Seminary Accreditation?

[N. Eshelman]

I was reading Dr. Clark's 3 posts on seminaries from the Heidelblog (linked from another thread about paying for seminary education) and I was struck by this statement:

Students considering an unaccredited school should think carefully about whether there is a legitimate reason for a school not being accredited or whether a school lacks a real accreditation (i.e. one recognized by the Department of Education) because it is simply a poor school and thus, likely, a waste of money. There are more than a few home-made seminaries, which are unable to provide the necessary education, which lack a qualified faculty, which lack the necessary library (and other) resources, that are all too ready to take your money and give you a degree. Would you attend medical school in someone’s basement? Would you trust your health to a physician trained at such a school? Why we should entrust the care of our congregations to pastors trained at home-made seminary? Consistories/sessions, classes/presbyteries and other bodies should consider why should we are sometimes willing to accept lower standards in our seminaries than we would for medical schools.

Are there many Reformed seminaries that ARE NOT accredited? The only two seminaries that I am intimately familiar with are Puritan Seminary and Reformed Presbyterian Seminary. Puritan is accredited by ATS and the State of Michigan and RP is accredited by ATS and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Is it common in Reformed circles to have UNACCREDITED seminaries?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Nathan,

This isn't a slam at PRTS but I don't see them listed on the ATS site:

The Association of Theological Schools

There are a few unaccredited Reformed seminaries in N. America.

 

[DMcFadden]

According to their website, PRTS is ARTS accredited:

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary has been fully accredited by the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries (ARTS), an organization of about ten North American seminaries which adhere to either the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards.

They are approved by the state of Michigan to grant degrees. This is different from accreditation. Schools that lack accreditation often advertise their permission to grant degrees. The standard secular accreditation agencies are the six regional bodies. Michigan schools would be accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The typical theological agency is the ATS:

The State of Michigan has granted PRTS a degree-granting license and has approved all of our current degree offerings.

The following schools are currently ARTS accredited:

Birmingham Theological Seminary - Birmingham, Alabama
FAREL Reformed Theological Seminary - Montréal, Quebec, Canada
Geneva Reformed Seminary - Greenville, South Carolina
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary - Greenville, South Carolina
New Geneva Theological Seminary - Colorado Springs, Colorado
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary - Grand Rapids, Michigan
Sangre de Cristo Seminary - Westcliffe, Colorado
Western Reformed Seminary - Tacoma, Washington

Frankly, having gone to a fully accredited and highly regarded seminary, I would trade it ANY day for the privilege of attending either PRTS or Greenville. What fool would challenge the academic quality of either one? A four year preparation for pastoral ministry (PRTS) with people like Beeke or an opportunity to study under Joey Pipa or George Knight?

Dr. Clark is correct about the problem of attending a non-accredited school if you intend on a teaching ministry or graduate work at a prestige university. However, it is difficult to imagine a Reformed school discriminating against a PRTS or Greenville grad.

And, incidentally, both PRTS and Greenville are ridiculously affordable compared to other schools.

Personal Opinion by a Baptist Alert! Frankly, I have often thought that there is a streak in some Reformed circles that seems to go beyond a desire for quality to one of elitism. Would a Harvard degree be more "prestigious" than PRTS or Greenville? SURE! But, in a secular value system a Harvard or Yale degree would be more impressive than one from RTS, WTS, WSCAL, or just about any place with orthodox theology. Frankly, based on my observations of PRTS grads, I would take just about any of them over a Harvard grad any day.

 

[reformedminister]

I have a degree from an accredited seminary. However, there are some men called by God and have families, who enter the ministry later in life. These men have experience and wisdom that many young ministers lack coming fresh out of Seminary. I wonder what Christ thinks about some of our attitudes? Peter was uneducated in schools, John Calvin wasn't an ordained minister, C. H. Spurgeon didn't go to college, and Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones had his degree from a medical school but had no formal theological education. These men have done more for the Christian Church than any of us could ever think about. In my current situation, at almost forty with a family, I wouldn't think twice about getting a degree from somewhere like Whitefield Theological Seminary if I needed to. All too often, man tries to get in the way of God's work. I am glad for my "professional degree" but I have learned more in my study than any Seminary could teach me. I am still learning. All too often, seminaries "produce" trained clergy who lack the discipline to continue in their studies. Theological training is an ongoing thing.

