Seminary Choice: TMS, Southern or Westminster?

[Wannabee]

I graduated from TMS. It's a good school and teaches exegesis and exposition very well. Systematics are not emphasized a great deal. Covenantalism is frowned upon. But I never was pressed in regard to the dispensational eschatalogical aspects of theology either.

The comments here against TMS represent a biased perspective based on limited interaction. Caution and grace are advised. One could say all sorts of negative things about any of these schools by sampling a select few of their graduates. And the PB is not immune to its own form elitism. Perhaps a mirror is more needed than a looking glass.

 

[CovenantalBaptist]

Considering what you identified as being your concerns I think it might be wise to investigate several areas if you are considering Southern:

1) Do they employ Biblical Counseling as the dominant model? I know that Dr. Mohler has made changes in this department, but, from what I understood it was an integrationist model (psychology+bible). Perhaps someone here can clarify that for you. If it is not a Biblical Counseling approach (think David Powlison, Jay Adams etc.) , then consider supplementary courses through CCEF or consider a school that follows a Biblical counseling model
2) Evangelism department. Are they Reformed in approach?
3) Also, consider MCTS - they are a confessional Reformed Baptist Seminary with connections to Southern (including sharing professors like Dr. Tom Nettles) and they have Sam Waldron whose exposition of the 1689 is excellent. In the past they allowed combined degrees. MCTS is a couple of hours away and I know that there are students who do both.
4) Consider seminaries that focus on discipleship. Some distance seminaries like Reformed Baptist Seminary allow you to study at home and learn in your home congregation. This saves you the cost of an expensive seminary and the uprooting of your family.
5) I hope you have already done this, but, if not, please speak to your pastor/elders. He knows you much better than we do and as such, in the Lord's providence, he is probably better suited to provide this kind of advice.

May the Lord bless you and raise you up as a faithful servant of Him.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

In case you're tempted, here's an essay explaining why distance ed is a mistake:

Westminster Seminary California faculty

Here's more:

How Not to Train Pastors (1) Heidelblog

 

[Notthemama1984]

In case you're tempted, here's an essay explaining why distance ed is a mistake:

Westminster Seminary California faculty

Here's more:

How Not to Train Pastors (1) Heidelblog

Dr. Clark, I would appreciate your input in this other thread if you do not mind.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/online-reformed-vs-campus-Dispensational-56899/

 

[jogri17]

Greetings in the precious name of Christ, our Savior! What a joy to be able to post to this forum! I've been reading for some time, but it just clicked in my head that I should probably join and post as well!

To keep it short, my wife and I live near Dayton, OH, and I have the privilege of serving/teaching a small youth group at our independent Reformed Baptist church. For some time, I have sensed a desire to pursue further training and Lord-willing, serve a pastor in the future. I would also love to learn/practice Biblical counseling as well (I've seen that modeled well in my pastor).

Thus, I've visited 3 schools to this point. Master's, Westminster (East) & Southern. Seeing as my wife's parents live in Chicago, I am also considering visiting TEDS.

However, to be honest, I would love to learn how to be a strong expositional preacher with a shepherd's heart who desires to be actively involved in Body life as well.

Therefore, I just wanted to list some of the strenghts & weaknesses of each school in my mind, and open it up for your thoughts/advice/wisdom. PLEASE share openly!

Master's: Strengths = Strong expositional preaching emphasis, Biblical counseling, small, more close-knit environment, connected with local church, tuition is low (L.A. is expensive, though!) Cons: Distance from home, Dispensational theology (though from the little I understand, the dispensationalism they teach is not what is usually heralded in some Dispensational circles), Small school & lack of theological breadth.

Southern: Strengths = most Reformed of all Southern Baptist seminaries, Biblical counseling, breadth of excellent scholars, close to home, beautiful campus (I'll be honest!). Weaknesses = a BIG school, not as traditionally Reformed as schools like Westminster.

Westminster (East): Strengths = Excellent Reformed faculty, rich heritage, strong academics & commitment to learning the Biblical languages; Weaknesses = I am not Presbyterian (please don't hurt me!), has a stigma for being too academic.

TEDS: I am still learning about this school, so I'd love your thoughts on any strengths or weaknesses.

Please just let me know what you are thinking about in relation to any of the schools that I am looking at! Thanks!

just from my own talking with grads from those and reading books by the faculty members from each. My initial thought for you is Southern or Westminste-Philly. Seminary is not about creating a close-knit community in my opinion and you ought to get those need meet where Christ intended you to get it... in the local church. given your baptist I think southern is best for you and your desires.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Won't do it. Don't accept the premise of the poll. Both are unhappy choices.

