Seminaries and Student Loan Debt
- Thread starter C. M. Sheffield
- Start date
- Status
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Considering the commercial running on White Horse Inn ("would you allow a surgeon to operate on you who got his medical training by mail order?"), I can only assume that Scott's particularly laconic post means . . .
"You get what you pay for."
[Actually, Scott's post is not to a listing of WSCAL faculty and their credentials, but a thoughtful piece on the value of a quality seminary education. Still, the "answer" to the question with a hyperlink "Westminster Seminary California Faculty" is still hilarious!]
Engaging the subject more substantively, while it is the responsibility of the student to determine what he can reasonably afford, a few points should be considered:
* Many/most college grads seeking seminary training do not know squat about money. They have a disconnect between the money they spend on school and their library and the remuneration they will likely receive in their denominational congregations (bitter lesson I lived through by making all of the wrong choices myself).
* Some young seminariars seem more impressed with the prestige of the name of the seminary, than with the value actually provided. WSCAL is one of the FEW places I would be willing to go into debt to attend. Some of the "name" seminaries (a little discretion here since the president of "that" seminary e-mailed me a few weeks ago complaining of my harsh tone and I want to avoid a Google hit by mentioning the name) are in my opinion NOT worth the money, especially the high debt load.
* Dr. Clark has already made helpful suggestions in the PB about some of the ways students can approach seminary to mitigate the possibility of debt. Spreading the 3 years out to 4 or 5 to allow work is one of them.
Bottom line, life is about choices, some of them less than ideal. If you plan on having children while in seminary, homeschool your kids, etc. DON'T attend an expensive seminary on a 3 year plan without significant financial aid or savings. A wife working to "put hubby through" is one way to avoid decades of financial slavery.
Considering the stupid financial decisions my wife and I made (got married during private college, both went to seminary together so that neither of us worked full time, built a huge library at considerable cost, began having the first of our 5 kids during seminary, started serving in two small Baptist churches that paid poorly before going to a large one that was cheap, stayed in uber-expensive Southern California my whole ministry), God has been unusually gracious to us. Had the opportunity to move into an executive position not been available (even a non-profit is more generous than an average Baptist church), my kids would have been up the proverbial creek with college. I STRONGLY plead with you young ones to count the cost and get solid financial advice BEFORE you embark on seminary preparation.
Yes, there are some less expensive options for schooling. But, one should not eschew a quality education (e.g., WSCAL) because of cost IF you plan, prepare, and take advantage of the financial options mentioned.
Last edited:
Nathan Riese
Puritan Board Freshman
That WSC article by Dr. Clark is pretty interesting. Many good and agreeable points were brought up. However, one can use little sayings here and there which accumulate to stimulate a negative outlook on its opposition.
It showed why internet seminary is insufficient (based on assumptions) then separately showed why it is insufficient for a pastor to train men for the ministry (also based on assumptions).
Really? Is this clear? This is based on the assumption that it is not an overseer's duty to train one to be an overseer as being included in the parish responsibilities.
The arguments about personal relationship against internet seminary could possibly be fulfilled in part by receiving pastoral training in conjunction with the internet seminary (such as with GPTS mentor program).
The arguments against academic discipline are a false assumption that internet students are automatically lazy. That is an argument against individual students, not against internet seminary and is an insufficient argument to make.
The argument against "pastor training the student" type of education is that it lacks sufficient academics. Again, if pastoral training is in conjunction with internet seminary, is that not easily answerable?
It's relatively simple to argue against internet seminary v. on-campus seminary using pro-on-campus seminary aspects and con-internet seminary aspects.
It's easy to shrug off pastoral training as a sufficient ministerial training by saying that pastors aren't current and don't have as much time.
Sidenote: the medical analogy is not truly analogous to ministerial training.
But the real issues weren't answered in this Westminster Writing. How do pro-internet and mentorship aspects line up with the pro-on-campus aspects? THEN a sufficient conclusion can be made.