 

[yeutter]

I like the idea of having seminaries that teach men how to be scholar teachers. Does membership in the Association of Theological Schools or the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries guarantee that such training will occur?
One of the advantages of accreditation would be the promotion of peer reviewed scholarship. How does accreditation by a board that also gives accreditation to Seminaries like Garrett or Louisville promote peer review?

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------

I note that neither the seminary of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod nor Bethany Evangelical Lutheran Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod are accredited by ATS.

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 AM ----------

Maybe we need a broad based Reformation Accreditation Board whose membership would be composed of the conservative Lutheran and Reformed/Presbyterian Schools.

---------- Post added at 09:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------

Personal Opinion by a Baptist Alert! Frankly, I have often thought that there is a streak in some Reformed circles that seems to go beyond a desire for quality to one of elitism. Would a Harvard degree be more "prestigious" than PRTS or Greenville? SURE! But, in a secular value system a Harvard or Yale degree would be more impressive than one from RTS, WTS, WSCAL, or just about any place with orthodox theology. Frankly, based on my observations of PRTS grads, I would take just about any of them over a Harvard grad any day.

This reminds me of William F. Buckley Jr. remark about Harold O. J. Brown, "Three degrees from Harvard and still a Christian!"

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 AM ----------

Are there many Reformed seminaries that ARE NOT accredited? The only two seminaries that I am intimately familiar with are Puritan Seminary and Reformed Presbyterian Seminary. Puritan is accredited by ATS and the State of Michigan and RP is accredited by ATS and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Is it common in Reformed circles to have UNACCREDITED seminaries?

Canadian Reformed and Protestant Reformed are two reformed schools that are not accredited by either ATS and ARTS.

 

[wbmccarty]

In addition to the issue of unaccredited schools, any number of seminaries, perhaps even some self-styled Reformed seminaries, have bogus or ineffective accreditation. If one believes that accreditation is important, then it's necessary to look beyond the mere fact of accreditation and consider the reputation of the accrediting agency. One way to do so is to determine what other schools or seminaries, if any, have submitted to accreditation by the accrediting agency in question.

To be explicit, I don't intend by these remarks to comment directly on the potential importance to a seminary student of the accreditation or non-accreditation of the seminary. That is a more complex issue that, in my opinion, depends at least in some part on the goals and means of a prospective seminary student. I merely intend to point out that some formally accredited seminaries may, for practical purposes, be considered to be unaccredited. So, in my opinion, the issue should not be one of accreditation but rather one of the quality of accreditation.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

This is an excellent thread.

 

[kjat32]

How does an uninformed potential student judge the level of accreditation? What is the difference between ATS and ARTS? We looked at Western Reformed but decided against it partially because of a lack of accrediatation...although they are ARTS. We really had no clue what means what. If you're looking for a degree that will be recognized by potential employers (outside of your own denomination) what really should you look for?

 

[DMcFadden]

When someone says that they are "approved" to grant degrees, they are indicating that they have satisfied the basic requirements of their state. Some states even offer religious exemptions that make it easier! Approved is not the same as accredited.

The "standard" secular standard of accreditation is by one of the six "regional" accreditation bodies. These bodies have reciprocity agreements and a degree from an institution affiliated with one of them means that they have been evaluated and granted accreditation. Your degree is "accredited" throughout the U.S.

Several professional bodies have their own separate accreditation. For example, some business schools are "accredited" because they are part of an institution regionally accredited. Others also have AACSB - The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business or AMBA - The Association of MBAs accreditation. The professional body most widely recognized for theological education is the ATS.

The ATS accredits 250 graduate theological schools in the U.S. and Canada (The Association of Theological Schools). Good news = it is the "standard." Bad news = pretty much EVERY heretical den of apostasy is ATS accredited too along with most of the orthodox ones.

The ARTS accreditation is an attempt to provide a confessionally based alternative to ATS accreditation. PRTS grads shoulde not have problems going anywhere they want to go. However, if your goal is to get a Yale PhD, you might want to stick to the ATS accredited schools.

For ministry preparation, however, some of those ARTS schools look pretty impressive to me. I would love to get a "do over" and go to PRTS.

Here are the six regional accreditation bodies:
New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC)
Accredits schools in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement(NCA)
Accredits schools in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Navajo Nation, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges (MSA)
Accredits schools in Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Central America, Europe, and the Middle East.

Southern Association of Schools and Colleges (SACS)
Accredits schools in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Latin America.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
Accredits schools in California, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Palau, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, Marshall Islands, and other Australasian locations.

Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NWCCU)
Accredits schools in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

 

[markkoller]

The accreditation that Dr. Clark speaks of is specifically that which is offered by our government (The United States Department of Education). He insists that a school is not worthy unless this organization places its stamp upon the school in question. As much as I value Dr. Clark's gifts and his written work, the desire to submit the work of training Christ's ministers to the government of the United States is not really worthy of a response. We do not need the government to determine the standards for our seminaries. It cannot be stated any clearer than that. The church alone gives legitimacy to those who would train her ministers.

WCF. CHAPTER XXV. Of the Church.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

CHAPTER XXIII. Of the Civil Magistrate.

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

 

[KMK]

Dr. Clark asks a good question: Is there any good reason for a school NOT to be accredited? Why isn't Greenville accredited? Does it cost a great deal of money? Is the school required to take the mark of the beast? What is the reason?

Another question: Why don't unaccredited schools just come right out and let you know they are unaccredited? Why do they hide the fact back on page 107 of the course catalog? It seems more than a little disingenuous to me.

 

[smhbbag]

I think the most underestimated factor in the process of calling a qualified minister is the examination by the congregation/presbytery.

Whether the candidate comes from WTS or Billy Bob's Unaccredited Seminary, the congregation and the presbytery should assume nothing about the quality of his education, and his preparation in the academic side of pastoral skills. The cost is just too high. WTS and many other reformed seminaries deserve every bit of their lofty reputations - I am not disputing that. But, ultimately, the local authority of the church is responsible to God and their members for the quality of the ministers they call.

That level of accountability requires much more than a box to be checked based on a trusted seminary name. Or, conversely, they must not discard a candidate based on the lack of that brand name in the seminary.

Presbyterians have a much stronger process for testing candidates than Baptists do...by far. But I think both undervalue oral and written examinations.

I'll put it this way - there are Harvard graduates in accounting who may not pass the CPA, and there are people with much less, or zero, formal education in the subject who can pass it with a little prep time. If I'm an employer, that test is a much better measure of an applicant's knowledge than anything in the "Education" portion of a resume.

You can test the quality of someone's years of education in a remarkably short amount of time. This is why the whole question of unaccredited vs. accredited seminaries rings hollow to me. A local congregation or presbytery can probe every aspect of a candidate's knowledge quite well in the matter of a few hours.

I love the pastoral quiz on apuritansmind - Another Pastoral Quiz .

If a person can orally ace this quiz in front of a committee over the course of a day or two, with a few more ethics, apologetics, and general theology questions thrown in, then that means more than any name or degree type written on a piece of paper. I would justifiably be biased in my consideration toward those with laudable academic credentials, but the proof is in the pudding.

I'm highly convinced that only this kind of rigorous examination of a candidate's entire theological education and personal viewpoints is sufficient to ensure properly trained ministers. An accounting degree means little or nothing without an objective test given by someone outside of his institution. No accreditation accomplishes that - only the local church authority can determine that with each individual candidate.

I've seen many good men, whom I trust and sit under, be installed as elders and pastors with little more than verifying their education and their agreement with a confession. We must require far more.

 

[DMcFadden]

Dr. Clark asks a good question: Is there any good reason for a school NOT to be accredited? Why isn't Greenville accredited? Does it cost a great deal of money? Is the school required to take the mark of the beast? What is the reason?

Another question: Why don't unaccredited schools just come right out and let you know they are unaccredited? Why do they hide the fact back on page 107 of the course catalog? It seems more than a little disingenuous to me.

Dr. Clark would have a more authoritative answer. But, since he doesn't seem to be around tonight . . . here goes. Accreditation is expensive and requires a variety of things that can be expensive. Size of library, diversity of faculty, cash reserves on hand, competitive salaries for faculty, various corporate policies and commitments (e.g., anti discrimination, corporate compliance, etc.), a very onerous self-examination followed by a site visit, etc. Back in the 70s Talbot wanted to become accredited by the ATS. They caved on a number of curricular matters (e.g., too many Bible classes). This provided the ostensible reason for MacArthur to withdraw his Talbot extension at Grace Church (about 100 students as I recall) and start The Master's Seminary. BTW, Master's is not ATS accredited to this day. They are, however, regionally accredited by WASC (http://www.tms.edu/pdf/Mantle.16.2.pdf).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Another question: Why don't unaccredited schools just come right out and let you know they are unaccredited? Why do they hide the fact back on page 107 of the course catalog? It seems more than a little disingenuous to me.

The better ones do make this clear up front. That should be a litmus test of sorts, too.

AMR

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Dr. Clark asks a good question: Is there any good reason for a school NOT to be accredited? Why isn't Greenville accredited? Does it cost a great deal of money? Is the school required to take the mark of the beast? What is the reason?