Would a heart surgeon accept the premise of poll that asked us to choose between and online "med" school and a vet school? If one wants to become a heart surgeon then an online school won't work. How is he going to learn to do surgery online? Call me crazy but if one attends a vet school I guess one is likely to come out a trained vet. Not good preparation for heart surgery on humans.

"Wow, the heart of a dalmatian is over there. What's that thing there? My lands, this is really different!"

 

[jogri17]

Won't do it. Don't accept the premise of the poll. Both are unhappy choices.

Would a heart surgeon accept the premise of poll that asked us to choose between and online "med" school and a vet school? If one wants to become a heart surgeon then an online school won't work. How is he going to learn to do surgery online? Call me crazy but if one attends a vet school I guess one is likely to come out a trained vet. Not good preparation for heart surgery on humans.

"Wow, the heart of a dalmatian is over there. What's that thing there? My lands, this is really different!"

One would want a doctor who went to the BEST SCHOOL regardless of size and has good practical work. Doctors learn jack in medschool. All the stuff they really use is in their internship. small schools as well as large ones can do that. It is in the church where one developes ministry skills not seminry. Seminary is not for making pastors but rather equiping potential pastors and theologians.

 

[fredtgreco]

Won't do it. Don't accept the premise of the poll. Both are unhappy choices.

Would a heart surgeon accept the premise of poll that asked us to choose between and online "med" school and a vet school? If one wants to become a heart surgeon then an online school won't work. How is he going to learn to do surgery online? Call me crazy but if one attends a vet school I guess one is likely to come out a trained vet. Not good preparation for heart surgery on humans.

"Wow, the heart of a dalmatian is over there. What's that thing there? My lands, this is really different!"

One would want a doctor who went to the BEST SCHOOL regardless of size and has good practical work. Doctors learn jack in medschool. All the stuff they really use is in their internship. small schools as well as large ones can do that. It is in the church where one developes ministry skills not seminry. Seminary is not for making pastors but rather equiping potential pastors and theologians.

Nearly the exact same principle as lawyers (the other oft example). Pastors may be better off trained in brick and mortar schools, but far more research on the reality of doctors and lawyers is in order.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The problem, or at least a substantial part of the problem, as I see it, is the fallacy of thinking the following:

seminary education = prepared and qualified for ministry

When in reality seminary education is one aspect of preparation and qualification for ministry. Too many operate with the apparent assumption that if someone possesses an MDiv then they are obviously ready to be a pastor.

If we see seminary education as just one of the factors in assessing preparedness, then it leaves us in a position to assess whether the same, or even comparable, level of education (with all the things that go into that term) can be attained via online or independent studies or from resident student status at a "brick and mortar" institution.


For what it is worth, in my opinion there are so many tangible and intangible factors that determine the overall quality of an education, indeed what is meant by the very term "seminary education," that I do not believe that in most circumstances in this country these factors can be duplicated by any form of education competing with the traditional resident student status. Thus I do not recommend, nor do I advocate, online or independent studies to anyone seeking a degree for purpose of the pastoral ministry. In fact, once I am out of the military and able to function in the life of my presbytery, (a scary proposition for some of you, I'm sure!) I can assure you that I will highly scrutinize any candidate coming with a degree from a non-traditional school.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Nearly the exact same principle as lawyers (the other oft example). Pastors may be better off trained in brick and mortar schools, but far more research on the reality of doctors and lawyers is in order.

Fred,

I'm pretty sure we don't need research to know that one cannot learn heart surgery via a cable modem or in a veterinary school. I've known some good vets and large animal vets back home are amazing but they don't step up to do surgery on humans. They know their limits.

As to the reality on the ground of non-sem-prepared pastors, I've seen it. Most of those fellows I've known would say that they wish very much they had gone to school. We hear that fairly regularly here from pastors who skipped school, because their churches didn't require it, and later realized that they made a huge mistake and now are trapped by circumstances and cannot do what they should have done when they should and could have done it.

-----Added 12/23/2009 at 02:52:47 EST-----

SS,

I'm not claiming that if one goes to sem then one is ipso facto prepared; not at all. Rather, I'm claiming that it is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. There are other conditions that have to be met (internal call, consistory/session approval, external call, presbytery/classis approval etc).

