Seminaries and Student Loan Debt

[Damon Rambo]

Consider Nehemiah 5. The chapter begins with the "cry" of three different Jewish groups going into debt to their Jewish nobles (and brethren) for various reasons. The nobles were sharply rebuked by Nehemiah. He charged "You are exacting interest, each from his brother" (v. 7). He doesn't say how much interest they were charging, simply that they were. And he intimates that heinousness of their sin proceeded more from their relationship to the borrowers than from the deed itself. Through the lending of money and the charging of interest, they were bringing their brethren into bondage!

Uh uh, friend. He is NOT attacking the people who are lending the money. He is attacking the nobles who are heavily taxing the people, causing them to HAVE to borrow money...

Neh 5:4 And there were those who said, "We have borrowed money for the king's tax on our fields and our vineyards.
Neh 5:5 Now our flesh is as the flesh of our brothers, our children are as their children. Yet we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have already been enslaved,


Then in verse 7, it says they are exacting interest (demanding) and when the people can't pay it, they are literally selling them as slaves. This is not some kind of euphemism for placing a heavy burden of debt on them.

Also, if this WERE true, this would be one more strike against the seminaries which do not participate in title IV (interest free) federal loans.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Uh uh, friend. He is NOT attacking the people who are lending the money. He is attacking the nobles who are heavily taxing the people, causing them to HAVE to borrow money...

You are incorrect. I would encourage you to study this text in more detail.

He is indeed rebuking the lenders. The "Nobles" are Jewish nobles lending their Jewish brethren the money to pay taxes to the Persian King. The whole rebuilding process is undertaken under the auspices of the king of Persia to whom they were still in bondage and still owed tribute! Certain Jews, unable to pay the kings tax, were borrowing from their own Jewish nobles to pay their taxes. Nehemiah rebukes these Jewish nobles for taking advantage of their brethren by charging them interest.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Uh uh, friend. He is NOT attacking the people who are lending the money. He is attacking the nobles who are heavily taxing the people, causing them to HAVE to borrow money...

You are incorrect. I would encourage you to study this text in more detail.

He is indeed rebuking the lenders. The "Nobles" are Jewish nobles lending their Jewish brethren the money to pay taxes to the Persian King. The whole rebuilding process is undertaken under the auspices of the king of Persia to whom they were still in bondage and still owed tribute! Certain Jews, unable to pay the kings tax, were borrowing from their own Jewish nobles to pay their taxes. Nehemiah rebukes these Jewish nobles for taking advantage of their brethren by charging them interest.

Even if you are correct, the context is them demanding the interest, and causing their brethren to go into literal slavery. It is not the actual charging of interest, nor desiring for the money to be paid back. Slavery in this passage, is not a euphemism for "debt" the way you are trying to make it.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Even if you are correct, the context is them demanding the interest, and causing their brethren to go into literal slavery. It is not the actual charging of interest, nor desiring for the money to be paid back. Slavery in this passage, is not a euphemism for "debt" the way you are trying to make it.

I never said that slavery in this passage was a euphemism for debt. I was using that language from the start of this thread based on passages like Proverbs 22:7.

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. - Prov. 22:7

So whether or not its used here in Neh. 5 that way, it is elsewhere and is an appropriate and biblical description of financial debt.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Even if you are correct, the context is them demanding the interest, and causing their brethren to go into literal slavery. It is not the actual charging of interest, nor desiring for the money to be paid back. Slavery in this passage, is not a euphemism for "debt" the way you are trying to make it.

I never said that slavery in this passage was a euphemism for debt. I was using that language from the start of this thread based on passages like Proverbs 22:7.

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. - Prov. 22:7

So whether or not its used here in Neh. 5 that way, it is elsewhere and is an appropriate and biblical description of financial debt.

As far as proverbs 22:7 goes, the same thing can be said of any obligation. This is not necessarily a bad arrangement. Wives and husbands are said to be servants or slaves of each other. This is not negative. Nor is it negative that we are slaves of Christ.

Yes, when we take out a loan, we are obliged to the person lending the money.

Again: is your car paid for? Your house? Do you have credit cards?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

As far as proverbs 22:7 goes, the same thing can be said of any obligation. This is not necessarily a bad arrangement. Wives and husbands are said to be servants or slaves of each other. This is not negative. Nor is it negative that we are slaves of Christ.

Yes, when we take out a loan, we are obliged to the person lending the money.

Again: is your car paid for? Your house? Do you have credit cards?

In scripture, slavery is not the real issue. The issue is to what or whom one is enslaved to. If Christ, then great! If sin, then woe unto you! If the lender, then woe unto you as well.

But again your argument is with things I haven't necessarily said. But I get the feeling that you'd rather disagree on semantics than frame the conversation around the questions I originally posted.

At this point, I feel its necessary to clarify my position.

I am not making the argument that all debt is sinful.

Interpreting my statements in that manner will only serve to sidetrack the discussion. So I would ask others not to characterize my position in that way. No one has, but I feel it could quickly go in that direction.

 

[Damon Rambo]

As far as proverbs 22:7 goes, the same thing can be said of any obligation. This is not necessarily a bad arrangement. Wives and husbands are said to be servants or slaves of each other. This is not negative. Nor is it negative that we are slaves of Christ.

Yes, when we take out a loan, we are obliged to the person lending the money.

Again: is your car paid for? Your house? Do you have credit cards?

In scripture, slavery is not the real issue. The issue is to what or whom one is enslaved to. If Christ, then great! If sin, then woe unto you! If the lender, then woe unto you as well.