There was obvious prejudice. Internet students are lazy. Pastors don't have time. It's not a pastor's parish responsibility to train a member for future ministry. Greek can't be adaquately taught via internet. Reflection can't be adaquately done at home when doing internet seminary, etc.
I don't know these things for sure. The things stated above are only my impressions and opinions, not authority or a thorough rebuttal. I am young. I haven't studied this issue long enough. I'm not a Doctor.
Dr. Clark could very well be right. All I know is that his article doesn't exactly give seminary mentorship programs any positive remarks, only negatives. Why is that?
All I know is that if I were to write an article only about the negatives about on-campus seminary and then write about only positives of distance mentorship programs, I'm sure my article would look pretty good in my favor too.
It showed why internet seminary is insufficient (based on assumptions) then separately showed why it is insufficient for a pastor to train men for the ministry (also based on assumptions).
Really? Is this clear? This is based on the assumption that it is not an overseer's duty to train one to be an overseer as being included in the parish responsibilities.
The arguments about personal relationship against internet seminary could possibly be fulfilled in part by receiving pastoral training in conjunction with the internet seminary (such as with GPTS mentor program).
The arguments against academic discipline are a false assumption that internet students are automatically lazy. That is an argument against individual students, not against internet seminary and is an insufficient argument to make.
The argument against "pastor training the student" type of education is that it lacks sufficient academics. Again, if pastoral training is in conjunction with internet seminary, is that not easily answerable?
It's relatively simple to argue against internet seminary v. on-campus seminary using pro-on-campus seminary aspects and con-internet seminary aspects.
It's easy to shrug off pastoral training as a sufficient ministerial training by saying that pastors aren't current and don't have as much time.
Sidenote: the medical analogy is not truly analogous to ministerial training.
Is that really the same thing? If a car mechanic learned via video he might not be that great of a mechanic either, but, if a speech teacher learned speech via video he might be a great speech teacher from that education. A counselor in training might learn well via video as well as actually doing counseling sessions with an experienced counselor in the room supervising and mentoring. The medical analogy is insufficient.
But the real issues weren't answered in this Westminster Writing. How do pro-internet and mentorship aspects line up with the pro-on-campus aspects? THEN a sufficient conclusion can be made.
There was obvious prejudice. Internet students are lazy. Pastors don't have time. It's not a pastor's parish responsibility to train a member for future ministry. Greek can't be adaquately taught via internet. Reflection can't be adaquately done at home when doing internet seminary, etc.
I don't know these things for sure. The things stated above are only my impressions and opinions, not authority or a thorough rebuttal. I am young. I haven't studied this issue long enough. I'm not a Doctor.
Dr. Clark could very well be right. All I know is that his article doesn't exactly give seminary mentorship programs any positive remarks, only negatives. Why is that?
All I know is that if I were to write an article only about the negatives about on-campus seminary and then write about only positives of distance mentorship programs, I'm sure my article would look pretty good in my favor too.
Last edited:
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Actually, seminary is not required for ordination, only highly recommended. Ordination is approved by the Presbytery after examining your knowledge and gifts. Seminary is the most "convenient" and common way at this time to prepare you for those exams and qualifications. But if you can pass the scrutiny of the Presbytery by some other means of education, then go for it.
To quote Napolean Dynamite, "Lucky!"
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
Are you sure? The Book of Church Order says
"3. It is highly reproachful to religion and dangerous to the church to entrust the preaching of the gospel to weak and ignorant men. The presbytery shall therefore license a candidate only if he has received a bachelor of arts degree, or its academic equivalent, from a college or university of reputable academic standing, and has completed an adequate course of study lasting at least one year and a half in a theological seminary."
So you have to have at least a little seminary training.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, some seminary is required by just about every Presbyterian/Reformed denomination. There is usually a clause by which men lacking an undergrad may be allowed ordination with just a seminary degree, but I have never heard of a man who had neither an undergrad nor seminary work being ordained (although it may have happened somewhere, at some time).