No one who teaches in a sem thinks that going to sem makes one who is not otherwise called into a proper minister but it doesn't follow that simply because one necessary condition hasn't been met that other conditions are unnecessary.

 

[fredtgreco]

The point that is being missed is that for the medical and legal professions, the schooling is (for the vast part) merely a box to be checked. No one really expects substantive value for it. The real proof is in the residency (medical) and the internship/work experience (legal). The schooling serves much more of a "weeding out" function (as Sessions should, but often don't) than a building up function. It's just the fact of the matter.

Saying otherwise over and over again does not make it different.

 

[LawrenceU]

The point that is being missed is that for the medical and legal professions, the schooling is (for the vast part) merely a box to be checked. No one really expects substantive value for it. The real proof is in the residency (medical) and the internship/work experience (legal). The schooling serves much more of a "weeding out" function (as Sessions should, but often don't) than a building up function. It's just the fact of the matter.

Saying otherwise over and over again does not make it different.

Yep. There is a reason that barristers, physicians, and pastors used to be tested, licensed, and turned loose upon the world after a suitable 'apprenticeship' generation after generation. And, they did right well, to boot.

 

[Ivan]

Here's Southern M.Div. in Biblical Counseling degree (I believe one can get a MA in Biblical Counseling as well).

SBTS – The School of Theology – M.Div. - Concentration in Biblical Counseling

It appears that one can choose between the Adams' approach or the intergrated approach. However, the emphasis is biblical.

 

[Damon Rambo]

In case you're tempted, here's an essay explaining why distance ed is a mistake:

Westminster Seminary California faculty

Here's more:

How Not to Train Pastors (1) Heidelblog

An older Pastor friend of mine, (who went to Seminary, then went on to complete his doctorate, both at schools which would be well recognized here), told me "I didn't learn how to be a pastor at Seminary. I learned how to study scripture, I learned the languages, and I learned history. Another Pastor, taught me how to be a pastor."

The fact is, you can't learn how to be a pastor at Seminary. Seminary gives you a foundation on which to build: head knowledge. This is the same with doctors, btw, and a large part of their education CAN be taken through distance (biology and anatomy courses, etc.).

The fact is, every study done has demonstrated that Online students do better than B & M students, on average. There is no reason why a church history class, cannot be done through distance ed. There is no "hands on" component. Like Greek, Hebrew, apologetics, and 99 percent of the other classes. There is no "hands on" component.

The small percentage that is (Homiletics, for instance) in MANY cases of Seminary, are taught by men who cannot preach to save there life. My Pastor (who has never been to Seminary BTW), can outpreach most Seminary professor/preachers that I have heard, both in style, AND content.

There is no reason why Seminary cannot be completed in large part (or in some cases, completely) by distance.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Damon,

Of course you can learn SOME of what it means to be a pastor at seminary. We teach that all the time. We teach it over lunch. We teach it in the office. We teach it over dinner. We teach it by telling stories in the classroom. I learned a great deal from Derke Bergsma who told us stories, who stopped us in the middle of student sermons, who taught us or communicated to us a lot about pastoral ministry in ways that would be impossible by distance. It's called mentoring and we do it every day, all day. There are things that our faculty teach our students, in person, in conversation, in internships, that they cannot put in a book (even though we do write quite a lot) and that can't be transmitted electronically.

I don't know of ANY evidence suggesting that pastors trained by distance do better than those who are trained at an actual school. I haven't seen any such evidence in my experience. This is why I use the surgical analogy. There are skills in medicine (and I guess law, even if Fred doubts it; we have 2-3 lawyers on campus who disagree with Fred) that cannot be communicated by a talking head on a screen. I've taught both ways. I know the limits of the medium.

Read Polayni on the personal aspects of learning/knowing. Think about a luthier. The skill of making a violin or cello cannot be taught by a talking head. One has to apprentice. One has to be taken by the hand and learn by experience how to cut, shape, and assemble an instrument. At the same time there is theory involved. The same is true of surgery (I imagine). It's certainly true of the formation of pastors.

A seminary is not just a place for disseminating information. It's a place for formation. Nor is it a substitute for the visible church. The church is ill-equipped to teach theory (because that's not the sort of institution the church is; it's not a school) but ministerial preparation requires BOTH theory and praxis. A good sem with dedicated, pastoral faculty is partim...partim - partly theoretical and partly practical.

