Seminary Choice: TMS, Southern or Westminster?

Status
Not open for further replies.
With all due respect Dr. Clark (and I have tons of respect for you), I think your argument is better formulated as WSC vs. online degrees. I think WSC (as you have described it) would offer a better option than an online degree, but unfortunatley I think WSC is unique compared to other B&M seminaries. In my limited experience at seminary the professors are nice, but serious mentorship is non-existent. I learned more this past semester from my assigned readings than I did in actual class. I would have received the same level of education via distance learning.

I had a professor discuss once on how a prof is suppose to stay relevant in a world where information is at everyone's fingertips via the internet. I think what you describe at WSC is the answer to the problem. You stay relevant by being available to students as a type of mentor.

Just my two cents.
 
Joel,

There's a real live sem in your hometown. I'm not telling you what to do and I do understand the draw of distance ed but you don't have time to drive across town? The Springs isn't that big.
 
Damon,

I don't know of any such studies.

I do know of studies which have been described in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that have described the difference in results between DE and real ed at the undergrad level. Fearful of losing "market share" many sems have begun to incorporate DE into their approach without seriously evaluating the effect. I saw the same thing 10 years ago with the DMin. Just as we began to phase our our DMin program because we weren't happy with the process or the results (and some of us had qualms with the very notion of "professional doctoral" degrees). Schools rushed in with very little research in order not to miss out on market share. In other words, schools sometimes implement programs not because they are pedagogically sound but because they generate revenue.

I say this as one who helped to homeschool two children and who participates more than most academics in the online world (a blog, two podcasts, and the PB). I understand the power and utility of the web and DE but I question the wisdom and the outcome of DE trained pastors.
 
Joel,

There's a real live sem in your hometown. I'm not telling you what to do and I do understand the draw of distance ed but you don't have time to drive across town? The Springs isn't that big.

Dr. Clark,

I'm not going there for two reasons: 1) I did half my degree at RTS-O, so it made sense to not lose credits by a transfer. 2) The seminary in the Springs is not accredited. Given your posts on your blog a while back, I'm surprised you're suggesting a non-accredited degree as a substitute. Additionally, I only moved to the Springs in August from the Middle East, and I began distance classes prior to getting into the Springs.

I do hear good things about the school and the people involved from others who attend or have attended. After I finish my degree with RTS, I may consider taking some additional classes there, but for now I'm happy with what I'm doing. Thanks for your thoughts though.
 
Damon,

I don't know of any such studies.

I do know of studies which have been described in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that have described the difference in results between DE and real ed at the undergrad level.
Dr. Clark,

All of the studies that I have seen, including the Meta analysis done by the DoE, I believe, show decisively that Distance ed. students actually do BETTER than Brick and Mortar students, across the board.

Fearful of losing "market share" many sems have begun to incorporate DE into their approach without seriously evaluating the effect. I saw the same thing 10 years ago with the DMin. Just as we began to phase our our DMin program because we weren't happy with the process or the results (and some of us had qualms with the very notion of "professional doctoral" degrees). Schools rushed in with very little research in order not to miss out on market share.
So, not only do you have a problem with the Superior (according to the evidence) Distance ed. studies, you also have a problem with professional doctoral studies.

Do you just not like any studies not done at your seminary, Dr. Clark? :lol:

In other words, schools sometimes implement programs not because they are pedagogically sound but because they generate revenue.

The studies demonstrate that DE is indeed sound: so this argument holds no water.

I say this as one who helped to homeschool two children and who participates more than most academics in the online world (a blog, two podcasts, and the PB). I understand the power and utility of the web and DE but I question the wisdom and the outcome of DE trained pastors.

I appreciate the work you do. But as a relatively young guy (well, mid 30's), I have to say that you, and your institution, have two options. One, you can ignore the statistically sound, quality teaching available through DE, and you WILL (not might) go extinct. It is a technological world now, and we are to be "in" the world, not hold tenaciously to traditions of men, which have no scriptural support.

Two: you can adapt to the technological environment, as many great seminaries have (RTS, SBTS), realizing that the science says a mixture of DE and B & M is actually the BEST combination for students.
 
Damon -

After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of "scientific studies" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.
 
Damon -

After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of "scientific studies" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.

I don't understand how you think that could defy logic. There is good reason why Distance Education can be superior. More time actually studying the material, instead of time wasted in off topic discussions with others who know just as little as yourself. A quieter, less distracting environment. Fewer distractions with things like going out to lunch with other students, rushing across town to get to class on time, etc.