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I stand corrected. You are correct, it is required. But also note #6, there is a channel for exceptions to the requirements, though not an easy one.
Scottish Lass
Puritan Board Doctor
The ARP used to cover all of the cost of seminary for ARP students at Erskine. Several financial factors/events/issues later, they still pay 80% of the cost of seminary.
Tim didn't borrow any money. We had no children yet, so I worked 1.5 jobs, and Tim worked part-time as well.
Tim didn't borrow any money. We had no children yet, so I worked 1.5 jobs, and Tim worked part-time as well.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
For the record, the very title of this thread is biased and inaccurate.
The seminaries aren't enslaving anyone.
You would do well to restate the title as "Students going off to seminary without the ability to pay for it." That would be more accurate.
A couple things:
1. I agree that denominations and churches, in a perfect world, would pay for or at least subsidize the education of potential ministers. However, we don't live in a perfect world. Instead we live in a world in which churches and presbyteries frequently rubber stamp anyone who "feels" called to the ministry with the end result being that our seminaries are filled with people who really have no sense of definite call to anything other than studying God's word. I personally know many men who went off to school only to graduate and decide that they weren't called to vocational ministry after all. Now, most denominations and churches have very limited resources. I'm guessing most would go broke if they subsidized even a fraction of the men they supposedly endorse for entry into seminary. Perhaps the answer is that denominations and presbyteries and churches should really clamp down and put some really strict perimeters around who they'll endorse... but even then, the problem is with the church or presbytery, NOT the seminary.
2. It keeps coming down to the question of "why does it cost so much to get a degree?" It needs to be stated and restated that the belief that a perceived calling to ministry means that one should be able to go off and get an MDiv without much hardship, and that if it is "too expensive" it is a sign of sinful greed on the part of the seminary rather than perhaps a sign that God has NOT called you at this point in time... that belief in fact amounts to a proletariatian entitlement mindset. The schools are not rich. The professors are not fat cats busy applauding themselves as they watch their portfolios swell at the expense of the poor seminarian. On the contrary, most are barely making it themselves.
So I pose that would-be seminarians consider their financial state of affairs and consider that maybe, just maybe, if God has called you to the ministry, then He's called you to meet the requirements for ordination, and if He's done that then He can be counted on to make a way. And if "a way" has not been made, and if you cannot get a seminary education without financial ruin, then perhaps, just perhaps, God has not called you at this time. Is there anyone really prepared to even consider such a prospect?
The seminaries aren't enslaving anyone.
You would do well to restate the title as "Students going off to seminary without the ability to pay for it." That would be more accurate.
A couple things:
1. I agree that denominations and churches, in a perfect world, would pay for or at least subsidize the education of potential ministers. However, we don't live in a perfect world. Instead we live in a world in which churches and presbyteries frequently rubber stamp anyone who "feels" called to the ministry with the end result being that our seminaries are filled with people who really have no sense of definite call to anything other than studying God's word. I personally know many men who went off to school only to graduate and decide that they weren't called to vocational ministry after all. Now, most denominations and churches have very limited resources. I'm guessing most would go broke if they subsidized even a fraction of the men they supposedly endorse for entry into seminary. Perhaps the answer is that denominations and presbyteries and churches should really clamp down and put some really strict perimeters around who they'll endorse... but even then, the problem is with the church or presbytery, NOT the seminary.
2. It keeps coming down to the question of "why does it cost so much to get a degree?" It needs to be stated and restated that the belief that a perceived calling to ministry means that one should be able to go off and get an MDiv without much hardship, and that if it is "too expensive" it is a sign of sinful greed on the part of the seminary rather than perhaps a sign that God has NOT called you at this point in time... that belief in fact amounts to a proletariatian entitlement mindset. The schools are not rich. The professors are not fat cats busy applauding themselves as they watch their portfolios swell at the expense of the poor seminarian. On the contrary, most are barely making it themselves.