-----Added 12/24/2009 at 10:09:24 EST-----

Fred,

You're saying that med students don't actually learn anything? They don't really learn the difference between this sort of incision and that or between this approach and that or between this organ and that? I guess that folks sitting for their MCAT would probably tell you differently.

I can say at WSC education is a LOT more than simply weeding out folks so that the real preparation can take place in an internship.

It's not an either/or proposition. It's a both/and situation.

 

[Jake]

Any thoughts on why TMS is so anti-reformed? I have read several books by MacArthur as well as many notes in his study Bible and have found him to be very reformed in most areas. His dispensationalism itself is not near as bad as many dispensationalist teachers. How could the seminary he started gone so bad?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Because none of the faculty is Reformed (if "Reformed" = member of a confessional Reformed church and/or agrees substantially with the Reformed theology, piety, and practice as confessed by the Reformed churches in the Three Forms and/or the Westminster Standards).

One cannot look at MacArthur, who is strongly dispensational but who has sympathies with some aspects of Reformed theology, and impute his views or way of speaking to the entire faculty. Dan and other of our ex-TMS students will tell you that they were told by TMS faculty that if they became Reformed it would "ruin" their ministry. There seems to be a view that it is essential to pastoral ministry to be dispensational and to follow MacArthur's approach (which tends to pit exposition against systematic theology) to expositional preaching.

Some of it is just theological. As far as I know, most of the faculty are quite ardently dispensational. Reformed theology is covenantal. Dispensationalism is largely antithetical to covenant theology. There have been predestinarian dispensationalists (e.g., among the old faculty at Dallas) but dispensationalists are very closely connected with American evangelicalism whereas confessional Reformed folk (e.g., Machen) have had a different orientation to the American evangelical mainstream.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Damon,

Of course you can learn SOME of what it means to be a pastor at seminary.

You can learn it better from an accomplished Pastor.

We teach that all the time. We teach it over lunch. We teach it in the office. We teach it over dinner. We teach it by telling stories in the classroom. I learned a great deal from Derke Bergsma who told us stories, who stopped us in the middle of student sermons, who taught us or communicated to us a lot about pastoral ministry in ways that would be impossible by distance.

All of this can be done, better, by an apprenticed young man under the authority of his local church; being mentored by the Pastors, elders, and deacons on the "front line."

It's called mentoring and we do it every day, all day. There are things that our faculty teach our students, in person, in conversation, in internships, that they cannot put in a book (even though we do write quite a lot) and that can't be transmitted electronically.

All of which can be just as well, or better, learned under the leadership of a local church, with MUCH better accountability.

I don't know of ANY evidence suggesting that pastors trained by distance do better than those who are trained at an actual school. I haven't seen any such evidence in my experience.

I am not speaking of pastors in particular: I am speaking of things such as Church history, the Biblical Languages, etc., which are almost exclusively knowledge based classes, that would at many B & M seminaries be taught in monstrous classrooms of up to 100 people.

There indeed are studies that such knowledge is accumulated and integrated BETTER by those in an online environment (rather than having the huge distraction of other students talking, off topic discussions about what people did that weekend, etc.)

News: The Evidence on Online Education - Inside Higher Ed

This is why I use the surgical analogy. There are skills in medicine (and I guess law, even if Fred doubts it; we have 2-3 lawyers on campus who disagree with Fred) that cannot be communicated by a talking head on a screen. I've taught both ways. I know the limits of the medium.

Which is actually a teeny tiny percentage of your schooling. As I stated, all of the "theoretical" classes, such as biology, Anatomy, etc. a would be doctor can indeed take online. The "hands on" portion of a doctors training, would correlate to the small amount of classes in Seminary, such as Pastoral counseling or Homiletics, which are "hands on" as well.

However, with the Pastorate, this "hands on" portion of a young ministers training, can be just as well handled at the local church level, with the "head knowledge" or theoretical portion of it, being done through distance ed.

Read Polayni on the personal aspects of learning/knowing. Think about a luthier. The skill of making a violin or cello cannot be taught by a talking head. One has to apprentice. One has to be taken by the hand and learn by experience how to cut, shape, and assemble an instrument. At the same time there is theory involved. The same is true of surgery (I imagine). It's certainly true of the formation of pastors.

Neither can it be taught by a person standing directly in front of you. It is learned by doing.

A seminary is not just a place for disseminating information. It's a place for formation. Nor is it a substitute for the visible church. The church is ill-equipped to teach theory (because that's not the sort of institution the church is; it's not a school) but ministerial preparation requires BOTH theory and praxis. A good sem with dedicated, pastoral faculty is partim...partim - partly theoretical and partly practical.