Another question: Why don't unaccredited schools just come right out and let you know they are unaccredited? Why do they hide the fact back on page 107 of the course catalog? It seems more than a little disingenuous to me.

It is kind of ironic that a gentlemen who pushes for R2K so hard pushes just as hard for the government to regulate the training of ministers.

 

[Romans 9:16]

While there is a Biblical warrant for the idea of Presbytery ‘accrediting’ a man, there is no justification for the secular state to ‘accredit’ a divinity school. I don’t even like the idea of theological schools being independent of denominations. Schools must be under the oversight (and discipline) and the Presbytery/Synod. No aspect of formalized training should exist autonomously. Simply self baptizing an enterprise in the adjective ‘Reformed’ will not do. How many times do we have to see seminaries go liberal/heretical (or unhelpfully ecumenical) before we realize that a mere statement of faith somewhere in the founding documents is not enough of a binding tie. There needs to be accountability. Forget this nonsense of state accreditation (we are not communists). We must insist on theological education within the context and accountability structure of Presbyteries and Synods of real (and historic) church bodies. The church accredits its own schools. The state need only concern itself with killing killers and plowing the snow off my street.

 

[KMK]

Dr. Clark asks a good question: Is there any good reason for a school NOT to be accredited? Why isn't Greenville accredited? Does it cost a great deal of money? Is the school required to take the mark of the beast? What is the reason?

Another question: Why don't unaccredited schools just come right out and let you know they are unaccredited? Why do they hide the fact back on page 107 of the course catalog? It seems more than a little disingenuous to me.

Dr. Clark would have a more authoritative answer. But, since he doesn't seem to be around tonight . . . here goes. Accreditation is expensive and requires a variety of things that can be expensive. Size of library, diversity of faculty, cash reserves on hand, competitive salaries for faculty, various corporate policies and commitments (e.g., anti discrimination, corporate compliance, etc.), a very onerous self-examination followed by a site visit, etc. Back in the 70s Talbot wanted to become accredited by the ATS. They caved on a number of curricular matters (e.g., too many Bible classes). This provided the ostensible reason for MacArthur to withdraw his Talbot extension at Grace Church (about 100 students as I recall) and start The Master's Seminary. BTW, Master's is not ATS accredited to this day. They are, however, regionally accredited by WASC (http://www.tms.edu/pdf/Mantle.16.2.pdf).

And these costs are passed along to the student. I get it. Therefore, it is possible that a seminary would eschew accreditation in order to keep their tuition low and not simply because they are run out of someone's basement.

What is interesting is the fact that Master's is not accredited. (By ATS) Yet the perception from most Christians I know is that it is just as much of a degree as Talbot.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

As an aside it is worth reading David Well's critique of ATS in his work "No Place for Truth".

 

[Damon Rambo]

While there is a Biblical warrant for the idea of Presbytery ‘accrediting’ a man, there is no justification for the secular state to ‘accredit’ a divinity school. I don’t even like the idea of theological schools being independent of denominations. Schools must be under the oversight (and discipline) and the Presbytery/Synod. No aspect of formalized training should exist autonomously. Simply self baptizing an enterprise in the adjective ‘Reformed’ will not do. How many times do we have to see seminaries go liberal/heretical (or unhelpfully ecumenical) before we realize that a mere statement of faith somewhere in the founding documents is not enough of a binding tie. There needs to be accountability. Forget this nonsense of state accreditation (we are not communists). We must insist on theological education within the context and accountability structure of Presbyteries and Synods of real (and historic) church bodies. The church accredits its own schools. The state need only concern itself with killing killers and plowing the snow off my street.

Since the "state" does not have any accreditation agencies, this is a moot point. The Regional, and National, accrediting agencies are independent agencies. Yes, they are approved by the Department of Education, but this is necessary: else there would not be any "Reformed" chaplains, etc.

I personally, would not spend large sums of money on any school that is unaccredited. In most cases (though admittedly not all), "unaccredited" equals "poor quality."

And of course, as a Baptist, I would greatly disagree with your idea of accountability through "Synods and Presbyteries," although I think that oversight from the local Church is important, such as we Southern Baptists have with our "Big Six" seminaries.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

How does an uninformed potential student judge the level of accreditation? What is the difference between ATS and ARTS? We looked at Western Reformed but decided against it partially because of a lack of accrediatation...although they are ARTS. We really had no clue what means what. If you're looking for a degree that will be recognized by potential employers (outside of your own denomination) what really should you look for?