So I pose that would-be seminarians consider their financial state of affairs and consider that maybe, just maybe, if God has called you to the ministry, then He's called you to meet the requirements for ordination, and if He's done that then He can be counted on to make a way. And if "a way" has not been made, and if you cannot get a seminary education without financial ruin, then perhaps, just perhaps, God has not called you at this time. Is there anyone really prepared to even consider such a prospect?
I agree Ben.
It's interesting that I was just reading Idols for Destruction the other day and one of the points that the author was making about a non-Christian humanitarianism is this condescending custodial attitude toward people. People are too stupid or helpless to care for themselves so let us make decisions for them.
It must be the Marine Officer in me but I would find it a personal affront to my maturity as a leader if someone had to ask me very simple questions that are expected out of a Marine leader. The time for checking my mettle as a leader has long since passed. My maturity is assumed and every time I check into a new unit my personal integrity and maturity are presumed to be excellent. Why, because well before I was commissioned those kinds of things were being observed. Nobody has to tell me how to balance my checkbook, to get a good night's sleep, or a number of other things we expect out of adults.
If Seminaries have to check up on all these details as the Nannies for grown men who are being trained to be leaders in the Church then it says more about the men who are going to be leaders in the Church and the Churches who are calling them then it does about the Seminaries themselves.
The title is inappropriate. One might as well title the same: "When are Seminarians going to stop forcing grown men to sin?"
It's interesting that I was just reading Idols for Destruction the other day and one of the points that the author was making about a non-Christian humanitarianism is this condescending custodial attitude toward people. People are too stupid or helpless to care for themselves so let us make decisions for them.
It must be the Marine Officer in me but I would find it a personal affront to my maturity as a leader if someone had to ask me very simple questions that are expected out of a Marine leader. The time for checking my mettle as a leader has long since passed. My maturity is assumed and every time I check into a new unit my personal integrity and maturity are presumed to be excellent. Why, because well before I was commissioned those kinds of things were being observed. Nobody has to tell me how to balance my checkbook, to get a good night's sleep, or a number of other things we expect out of adults.
If Seminaries have to check up on all these details as the Nannies for grown men who are being trained to be leaders in the Church then it says more about the men who are going to be leaders in the Church and the Churches who are calling them then it does about the Seminaries themselves.
The title is inappropriate. One might as well title the same: "When are Seminarians going to stop forcing grown men to sin?"
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
I actually was thoroughly offended by the title of this thread, and thought to re-title it myself. A man is responsible for his own actions, and Seminaries are in NO WAY responsible for "enslaving" men by charging tuition. If a man cannot afford to go, then he should not. If he can afford to go but can only do so by borrowing money to do it, then that is his call. Never could it be argued that a seminary has any responsibility whatsoever for a man's choice to attend and pay the tuition that they are charging (for good reason - tuition is perfectly reasonable for any institution of higher education to charge its students). I think some folks need simply to back off and consider who the real target of their criticism ought to be, rather than make slanderous remarks and inappropriate accusations.
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
The problem with your argumentation is that you're ignoring that fact that a seminary degree is not a Bibilical requirement for the ministry but it is something required by most Reformed denominations.
I know that some of you (Ben). Are going to respond back and call me and others immature or selfish for making this statement or asking a question.
Everytime we have asked a question about the cost of seminary and the requirement of seminary you have insulted us. If that is how they taught you to defend your position in Seminary then I don't believe I would want to attend.
You refuse to show the biblical mandate for the requirement of a minister going through the modern-day seminary system. The fact is, it is not required biblically but the charge that it is is continually made. Saying that if God has called someone to the ministry they should have to meet the requirements is true...but adding something other than God requires and forcing someone to come up with payment and calling them weak if they cannot is absolutely ridiculous.
I know that some of you (Ben). Are going to respond back and call me and others immature or selfish for making this statement or asking a question.