There are good, logical reasons for the results. And I am unsure how you can argue with studies which simply demonstrate that one group of people learned the subject matter better than the other.
 
Damon,
Where have you studied and where did you obtain your degree from if you don't mind my asking?
 
Damon -

After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of "scientific studies" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.

I don't understand how you think that could defy logic. There is good reason why Distance Education can be superior. More time actually studying the material, instead of time wasted in off topic discussions with others who know just as little as yourself. A quieter, less distracting environment. Fewer distractions with things like going out to lunch with other students, rushing across town to get to class on time, etc.

There are good, logical reasons for the results. And I am unsure how you can argue with studies which simply demonstrate that one group of people learned the subject matter better than the other.

To be precise, I didn't say it defies logic... I said it defies common sense! And in that vein... you paint an awfully rosy picture about DE. Quieter less distracting environment... Hah! Everyone I know who does DE education tries to squeeze in a bit of reading in between work, chores, screaming kids, an impatient spouse... And that interaction with other students helps prevent "intellectual ingrownness" that I've seen so often in folks who do theological degrees via independent/DE format.
 
Damon,
Where have you studied and where did you obtain your degree from if you don't mind my asking?

LOL. At the risk of alienating everyone on the board....

I just started working on my M.Div., friend ( I currently have 15 graduate hours). Currently, I am taking classes as a degree student at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, and as a non-degree student at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I have an unaccredited Bachelor of Arts in Religious studies, and as of March (when graduation occurs: once per year), I will receive an accredited 3 year BTh from SA Theological.

Why do you ask?
 
Damon -

After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of "scientific studies" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.

I don't understand how you think that could defy logic. There is good reason why Distance Education can be superior. More time actually studying the material, instead of time wasted in off topic discussions with others who know just as little as yourself. A quieter, less distracting environment. Fewer distractions with things like going out to lunch with other students, rushing across town to get to class on time, etc.

There are good, logical reasons for the results. And I am unsure how you can argue with studies which simply demonstrate that one group of people learned the subject matter better than the other.

To be precise, I didn't say it defies logic... I said it defies common sense! And in that vein... you paint an awfully rosy picture about DE. Quieter less distracting environment... Hah! Everyone I know who does DE education tries to squeeze in a bit of reading in between work, chores, screaming kids, an impatient spouse...
Which is all exactly the same with Brick and Mortar Seminaries...except after you do all of that, you lose another thirty minutes to an hour trying to get to class on time.

Personally, I work on my studies in my office at Church (which is across the street), or sometimes my loving wife takes the kids somewhere..

And that interaction with other students helps prevent "intellectual ingrownness" that I've seen so often in folks who do theological degrees via independent/DE format.

You get that interaction with other students with DE via Discussion Boards: the difference is, it is forced to stay on topic, instead of hearing fishing stories for 20 minutes of the class...
 
Damon,
Where have you studied and where did you obtain your degree from if you don't mind my asking?

LOL. At the risk of alienating everyone on the board....

I just started working on my M.Div., friend ( I currently have 15 graduate hours). Currently, I am taking classes as a degree student at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, and as a non-degree student at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I have an unaccredited Bachelor of Arts in Religious studies, and as of March (when graduation occurs: once per year), I will receive an accredited 3 year BTh from SA Theological.

Why do you ask?

Thank you. I was just curious.
 
I don't understand how you think that could defy logic. There is good reason why Distance Education can be superior. More time actually studying the material, instead of time wasted in off topic discussions with others who know just as little as yourself. A quieter, less distracting environment. Fewer distractions with things like going out to lunch with other students, rushing across town to get to class on time, etc.

There are good, logical reasons for the results. And I am unsure how you can argue with studies which simply demonstrate that one group of people learned the subject matter better than the other.

To be precise, I didn't say it defies logic... I said it defies common sense! And in that vein... you paint an awfully rosy picture about DE. Quieter less distracting environment... Hah! Everyone I know who does DE education tries to squeeze in a bit of reading in between work, chores, screaming kids, an impatient spouse...
Which is all exactly the same with Brick and Mortar Seminaries...except after you do all of that, you lose another thirty minutes to an hour trying to get to class on time.

Personally, I work on my studies in my office at Church (which is across the street), or sometimes my loving wife takes the kids somewhere..