Hi Katherine,

This is difficult to gauge from the outside. The question is: what is the nature and function of accreditation? At bottom, the function of accreditation is to make sure that schools fulfill their promises and that they meet minimum standards. Students who pay tuition and donors who support an institution have a right to know that a school they attend or support meets basic standards.

There have been a couple of alternative accrediting agencies established. The question I have for those agencies and for the schools who use them, in place of the regional accrediting bodies or ATS (or both) is this: does your agency have any real authority to hold you accountable? Obviously, by stepping outside the traditional accreditation process schools deny their students certain opportunities but so long as that's clear to the incoming students (that the school is not accredited formally in the strict sense of the word) and so long as the alternative accreditation serves to force schools to act in the best interest of the students, that's fine. What matters is the quality of the education being provided. If a school lacks the necessary facilities and faculty to provide a good education, an alternative accreditation isn't going to change that.

This gets to a comment that someone made (I don't remember who, it doesn't matter) that accreditation is expensive because it requires schools to provide services. That's the point. Renting a building and setting up shop doesn't make an entity into a school. A proper school has to provide certain services, e.g., an adequate library and other research facilities. It has to provide adequate classroom space. A proper school, one deserving of the name, has to have a qualified, trained, faculty. Those faculty have to eat and feed their families. Yes, running a proper school is expensive, even when institutions are as careful and frugal as they can be.

I have been academic dean and served as accreditation liaison officer for WSC so I know from first-hand experience how challenging the accreditation process can be. Most of the time, however, it has been a positive experience. We learn from accreditors and the challenge they pose to us: "have you kept your promises?" is very important.

We should not assume that accreditors necessarily pose an ideological threat to a confessional institution. We have views that we have to explain to each new set of visiting teams. That's okay. It's good for us to explain why we don't admit females to the MDiv or why we don't have females on our board of directors (because we have only elders and ministers on our board). That keeps us honest. In my experience (since 1997) even when they have disagreed with us our visiting teams have expressed admiration that we believe something and that we act on principle.

On some other issues:

The Master's College and Seminary are accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. WASC is the regional accreditation agency. Some schools, like WSC, have dual accreditation (e.g., by WASC and ATS) and some opt for single accreditation.

On accreditation and two kingdoms. As I've noted here many times a seminary is a sort of ad hoc institution created after the Enlightenment essentially drove the theology faculties out of the universities. So we live in two worlds simultaneously. We function like a university faculty in exile and we have to meet the same academic standards as the university but we do so in service of the church and with ecclesiastical vocations (calls) to that end. Thus we serve the churches but we do so in the academy. Thus, we have to meet the academic and professional standards of the academy.

We owe our ideological/theological allegiance to the Word of God as confessed by the Reformed churches, however, and if the latter conflicts with the former, the latter wins. We cannot compromise our basic mission in order to satisfy alien ideologies or standards or we should cease to exist.

As I understand things, the agencies to whom we are voluntarily accountable are themselves accredited by the DOE but they are not agencies of the DOE. I am conscious too of Machen's opposition to the DOE but it exists and we submit to these agencies just as we submit to fire inspections and other such agencies that have oversight of aspects of our operations.

There is an absolute epistemological antithesis but there is also common grace or general providence. The latter heading accounts for the aspect of commonality in all human endeavors, even when there is an epistemological anthesis.

 

[KMK]

A proper school has to provide certain services, e.g., an adequate library and other research facilities. It has to provide adequate classroom space. A proper school, one deserving of the name, has to have a qualified, trained, faculty.

If by 'proper' you mean a school who's degree is universally recognized, then I would tend to agree. It would only make sense that a degree with any kind of universality would have to meet certain academic standards.

I think it was Dr. Godfrey who did a good job of explaining the place of the seminary in the two kingdom view in one of his messages at the recent "Christ, Kingdom, Culture" conference. I couldn't find the audio. Maybe it is not available yet.

 

[Marrow Man]

I like the idea of having seminaries that teach men how to be scholar teachers. Does membership in the Association of Theological Schools or the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries guarantee that such training will occur?

I have a friend who teaches adjunctly for one of the schools on the ARTS list (Birmingham TS). He says that the school specifically likes to hire pastors with advanced degrees as teachers. In other words, they want their faculty members to be employed in the ministry because they feel like this adds to the seminary education of their students.

As an aside, I believe I've read where some non-accredited school raise the question that government accreditation is desirable because it frees the purse strings for federal financial aid. Maybe that's just sour grapes, though.