Everytime we have asked a question about the cost of seminary and the requirement of seminary you have insulted us. If that is how they taught you to defend your position in Seminary then I don't believe I would want to attend.
You refuse to show the biblical mandate for the requirement of a minister going through the modern-day seminary system. The fact is, it is not required biblically but the charge that it is is continually made. Saying that if God has called someone to the ministry they should have to meet the requirements is true...but adding something other than God requires and forcing someone to come up with payment and calling them weak if they cannot is absolutely ridiculous.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least as I understand it, it's not the seminaries that actually lend the money, but other private lending institutions. 
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least as I understand it, it's not the seminaries that actually lend the money, but other private lending institutions.
That actually is a great point.
You may want to spend some time thinking about this:
There is no specific Scriptural requirement to teach children how to read either.
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
I know, but there are strict Scriptural requirements for ministers and their qualifications. And please don't take my remarks to mean that I do not want an educated clergy
I know, but there are strict Scriptural requirements for ministers and their qualifications. And please don't take my remarks to mean that I do not want an educated clergy
Yes, but I am responding to your contention that what a Church considers to be prudent in its Christian government must be "proof-texted" in order to be valid. The "Chapter and Verse" requirement you have laid out is no more valid than a child contending with his father to prove to him that he must go to school to learn arithmetic because there is no verse supporting his father's requirement.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Willie, you are correct that there is no chapter and verse requiring an MDiv for the ministry. But the Bible does require a teacher to be able to accurately handle God's Word and the doctrines therein. Though some disagree, this pretty much requires a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. Additionally, the studies of theology and history which are expositions of God's Word and work in history respectively, need to be done.
While it is certainly possible, however improbable, that someone can attain the level of competency required to satisfy an ordaining body's understanding of what it means to be academically prepared without going off to seminary, the sheer improbability of it happening without a formal classroom environment provides warrant for ordaining bodies to require, as a condition of ordination in their fellowship, a formal theological education. Further warrant is found in the fact that self-study or study under one man often leads to "lop-sided" or stunted growth. Ordaining bodies want mature men who have been prepared to intellectually interpret, process, and apply God's word in an environment where their ideas are subject to the scrutiny of others who have both different perspectives as well as a more thorough knowledge of the material. Again, academic preparation can possibly occur in an informal way... and as such I think ordaining bodies would be wise to leave open the possibility that someone can be academically prepared without ever stepping foot in a classroom... but those would be the exceptions rather than the rule. And you make normative policies around the rule, not the exceptions.
In my opinion, when it comes to the prepatory process for ordination, it is not the seminary's job to ensure that the candidate is holy. (Of course, if they notice anything egregious, they should report it.) It is not the seminary's job to ensure that the candidate has a robust devotional life. It is my opinion that in those areas, the church should be overseeing their candidates. In my opinion, the seminary should almost exclusively focus on the area of academic preparedness. Seminary is a place to buckle down and get the knowledge one needs to accurately interact with God's word, not a place to try to deal with some besetting sin.
So, a presbytery or church has grounds for believing it is most prudent to trust that a seminary education will do the academic preparation.... the preparation that IS required if one is to have a faithful ministry. The church is to be faulted if it vests more responsibility or trust in a seminary to do anything other than it's job of academic training, particuarly if what they're divesting is their own pastoral responsibility. But as far as the academic part goes, the ordaining bodies have far better reason to presume competence in someone who has undergone the trials of a respectable seminary than a man who says he is self educated.
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
Excellent answer. Thank you very very much. That is exactly what I was hoping to hear. Your observations are very helpful.
I appreciate your clear and thought out response and your are aboslutly correct In my humble opinion.
Please, don't take any of my previous posts as overly polemical or anything of sort. I was just really trying to press for an answer is all.
Again I cannot thank you enough for your response.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
No problem! Just trying to help.
Depends on the person.....