The church is ill equipped to teach theory....but this can be learned by distance ed. The church is BETTER equipped, in my opinion, to teach practical application, and hands on learning. A church leadership group, with multiple elders, pastors, etc., training ONE or TWO young men, is much better than a single professor (who might have minimal pastoral experience) trying to train 20 or 30.

 

[DMcFadden]

Any thoughts on why TMS is so anti-reformed? I have read several books by MacArthur as well as many notes in his study Bible and have found him to be very reformed in most areas. His dispensationalism itself is not near as bad as many dispensationalist teachers. How could the seminary he started gone so bad?

I was a young pastor in SoCal when TMS started. Originally, MacArthur had a stallelite campus of Talbot on the Grace Community Church premises. MacArthur was young, brash, and VERY dispensational back then.

As I understand it (no representations to infallibility here), a debate over ATS requirements led Talbot to "adjust" their curriculum to meet the criticism by ATS as follow-up to an accreditation review. MacArthur and some of the Talbot profs felt that this would diminish the Bible content in the curriculum in favor of the expectations of the "liberals" at the ATS. A few of the more "hard core" profs left Talbot (Biola's grad school) to form a "pure" seminary. People like Robert Thomas are dispensational exemplars, resistant to any revisionism such as "progressive" dispensationalism.

MacArthur has shifted from being an uber successful dispensational pastor to one with a 5pt Calvinistic soteriology in the last decade or two. He retains his dispensational ecclesiology and eschatology. Joe would know more than I would here, but I suspect that Busnitz, Mayhue, Thomas, et. al. would represent a more consistent dispensationalism than MacArthur who calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist" now.

The negative comments about covenant theology could come from MacArthur, but most of the really strong opinions would originate (I suspect) with Busnitz or Thomas.

So, TMS has not changed, MacArthur has. But, with the "old man" (meant with the greatest affection) propounding Calvinist soteriology, it would not surprise me if many of the younger faculty don't reflect MacArthur more than they do some of the original faculty from the Talbot split days.

Historical revisionism being what it is (not to mention Christian charity erasing old wounds), it would not surprise me to hear both institutions papering over the bitterness of the origin when they tell the story today. But, as a pastor at that time with a seminarian attending TMS during the split, I can assure you that folks at Biola were pretty angry and bitter at the time, feeling that MacArthur hijacked the seminary (some complaining that he "stole" it from Biola). Obviously the people at TMS had a very different perspective, believing that it was an act of fidelity to the Gospel to separate from Talbot so "willing" to adjust to the ATS requirements.

Finally, TMS has a dispensational view of the church and eschatology, views at odds with covenant theology. They are also invariably credo baptists who do not want to reconsider that position either. So, while there is a trend among broad evangelicals to be "new Calvinists," that does not correlate with a desire to move to "Reformed" theology, merely to adopt TULIP soteriology. People such as Dr. Clark and others emphasize that "Reformed" theology is more than TULIP. Many on the PB say that it is TULIP + covenant theology + confessional subscription. Some would say that it also involves a commitment to paedo baptism and an eschatology that eschews dispensational premillennialism (Reformed folks can be found who are amil, postmil, and historic premil, but arguably not dispensational premil).

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Dennis,

This is VERY helpful. To quote Johnny Carson, "I did not know that!"

Damon,

At WSC we don't have classes of 100. We RARELY have classes of 50. I have a class of 40 for Med-Ref but when I go to lunch with a student, I do it as a practicing pastor not an isolated academic.

Our faculty are pastors. We shepherd our students and we help to shepherd congregations. We preach. We hatch, match, and dispatch so the dichotomy you may have experienced or imagine just doesn't exist at WSC.

We're just as passionate about PRACTICE as we are about theory. We have a doctrine of the church. We want our students to be good and active and wise churchmen. So we prepare them with that in mind.

We understand that we cannot do everything a local church does. We know that we CAN'T and shouldn't. That's why we assign 700 hours of internship in local churches who work with our faculty or with whom we cooperate to help train pastors.

As one who has been involved in pastoral ministry since 1984 (when I began seminary) and who began formal, active ministry in 1987 I think the analogy with surgery is quite apt. I was fortunate to have a wonderful mentor in Norman Hoeflinger. He took me by the hand for 2 years and taught me a great deal about ministry.