And that interaction with other students helps prevent "intellectual ingrownness" that I've seen so often in folks who do theological degrees via independent/DE format.

You get that interaction with other students with DE via Discussion Boards: the difference is, it is forced to stay on topic, instead of hearing fishing stories for 20 minutes of the class...

About the studying environment: My point was it is no better, so why on earth would I think it would produce a better product?
About interactions... it would be impossible to convince me that discussion board "interactions" are as formative or helpful in developing one's theology or, just as importantly, learning how to think and communicate with real people in real time. No form of personal interaction can substitute for reallife. You would literally be wasting your time to try to convince me otherwise.
 
To be precise, I didn't say it defies logic... I said it defies common sense! And in that vein... you paint an awfully rosy picture about DE. Quieter less distracting environment... Hah! Everyone I know who does DE education tries to squeeze in a bit of reading in between work, chores, screaming kids, an impatient spouse...
Which is all exactly the same with Brick and Mortar Seminaries...except after you do all of that, you lose another thirty minutes to an hour trying to get to class on time.

Personally, I work on my studies in my office at Church (which is across the street), or sometimes my loving wife takes the kids somewhere..

And that interaction with other students helps prevent "intellectual ingrownness" that I've seen so often in folks who do theological degrees via independent/DE format.

You get that interaction with other students with DE via Discussion Boards: the difference is, it is forced to stay on topic, instead of hearing fishing stories for 20 minutes of the class...

About the studying environment: My point was it is no better, so why on earth would I think it would produce a better product?
About interactions... it would be impossible to convince me that discussion board "interactions" are as formative or helpful in developing one's theology or, just as importantly, learning how to think and communicate with real people in real time.
I believe these are two things best accomplished separately. Learning verbal communication skills, is not something you can study: it is something you learn by doing, and in my opinion, the better, as well as more Biblical way of doing this, is under a Pastor and Elders interning in a local Church.
No form of personal interaction can substitute for reallife.
Nor can a fake environment in a Classsroom. You need real, hands on experience under a real pastor, at a real church.

You would literally be wasting your time to try to convince me otherwise.

That's o.k. I am hard headed like that.

I am willing to concede that SOME classes would be better in a B & M environment ( praactical classes like Homiletics, pastoral counseling), however, I think other more "academic" classes, would actually be better in a DE environment (Language classes, Church History, etc.).
 
Hi Damon,

I’m glad you’re enjoying your time in Liberty’s program, but can I ask what you have to compare it to? In my case I thought Liberty’s DL program suffered in comparison to the Western Seminary (branch campus) residence classes and so switched to Liberty’s residence program, which I thought was better. I can also compare Liberty with the residential seminary I did my Th.M. at, as well as two major universities.

You mentioned language courses as a type of class that could best be taught online. To quote CS Lewis’ bulldog from The Magician’s Nephew, “I object to that remark very strongly .” I’ve taken Greek from Homeric to Attic to Koine, and I’ve tutored it as well. Can one learn enough to be functional through DL? Yes, through struggle, but DL can’t be the optimal way to teach it. We process learning a new language best the same way we learned our native language when we were children - through hearing it spoken. It’s also helpful to hear correct pronunciation and get it right early by having an expert there to immediately correct it. That helps understanding the pattern of morphological changes which are frequently driven by how a language sounds when spoken.

You referenced having to waste time in an oversized class listening to other students who were ignorant and talked of fishing, but I don’t think that has to be the case. One of the major differences between DL and residence is the small discussion seminar. At a good school with good students, a prof can moderate a vigorous discussion about theology or history that is synergistically beneficial, because everyone has done the reading, has thought carefully about it, and is capable of articulating those thoughts, and interacting with opposing positions right then, because they've internalized the material. It drives the learning curve way up. That high-pressure scenario, where you have to know your stuff and know it well enough to articulate it sans notes with students who may not agree with your interpretation (or the prof who will test your argument) is invaluable. Believe me, when you’re the lone Reformed student in a roomful of Jesuits at Boston College, you’ve got to be on the ball! :) I know from experience that Liberty’s asynchronous discussion board software can’t replicate this, and I’m not convinced that any online attempt could.
 