The arguments about personal relationship against internet seminary could possibly be fulfilled in part by receiving pastoral training in conjunction with the internet seminary (such as with GPTS mentor program).
The arguments against academic discipline are a false assumption that internet students are automatically lazy. That is an argument against individual students, not against internet seminary and is an insufficient argument to make.
The argument against "pastor training the student" type of education is that it lacks sufficient academics. Again, if pastoral training is in conjunction with internet seminary, is that not easily answerable?
We have a married guy with two kids in our church going to online seminary. A brilliant Chinese man working in biochemical research. He is doing all kinds of stuff at church and is mentored by the pastor and relates to the elders and staff. I can't imagine that it would be better for him/his family living at a school.
Now if one of my kids wanted to go to online seminary I would tie them up and drop them on the doorstep of a good school, and go throw the circuit breaker in the basement that feeds juice to their computer. A lot depends on the person!
The arguments about personal relationship against internet seminary could possibly be fulfilled in part by receiving pastoral training in conjunction with the internet seminary (such as with GPTS mentor program).
The arguments against academic discipline are a false assumption that internet students are automatically lazy. That is an argument against individual students, not against internet seminary and is an insufficient argument to make.
The argument against "pastor training the student" type of education is that it lacks sufficient academics. Again, if pastoral training is in conjunction with internet seminary, is that not easily answerable?
We have a married guy with two kids in our church going to online seminary. A brilliant Chinese man working in biochemical research. He is doing all kinds of stuff at church and is mentored by the pastor and relates to the elders and staff. I can't imagine that it would be better for him/his family living at a school.
Now if one of my kids wanted to go to online seminary I would tie them up and drop them on the doorstep of a good school, and go throw the circuit breaker in the basement that feeds juice to their computer. A lot depends on the person!
Damon Rambo
Puritan Board Sophomore
I guess I am going to have to disagree with most of you. I think loans for seminary can be a great thing, in the right circumstances, and in moderation.
Tell me, all of the people on this forum, who are unwilling to take a loan for seminary education: how many of you are driving a reasonably nice car, that you make payments on? How many of you have a nice house, that you are making payments on?
It would be absolutely hypocritical, for a person to denounce taking out a loan for Godly education, while making loan payments on material things. How much more valuable is the education in theology and scripture?
I will tell you what I did. Me and my wife got rid of our expensive truck. We bought a cheap one for cash. We now have two bills, that equal less than 600 dollars per month. I work part time as a youth Minister, which covers our bills. My wife will start working next year: she is finishing up some medical assistant training. I utilize subsidized federal loans to go to seminary, presently, and when our income gets high enough, we will stop using loans.
Of course, I attained my Bachelor's debt free, and my tuition at seminary, after discounts, is only about 2500 dollars per semester (including books); I am taking the max of 15 CH's per semester.
Considering that my seminary loans will cost far less, in the end, than the car most of you are probably driving (And the Seminary education will last long after your car is a pile of rust), I do not consider this a bad deal.
What I think is a shame, is that so many Seminaries do not participate in title IV loans, which are interest free until graduation, but will offer students private loans that accrue interest immediately, and at much higher rates, at that. This is absolutely unconscionable, in my opinion.
Tell me, all of the people on this forum, who are unwilling to take a loan for seminary education: how many of you are driving a reasonably nice car, that you make payments on? How many of you have a nice house, that you are making payments on?
It would be absolutely hypocritical, for a person to denounce taking out a loan for Godly education, while making loan payments on material things. How much more valuable is the education in theology and scripture?
I will tell you what I did. Me and my wife got rid of our expensive truck. We bought a cheap one for cash. We now have two bills, that equal less than 600 dollars per month. I work part time as a youth Minister, which covers our bills. My wife will start working next year: she is finishing up some medical assistant training. I utilize subsidized federal loans to go to seminary, presently, and when our income gets high enough, we will stop using loans.