But again your argument is with things I haven't necessarily said. But I get the feeling that you'd rather disagree on semantics than frame the conversation around the questions I originally posted.

At this point, I feel its necessary to clarify my position.

I am not making the argument that all debt is sinful.

Interpreting my statements in that manner will only serve to sidetrack the discussion. So I would ask others not to characterize my position in that way. No one has, but I feel it could quickly go in that direction.

Ok, fair enough. I am certainly not trying to mis-characterize you. Could you clarify, in a better way, what you ARE saying in regards to student loans? Certainly you are not saying that it is O.K. to have loans for material goods, but it is not O.K. to get a much more valuable education in God's Word?

I am honestly trying to understand your position. Seminaries cannot afford to run for free: scripture is very clear that teachers are to be paid. I would say some are exorbitantly overpriced.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Ok, fair enough. I am certainly not trying to mis-characterize you. Could you clarify, in a better way, what you ARE saying in regards to student loans? Certainly you are not saying that it is O.K. to have loans for material goods, but it is not O.K. to get a much more valuable education in God's Word?

I am honestly trying to understand your position. Seminaries cannot afford to run for free: scripture is very clear that teachers are to be paid. I would say some are exorbitantly overpriced.

Well, I'm not sure I have a real clear position on this issue. My opening post consisted entirely of questions for that reason. I'm interested in what others think. In hindsight the only thing I would have changed in the title, "Seminaries Enslaving their Students" would have been to put a question mark (?) at the end of it.

There are two things that I feel pretty sure of however. First, that its sinful for someone to shackle themselves with inordinate debt to pay for their schooling. An expensive seminary education is not a necessity. If someone is in a denomination that requires an M.Div. to be a teaching elder, they should either look for less expensive options (e.g. Whitefield Theological Seminary is very cheap and accepted by the OPC & PCA, I think). Or if that's not an option they should consider serving somewhere that doesn't see an M.Div. as equal to a real, spiritual, and divine understanding of the Word and doctrine. Bottom line, going into deep debt to pay for school will seriously encumber one's ministerial efforts and possibly bring harm upon the church.

Second, it is sinful for seminaries to allow and even encourage a student to strap himself with heavy debt to pay for their educations. I now know that some schools do not do this. But for the one's that do, I believe they too are bringing harm upon these young men, their ministries, and the Church.

The real thing I'd like to discuss is alternatives to debt for someone gifted for the ministry and desiring to enter the ministry but lacking the financial resources. Like cheaper programs, church or denominational support, &c.

I think this is an area of conversation that would be helpful for schools, students and churches alike.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Ok, fair enough. I am certainly not trying to mis-characterize you. Could you clarify, in a better way, what you ARE saying in regards to student loans? Certainly you are not saying that it is O.K. to have loans for material goods, but it is not O.K. to get a much more valuable education in God's Word?

I am honestly trying to understand your position. Seminaries cannot afford to run for free: scripture is very clear that teachers are to be paid. I would say some are exorbitantly overpriced.

Well, I'm not sure I have a real clear position on this issue. My opening post consisted entirely of questions for that reason. I'm interested in what others think. In hindsight the only thing I would have changed in the title, "Seminaries Enslaving their Students" would have been to put a question mark (?) at the end of it.

There are two things that I feel pretty sure of however. First, that its sinful for someone to shackle themselves with inordinate debt to pay for their schooling. An expensive seminary education is not a necessity. If someone is in a denomination that requires an M.Div. to be a teaching elder, they should either look for less expensive options (e.g. Whitefield Theological Seminary is very cheap and accepted by the OPC & PCA, I think). Or if that's not an option they should consider serving somewhere that doesn't see an M.Div. as equal to a real, spiritual, and divine understanding of the Word and doctrine. Bottom line, going into deep debt to pay for school will seriously encumber one's ministerial efforts and possibly bring harm upon the church.

Second, it is sinful for seminaries to allow and even encourage a student to strap himself with heavy debt to pay for their educations. I now know that some schools do not do this. But for the one's that do, I believe they too are bringing harm upon these young men, their ministries, and the Church.

The real thing I'd like to discuss is alternatives to debt for someone gifted for the ministry and desiring to enter the ministry but lacking the financial resources. Like cheaper programs, church or denominational support, &c.

I think this is an area of conversation that would be helpful for schools, students and churches alike.

O.K. You are going to have to define what "inordinate" debt is. In my mind, you should be willing to spend more on your seminary education than your car. I would go so far as to say if someone is driving a 30k dollar car, and skimps on seminary education, this would effectively be breaking the first and second commandments.

Another problem with what you are saying, is that it is nearly impossible to find a cheap education, that is as rigorous as a more expensive one. There are exceptions to this (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary comes to mind, at least for us reformed Baptists), but not many.

I think RTS is a great example of what you are talking about. While RTS is a great school, the tuition is a bit outrageous (360-450 CH I believe). Westminster too: (400 to 700 per credit hour).

I think the problem is the amount Seminaries are charging. It is amazing to me that Reformed Seminaries, which place such an emphasis on the importance of theological education, are so expensive. While schools like Liberty Seminary, New Orleans Baptist, and Southwestern, are so inexpensive. Liberty for instance, has a tuition cap of 1750 per semester (for residential students), for 15 CH's. That means your M.Div, total including books, end up costing you about 12 thousand dollars. Very manageable.

But I do not think it is the Seminaries job to limit loans. It is the individuals, and the home church which is recommending them. I would be all for a maximum loan amount, to be included on the Pastor recommendation form (which nearly every seminary requires.) This would force the pastor, and the individual, to sit down and discuss the issue.