Last edited:
Hi Damon,

I’m glad you’re enjoying your time in Liberty’s program, but can I ask what you have to compare it to? In my case I thought Liberty’s DL program suffered in comparison to the Western Seminary (branch campus) residence classes and so switched to Liberty’s residence program, which I thought was better. I can also compare Liberty with the residential seminary I did my Th.M. at, as well as two major universities.

I am curious when you did your studies at Liberty? Liberty's DE classes have gone through a complete revamp over the last year and a half, and from what I hear (from people who were their before and after), it is completely different. The research and writing requirements are more stringent, their is more interaction required, etc.

Also, I think this depends on the individual. I am a bit of a monk. I learn best in the quiet of my study. My brain does not retain knowledge through a verbal format (this is true of many people), so verbal discussions, even if interesting and enjoyable, do next to nothing to help me knowledge wise.


You mentioned language courses as a type of class that could best be taught online. To quote CS Lewis’ bulldog from The Magician’s Nephew, “I object to that remark very strongly .” I’ve taken Greek from Homeric to Attic to Koine, and I’ve tutored it as well. Can one learn enough to be functional through DL? Yes, through struggle, but DL can’t be the optimal way to teach it. We process learning a new language best the same way we learned our native language when we were children - through hearing it spoken. It’s also helpful to hear correct pronunciation and get it right early by having an expert there to immediately correct it. That helps understanding the pattern of morphological changes which are frequently driven by how a language sounds when spoken.

All of this can easily be accomplished through Mounce, Hildebrandt, etc. They have vast audio sources, which cover every part of their textbooks. Every word in the New Testament, can be heard by audio now.

And as one who taught himself Greek before he ever entered a Seminary class (at least, first year Greek), and considering the great men of God who did the same before me, I have to say I believe your statement is flat wrong. Learning the languages today is easier than it has ever been. And the time spent traveling to and from class, and in class talking about whatever, is better spent studying.

You referenced having to waste time in an oversized class listening to other students who were ignorant and talked of fishing, but I don’t think that has to be the case. One of the major differences between DL and residence is the small discussion seminar. At a good school with good students, a prof can moderate a vigorous discussion about theology or history that is synergistically beneficial, because everyone has done the reading, has thought carefully about it, and is capable of articulating those thoughts, and interacting with opposing positions right then, because they've internalized the material. It drives the learning curve way up. That high-pressure scenario, where you have to know your stuff and know it well enough to articulate it sans notes with students who may not agree with your interpretation (or the prof who will test your argument) is invaluable. Believe me, when you’re the lone Reformed student in a roomful of Jesuits at Boston College, you’ve got to be on the ball! :) I know from experience that Liberty’s asynchronous discussion board software can’t replicate this, and I’m not convinced that any online attempt could.
There actually have been a couple of studies which casts great doubt on the value of verbal communication as a way of accumulating information. The problem is, it does not "stick" with most people. Liberty, for one, has been increasing their research and writing, and eliminating the DVD lectures from their classes, for precisely that reason. Reading and research is a much better, and more permanent, way of learning.
 
Liberty's DL program is severely lacking in any real attempt to combat heretical views. I took my entire undergrad at Liberty via DL, so I have some background. The profs have 30+ per class and multiple classes to study and work with. They next to never get in on the discussions and correct bad beliefs. I had discussions with open theists, universalists, and even a lady to felt that angels did not exist (she achieved this conclusion by learning that theophanies were sometimes refered to as an angel of the Lord, so therefore all references to angels must be a reference to Jesus).

I also caught a student copy paragraphs of Matthew Henry and Calvin and pawn it off as her own. I brought it to the prof's attention and the student got away with it because she claimed she thought this was how you cite your sources.

No offense, but LIberty DL program is focused on numbers. There is no real oversight and no real mentorship. I learned nothing from my professors. I learned only from my readings and questions I would post here on PB.
 
Liberty's DL program is severely lacking in any real attempt to combat heretical views. I took my entire undergrad at Liberty via DL, so I have some background. The profs have 30+ per class and multiple classes to study and work with. They next to never get in on the discussions and correct bad beliefs. I had discussions with open theists, universalists, and even a lady to felt that angels did not exist (she achieved this conclusion by learning that theophanies were sometimes refered to as an angel of the Lord, so therefore all references to angels must be a reference to Jesus).

I also caught a student copy paragraphs of Matthew Henry and Calvin and pawn it off as her own. I brought it to the prof's attention and the student got away with it because she claimed she thought this was how you cite your sources.