That internship only really worked, however, because we spoke the same language even though he graduated from WTS in 1955 and I graduated from WSC almost 30 years later. Still, we had basically the same training, the same vocabulary, the same basic approach to exegesis, languages etc. In other words, because we had the same theoretical preparation the practical was that much more useful.

The two work together.

As a teacher I'm convinced (and there is research to show) that distance ed is a terrible way to prepare men to handle God's Word, to teach God's people, and to shepherd the flock of Christ.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Howdy,

I have heard that Southeastern is just as much (Soteriologically) reformed as Southern. Anyone know if there is any truth to that?

How SEBTS stacks-up apples-for-apples with Southern I'm not sure. However, I can say that they are a good school with a greater emphasis on preaching and practical ministry than perhaps Southern which is more academic in its emphasis. I've been told that Danny Akin (SEBTS President) is a five-point Calvinist. However, I'm not certain if he is or not. I am certain that he's at least a four-pointer (if you believe in such a thing). I know that their Professor of Systematic Theology, John Hammett is indeed a five-pointer. Which is a pretty influential post for an unashamed Calvinist to hold.

That said, schools are like churches. You'll never find the perfect one. As a Baptist, I would recommend both Southern and Southeastern as fine academic institutions. Notwithstanding their paedobaptisitic teaching and higher tuition, WTS and WSC are also great schools.

 

[fredtgreco]

Fred,

You're saying that med students don't actually learn anything? They don't really learn the difference between this sort of incision and that or between this approach and that or between this organ and that? I guess that folks sitting for their MCAT would probably tell you differently.

I can say at WSC education is a LOT more than simply weeding out folks so that the real preparation can take place in an internship.

It's not an either/or proposition. It's a both/and situation.

What I am saying is that in both law and medicine (and I also believe pastoral ministry) the practical experience and training ("apprenticeship" if you will) are FAR more valuable than schooling. That does not mean that schooling is unimportant. It is. But it is not that important without the training/apprenticeship.

Look, I don't know what the lawyers on campus say, but when a law school graduate arrives at a firm (and I have worked with Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Columbia, et al grads) he knows less and is far less capable at the job than a high school graduate legal assistant with 5-10 years experience. In fact, to be honest, a first year lawyer is basically worthless (with respect to actual work). But that does not mean that they wasted their education. It means that they need to realize how little prepared they are, and that they need a whole other area of preparation. Once they have BOTH education and experience, they are useful and successful.

You and I have different perspectives. Obviously, you think the greatest danger to a successful ministry is a lack of brick and mortar seminar prep. I don't . I think the greatest danger is a lack of experience and preparedness for the task of pastoring. That does not mean (and I always say this in these exchanges) that I think brick and mortar seminaries are bad or useless. They are not. They are good things. But if I have a choice between a seminary grad with no (or little) experience, or a distance guy (or no seminary) with 10+ years of real (and successful) experience as a pastor, I will take the latter every time.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Dennis,

This is VERY helpful. To quote Johnny Carson, "I did not know that!"

Damon,

At WSC we don't have classes of 100. We RARELY have classes of 50. I have a class of 40 for Med-Ref but when I go to lunch with a student, I do it as a practicing pastor not an isolated academic.

Our faculty are pastors. We shepherd our students and we help to shepherd congregations. We preach. We hatch, match, and dispatch so the dichotomy you may have experienced or imagine just doesn't exist at WSC.

We're just as passionate about PRACTICE as we are about theory. We have a doctrine of the church. We want our students to be good and active and wise churchmen. So we prepare them with that in mind.

We understand that we cannot do everything a local church does. We know that we CAN'T and shouldn't. That's why we assign 700 hours of internship in local churches who work with our faculty or with whom we cooperate to help train pastors.

As one who has been involved in pastoral ministry since 1984 (when I began seminary) and who began formal, active ministry in 1987 I think the analogy with surgery is quite apt. I was fortunate to have a wonderful mentor in Norman Hoeflinger. He took me by the hand for 2 years and taught me a great deal about ministry.

That internship only really worked, however, because we spoke the same language even though he graduated from WTS in 1955 and I graduated from WSC almost 30 years later. Still, we had basically the same training, the same vocabulary, the same basic approach to exegesis, languages etc. In other words, because we had the same theoretical preparation the practical was that much more useful.

The two work together.

All of what you said, even if true, would only apply to practical classes, not theoretical classes (like Church history, languages, etc.). There is absolutely NO advantage, in such classes, in being in a class with dozens of other people. I can name a slew of famous preachers and pastors, who learned such things in the quiet of their own studies, without the many times harmful influences in the B & M classroom.