 

[markkoller]

We should not assume that accreditors necessarily pose an ideological threat to a confessional institution.

It is not a matter of what threat they pose. It is instead a matter of authority. They have none. The church is the only oversight of the seminary.

As I understand things, the agencies to whom we are voluntarily accountable are themselves accredited by the DOE but they are not agencies of the DOE. I am conscious too of Machen's opposition to the DOE but it exists and we submit to these agencies just as we submit to fire inspections and other such agencies that have oversight of aspects of our operations.

No, brother, we do not. We don't have to submit to accreditation like we do to building codes. There is a great gulf between training men to preach the Word of God and regulating fire extinguishers.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Mark,

The accreditors have no "authority" over us that we do not grant to them. That's why I used the word "voluntarily."

The accreditors do not write our curriculum or give our lectures or write our books or meet with our students. We do that and we do it according to the Word of God as confessed by the churches. No accrediting agency can keep us from doing that.

We might have different views of the spirituality of the church. When Machen founded WTS he argued that it is contrary to the nature of the church, as church (i.e., as institution) to teach Hebrew and Greek and any number of academic subjects. It is the nature of the church as such to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, and to administer discipline. Thus, he argued, a seminary should be distinct from the church as such.

At the same we are all ministers called by various churches and in submission to consistories and presbyteries as we fulfill our vocations. Our faculty are all pastors. We all serve congregations or carry on active pastoral ministries but it is not possible to serve full-time in pastoral ministry and be a full-time vocational scholar. To try to do both simultaneously would be let one suffer in the interest of the other.

Bob Godfrey's addresses to the Christ, Kingdom and Culture conference are available via video on the WSC site:

Westminster Video Resources

 

[Michael]

Are there many Reformed seminaries that ARE NOT accredited?

The North American Reformed Seminary is unaccredited, online, and free. And I would love to participate one day...

 

[KMK]

Are there many Reformed seminaries that ARE NOT accredited?

The North American Reformed Seminary is unaccredited, online, and free. And I would love to participate one day...

WSC is accredited, brick and morter, and very expensive. All things being equal, wouldn't you rather get your degree there? Or WTS? Or RTS? etc. Even if unaccredited schools have their place, wouldn't we all rather attend real classes with real professors with a real library and a real chapel with real guest lecturers? I know I would. Maybe that is what retirement is for.

 

[Michael]

Are there many Reformed seminaries that ARE NOT accredited?

The North American Reformed Seminary is unaccredited, online, and free. And I would love to participate one day...

WSC is accredited, brick and morter, and very expensive. All things being equal, wouldn't you rather get your degree there? Or WTS? Or RTS? etc. Even if unaccredited schools have their place, wouldn't we all rather attend real classes with real professors with a real library and a real chapel with real guest lecturers? I know I would. Maybe that is what retirement is for.

Rather? Absolutely. Even remotely feasible for me? Not really.

I am a family man with a load of debt and can't exactly relocate. Yet I sit around and study seminary material for pure enjoyment. I might as well participate with some structure online when the time allows.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Ken,

If we're comparing apples with apples, then I wouldn't say that WSC is "very expensive." People sometimes assume that is the case because we're in southern California. In fact, our tuition is on the low end. Our cost of living is more reasonable than people think. Many of our students share apartments and houses and they pay very reasonable rent. It's possible to walk and bicycle 12 months a year.

People who are interested in the latest info should check with Katie Chappell or Mark MacVey in our admissions office

888 480 8474

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Are there many Reformed seminaries that ARE NOT accredited?

The North American Reformed Seminary is unaccredited, online, and free. And I would love to participate one day...

WSC is accredited, brick and morter, and very expensive. All things being equal, wouldn't you rather get your degree there? Or WTS? Or RTS? etc. Even if unaccredited schools have their place, wouldn't we all rather attend real classes with real professors with a real library and a real chapel with real guest lecturers? I know I would. Maybe that is what retirement is for.

I am not sure I would call Dr. Beeke, Dr. Murray, Dr. Pipa, Dr. Smith, Dr. Shaw, and the rest of the faculties at GPTS and PRTS not "real professors".

 

[R. Scott Clark]

WSC costs lower than you might think

Quick follow up to the earlier post:

Our admissions/financial aid staff is in the process of surveying our students on their actual expenses. So far 50% of our 150 students have responded.

Approx. 1/2 our single students spend less than $400 per month on rent and utilities.

The other 1/2 spends under $600 per month on rent and utilities.