No offense, but LIberty DL program is focused on numbers. There is no real oversight and no real mentorship. I learned nothing from my professors. I learned only from my readings and questions I would post here on PB.

The University and Seminary are different. The most people I have had in the class is 19, with most of them being around ten. My professors commented on nearly every post that I made. For one of my classes, there was only 5. Dr. Micheal Grisanti (Professor of Old Testament at the Masters Seminary), had actually taken on a class at Liberty: he taught that one. He rebuked one individual for not interacting deep enough with the material, and in front of all, stated flatly that she was going to fail the course.

I have heard similar things about the University: but the University and Seminary programs are worlds apart. Several of my friends have taken classes at Liberty and then moved on to Southern (due to some theological conflicts...) and stated categorically that the classes are of equal rigor.
 
You’ve heard that Liberty has become more rigorous and you’ve taught yourself Greek. Fine. We can agree to disagree.

On this last point, though, we’re talking past each other. You’re stating that verbal communication is a poor way of accumulating information. I'm referring to something higher up Bloom’s taxonomy than accumulation of data. In a small seminar one has to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate, while interacting with others under pressure. This is supervised by the professor who can correct, guide, and evaluate weaknesses that can be shored up through in-class discussion and/or personal mentoring.

Regardless of our disagreeing, best wishes on your studies Damon.

David
 
Last edited:
You’ve heard that Liberty has become more rigorous

David

I did not say "heard" my friend (at least as of their program NOW). It is a fact that Liberty has revamped there seminary classes. What I have "heard" was the reputation of the classes before they revamped it, of which I know nothing. I only know that NOW, there syllabus' are equivalent to any of the big six in a given class, that the professors are very stringent, and that the writing requirements are large. Comparing the Syllabus' of Liberty, to that of New Orleans Baptist, for instance,there is little question that Liberty is at least as, if not more, rigorous.
 
Last edited:
A syllabus is a poor way of determining academic rigor. For example, my Hermeneutics class and my NT class had basically the same requirements in terms of weekly quizzes and term papers. The NT class even had less weekly reading, but the NT class was 10x harder than the Hermeneutics. The weekly quizzes were insane, the mid-term and finals were out of this world, and I took on average 8 pages of notes per lecture class. Hermeneutics on the other hand was a breeze and I was pretty bored in that class.
 
A syllabus is a poor way of determining academic rigor.
An analysis of the students who complete the course, and the syllabus itself, is the only OBJECTIVE way of determining rigor. The studies show that DE students retain more than B & M. The Syllabus says its equivalent. Everything else is opinion.
For example, my Hermeneutics class and my NT class had basically the same requirements in terms of weekly quizzes and term papers. The NT class even had less weekly reading, but the NT class was 10x harder than the Hermeneutics. The weekly quizzes were insane, the mid-term and finals were out of this world, and I took on average 8 pages of notes per lecture class. Hermeneutics on the other hand was a breeze and I was pretty bored in that class.

In my own experience, the NT Survey class was among the easiest I completed, even though it consisted of extensive writing. Others may struggle with some of the concepts in Hermeneutics, and believe it is more difficult. Some might believe that B & M is easier: others may believe it is more difficult than DE: this is all opinion.

In every MEASURABLE, scientifically demonstrable way, Liberty classes are equivalent. As I have already stated, there are a slew of people whose opinion of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (not University), is that it is equal, or even more difficult than other institutions such as Southern. If all that you have done is undergrad work at the University (which is, by it's nature, not even close to the same thing), you really have no place of comparison.
 
Last edited:
I'm referring to something higher up Bloom’s taxonomy than accumulation of data. In a small seminar one has to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate, while interacting with others under pressure. This is supervised by the professor who can correct, guide, and evaluate weaknesses that can be shored up through in-class discussion and/or personal mentoring.

David
This is a critical point. Distance Education is not of much value (in my opinion) without having a rigorous mentoring situation. By that I mean something like weekly meetings with a pastor.
 
I will return the favor you asked of Dr. Clark earlier, you keep mentioning studies, can you please provide these studies?

In terms of objective rigor, the current Army Chief of Chaplains CH (BG) Carver has implemented a two year ministry stipulation as a requirement for all new chaplains. His reason? (and I heard this from his very mouth standing not 15 ft from me) Too many chaplains are coming from online degree backgrounds and have no experience in application and have next to no people skills, most cannot preach their way out of a paper bag. They have simply spent too much time behind a computer and not enough time in the field.