As a teacher I'm convinced (and there is research to show) that distance ed is a terrible way to prepare men to handle God's Word, to teach God's people, and to shepherd the flock of Christ.

I have met just as many teachers, with just as much experience, that believe that it is not. Regardless, the studies show that Online learning is superior for acquisition of knowledge.

Could you please give examples of studies demonstrating that B & M seminaries produce better Pastors, than the distance ed./local church mentor-ship model? Please make sure such studies exclude people who were not under the authority and guidance of local elders/pastors.

 

[Wannabee]

Dennis,

I think you hit this pretty close. Obviously TMS is not confessional in the historic sense. Among the faculty you'll find Dr. Thomas as one of the more old school dispensationalists and others who are more along the lines of progressives. I would include Dr. Mayhue in your list of strong dispnesationalists too. Covenantalism is frowned upon, but I never heard anyone say anything remotely similar to "it would ruin your ministry." I was very involved with TMS while there and knew of some who either were covenantalists or changed their views. Of course, to be fair, the reaction of WSC to one of their students embracing dispensationalism would likely be similar to what we would see at TMS.

We've discussed all this before. Unfortunately ideas and hearsay are presented as truth all too often, and propagated irresponsibly. I was not pretrib when I arrived at TMS. I was not when I left. And it was NEVER a factor. I was probably one of the most ardent in regard to God's sovereignty in soteriology, and had one professor disagree with a nuance in a paper, but it did not affect my grade. He knew my position was more in line with MacArthur's and I had presented it well.

What has happened though, is that TMS has had an influence of covenantalism among some students that seems to have caused some concern. One graduate at one of the international schools came out of the post-mil closet, so to speak. They, understandably, could not keep him on as a teacher. He was asked to withdraw from the mission field - at least under their banner.

When folks at TMS recall the separation from Talbot it's simply a matter of fact. There is no apparent animosity or ire there. From their perspective Talbot compromised and they'd have no part in it.

It might be helpful to understand that TMS does not aspire to train academicians. They aspire to train men to exposit Scripture. Classes focus on exegesis and exposition. Theology is taught (4 semesters). Ecclesiology is taught. Historical theology is taught. Bible survey is taught. Counseling is taught (nouthetic). But the fluff is largely nonexistent. They offer one primary degree with one curriculum aimed at teaching to exposit Scripture, contrary to some claims in this thread. They don't make pastors. They train men, men who should already be qualified biblically, to learn to study God's Word responsibly and submit to His authority as found therein. If someone wants a broader education then, simply put, TMS is not he place for them. If they want to learn good exegetical and expositional skills, then it is a great place for them. If they do not already possess the character to shepherd God's flock and are not recognized as such by God's people, it's better for all involved if they'd not go to any seminary until God clarifies their calling. Seminary, in many (if not most) cases will further ruin such a man with knowledge that builds up pride.

I'd like to add one more note. I looked very hard for someone to train me before heading off to seminary. One pastor worked with me a bit, but said he couldn't do it and that I should go to seminary. Most simply didn't have the vision (I consider this a lack of obedience to Scriptural mandate) to train men for the ministry. As I neared the end of my seminary training I continued to look for a church where I could study under a pastor. It's hard to find such a situation. They want experience. Who can blame them? I just wanted to learn to be an effective shepherd and to love God's people as I should. There is much I learned from mistakes made. I would never counsel someone to take the road I took. And, honestly, I think I was on that road because of my own ignorance and pride coupled with the lack of vision and obedience of the local church to train men up in the ministry. Perhaps there is a lesson for us all in this.

Blessings,
Joe

 

[Covenant Joel]

Dennis,
As a teacher I'm convinced (and there is research to show) that distance ed is a terrible way to prepare men to handle God's Word, to teach God's people, and to shepherd the flock of Christ.

Dr. Clark,

With respect, I disagree about this. I've had both opportunities. I was on campus at a Reformed seminary for a year. I really enjoyed it. I am now finishing my degree by distance. I would say that I'm more passionate about my studies now, more engaged in the material, and looking for ways to apply it more now than when I was on campus.

Because my program requires I meet with a mentor, I meet on a regular basis with an experienced ruling elder and an ordained TE in the PCA who is a long-term missionary. That is something I didn't really have while on campus. Sure, I could ask questions after class, and did so, and at weekly luncheons (if you got a table with your prof), but to be honest, general interaction with professors was minimal. One professor was kind enough to take me out to lunch once, which was appreciated and helpful obviously. But in general, I was mostly left to myself...and the most conversations I had regarding the material was with friends that I had before seminary.