Of course, I attained my Bachelor's debt free, and my tuition at seminary, after discounts, is only about 2500 dollars per semester (including books); I am taking the max of 15 CH's per semester.
Considering that my seminary loans will cost far less, in the end, than the car most of you are probably driving (And the Seminary education will last long after your car is a pile of rust), I do not consider this a bad deal.
What I think is a shame, is that so many Seminaries do not participate in title IV loans, which are interest free until graduation, but will offer students private loans that accrue interest immediately, and at much higher rates, at that. This is absolutely unconscionable, in my opinion.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Damon,
I think that what some of the people are objecting to is the amount of indebtedness incured by some (many?) seminarians. For example, I know one guy who decided that he didn't want to have to work (!) during seminary, so he took out almost 30k per year in loans... graduating with almost 100k in seminary debt (and who knows how much he owed for his bachelors degree). (As an aside: I lay all the blame for his indebtedness at his feet. His priorities and choices resulted in his debt load. It wasn't like the school prohibited him from working...)
I believe that those to whom you're responding would argue that taking out 100k for advanced education is an acceptably investment for, let's say an MD is fine because the career towards which the education is headed is one that pays enough to recoup the cost and then some. 100k for a degree that leads to a career paying 40 or 50k suddenly doesn't seem so prudent because this creates a level of income which can not be met by many churches.
While I agree with you - that some indebtedness is not necessarily bad and that there is a degree to which your seminary debt is an investment - and while I agree with those who are opposed to "excessive" indebtedness in ministerial candidates because it DOES create a very heavy burden, I want to make it clear that I think this matter is one that needs to be addressed by the prospective student.
Nathan Riese
Puritan Board Freshman
Good point. My argument was just a rebuttal against the generalization arguments of Dr. Clark. It really does depend on the person. It would be wise for a session or a presbytery to say "no, I don't think your doing online seminary is the most beneficial" to those people, because, like you said, it does depend on the person.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Do you think such a man meets the Biblical qualifications for ordination as an elder? It seems that there would be stewardship as well as household management issues. And looking at Scripture again, perhaps even 'good testimony'.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
First, It isn't "communism" for a school to refuse to heavily indebt a student. Your earlier statement describing this as "communism" bears no resemblance to what communism is. Especially given the fact that government coercion is nowhere involved.
Now more to the point, I would agree that seminary students are responsible for their actions but I would also hold that an evangelical school is also accountable for theirs.
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!
There are some real parallels in this instance to the question presently under consideration. For one, we are discussing the propriety of godly schools (overseen by our brethren in Christ) "exacting interest" upon their students (& brethren) and in many cases bringing them under an excessive financial burden. Now it isn't my intention to absolve the borrower of all responsibility for their financial dealings, but to simply say that these otherwise godly schools are not free from any impropriety, and do indeed bear a certain amount of responsibility for their brethren's hardships.
In the judgment of God, both the borrower and the lender must stand to account for their dealings.
-----Added 10/31/2009 at 09:24:52 EST-----
"Thoroughly offended" - Really? Would you perhaps agree that this an overstatement? This charge would be unkind to the original poster (myself) unless you were genuinely and thoroughly offended.
However, if you were genuinely offended, then please accept my sincerest apologies. It was not my intention to offend anyone and did not consider the title of the post to contain anything offensive. What's more, I had hoped that the body of the post as a whole would be taken into consideration with the title thereby clarifying any confusion.
Additionally, I must take issue with a misunderstanding you have regarding my original post. You stated "Never could it be argued that a seminary has any responsibility whatsoever for a man's choice to attend and pay the tuition that they are charging" I never charged any impropriety for a school charging tuition. That would be ludicrous! My original post dealt with student loans and the interest attached to them, not paying tuition.
As I finish this post I have realized that the thread was retitled. Have you retitled it?
Regardless of what moderator renamed the thread, it manifests a hyper-sensitivity on their part and a lack of it toward myself. There was simply no grounds or justification for such an action.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
