminaries. Even Dr. John Bear who is an expert in this area recommends CES.