Now, via distance learning, I get to focus on the content and discuss the material with friends and experienced mentors. I also have the opportunity to be involved in teaching (in a Christian school) and in the local church (and I can afford to do it since I'm working full-time).

This is not to say that B & M seminary education is bad...I did enjoy it, and for some personality types and specific situations, it would be far preferable. But I do think that distance education can be a legitimate alternative for those with the proper motivation and proper oversight and encouragement.

 

[TaylorWest]

Why Southern

Taylor,

Why do you consider Southern the best seminary out there right now? I don't have any stake in this as I have never been to seminary--just wondering. Thanks.

Southern has just passed through a very bloody battle with liberalism. The close proximity to the carnage gives it a clarity that can not be gained in any other way. As far as I can tell, its Profs are not playing academic games and there is no attraction to devastating compromises.

 

[David J Houston]

...

Just wanted to throw in my two cents about the common complaint that WTS is too academic. When I went to visit WTS during their prospective student days, I sat down with their admissions guy for a while and I asked him to respond to that criticism. He smiled, told me that he wasn't a great Hebrew student and that one of his profs who knew this sat him down one day and informed him that if he found out that he had got anything higher than a B on his final exam he would be speaking to the guy's wife to see if he had neglected his husbandly duties in order to pull off the grade. That doesn't sound like the cold, academic environment that I had been told about.

Just sayin'....

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Joel,

our faculty members spend one-on-one time with students every day. It's the best partof the job. The group settings, class, small group prayer, those are just the beginning. We hang out with and go to lunch with, have dinner with our students all the time. That's where the mentoring takes place. We have something like 11 students for every faculty member, so it's quite intimate here.

Dennis,
As a teacher I'm convinced (and there is research to show) that distance ed is a terrible way to prepare men to handle God's Word, to teach God's people, and to shepherd the flock of Christ.

Dr. Clark,

With respect, I disagree about this. I've had both opportunities. I was on campus at a Reformed seminary for a year. I really enjoyed it. I am now finishing my degree by distance. I would say that I'm more passionate about my studies now, more engaged in the material, and looking for ways to apply it more now than when I was on campus.

Because my program requires I meet with a mentor, I meet on a regular basis with an experienced ruling elder and an ordained TE in the PCA who is a long-term missionary. That is something I didn't really have while on campus. Sure, I could ask questions after class, and did so, and at weekly luncheons (if you got a table with your prof), but to be honest, general interaction with professors was minimal. One professor was kind enough to take me out to lunch once, which was appreciated and helpful obviously. But in general, I was mostly left to myself...and the most conversations I had regarding the material was with friends that I had before seminary.

Now, via distance learning, I get to focus on the content and discuss the material with friends and experienced mentors. I also have the opportunity to be involved in teaching (in a Christian school) and in the local church (and I can afford to do it since I'm working full-time).

This is not to say that B & M seminary education is bad...I did enjoy it, and for some personality types and specific situations, it would be far preferable. But I do think that distance education can be a legitimate alternative for those with the proper motivation and proper oversight and encouragement.

 

[Covenant Joel]

Joel,

our faculty members spend one-on-one time with students every day. It's the best partof the job. The group settings, class, small group prayer, those are just the beginning. We hang out with and go to lunch with, have dinner with our students all the time. That's where the mentoring takes place. We have something like 11 students for every faculty member, so it's quite intimate here.

Dr. Clark,

That sounds wonderful...something that would be great for other seminaries to emulate. And I've recommended friends to WSC in the past, and it's good to hear that there is a personal component to it.

I believe all that I'm saying is that such mentoring can be accomplished outside of a B & M format...not for everyone, not for every situation, not for every personality type, etc. But to say across the board that it is never acceptable...I'm just not sure about that. I've had both experiences, and have done fine in both.

But I genuinely am glad to hear that WSC has such a great mentoring environment. If it had worked out for me to be a full-time student on campus, that would have been fine...but this is where I am, and I believe I'm getting just as much out of it as I was on campus.

Blessings.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Could you please give examples of studies demonstrating that B & M seminaries produce better Pastors, than the distance ed./local church mentor-ship model? Please make sure such studies exclude people who were not under the authority and guidance of local elders/pastors.

I will assume, Dr. Clark, that such studies do not exist, then?