I know that you will come back with the whole being mentored by the local church so I will respond to it before you do. Most DE programs do not require mentorship from someone local. They may require a letter of recommendation from your current church, but that is about the extent of it.

I was not attempting to compare Liberty undergrad to Southern Seminary. I recognize they are not the same thing. I have not even tried to point out that DE is any less rigorous than a B&M. The only topic I dealt with was that I felt Liberty did not properly mentor its students and a syllabus is a poor way of determining academic rigor.
 
I will return the favor you asked of Dr. Clark earlier, you keep mentioning studies, can you please provide these studies?

No problem. Here is the actual Meta Analysis of the various studies, done by the department of education

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

And here is a summary, in case you don't want to read through all the data

Study Finds That Online Education Beats the Classroom - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com


In terms of objective rigor, the current Army Chief of Chaplains CH (BG) Carver has implemented a two year ministry stipulation as a requirement for all new chaplains. His reason? (and I heard this from his very mouth standing not 15 ft from me) Too many chaplains are coming from online degree backgrounds and have no experience in application and have next to no people skills, most cannot preach their way out of a paper bag. They have simply spent too much time behind a computer and not enough time in the field.

RIGHT! I totally agree! But a classroom does not help. People need real world experience, not fake world experience in a clasroom, whether digital, or in the flesh. A DE student, under the internship of a real pastor and real elders at a REAL church, would be the optimum, in my opnion.

I know that you will come back with the whole being mentored by the local church so I will respond to it before you do. Most DE programs do not require mentorship from someone local. They may require a letter of recommendation from your current church, but that is about the extent of it.

I don't know about the rest, but Liberty Seminary, as part of the requirements into Pastoral programs, (M.Div. etc.) requires you to be aan active member of a local church.

I was not attempting to compare Liberty undergrad to Southern Seminary. I recognize they are not the same thing. I have not even tried to point out that DE is any less rigorous than a B&M. The only topic I dealt with was that I felt Liberty did not properly mentor its students and a syllabus is a poor way of determining academic rigor.
Not really. Seeing the requirements for a class (syllabus) and seeing the results of that study (see Meta Study, above), are really the only two OBJECTIVE way of determining rigor: everything else is opinion.
 
In terms of objective rigor, the current Army Chief of Chaplains CH (BG) Carver has implemented a two year ministry stipulation as a requirement for all new chaplains. His reason? (and I heard this from his very mouth standing not 15 ft from me) Too many chaplains are coming from online degree backgrounds and have no experience in application and have next to no people skills, most cannot preach their way out of a paper bag. They have simply spent too much time behind a computer and not enough time in the field.

Indeed, I heard him say the same thing. Except in our situation he was talking about endorsing agents needing to send "bona fide" ministers. His comments about education in that context were 1) too many DE folks not being able to communicate at a Master's level 2) too many not having the proper training to do practical ministry. He recounted how there was a situation in which the chaplain didn't know how to administer the Lord's Supper, so the chaplain assistant had to step up... he told of how one guy went from being a bug exterminator one day to an active duty chaplain the next without any ministry experience beyond teaching Sunday school because the endorsing agent approved him. In my estimation, CH Carver was serving notice that the days of anybody and everybody getting in are over.

DE theology programs usually produce very weak products. Of course there are exceptions, but it is folly to parade those exceptional few as if they are in any way indicative of the majority. And we need to base our rules on norms, not exceptions.
 
RIGHT! I totally agree! But a classroom does not help. People need real world experience, not fake world experience in a clasroom, whether digital, or in the flesh. A DE student, under the internship of a real pastor and real elders at a REAL church, would be the optimum, in my opnion.

I totally disagree - a classroom DOES help. It may not be all that is needed, but to say that it doesn't help is way overwrought.

I believe in the centrality of the local church. Unfortunately, most of the churches and most of the Christians and most of the pastors in our culture do not. I think you're able to take for granted here what "should" happen because you're in the company of people who have a high ecclesiology. But the fact is that most pastors and churches in this country are NOT prepared to properly train a minister. Indeed, I will refuse to name names, but I know a great many PCA ministers who have a working knowledge of the original languages just barely sufficient enough to enable them to use Bible study software. In my opinion it shouldn't be this way, but it is. I'm not saying these men can't counsel or can't apply the Word of God, but I am saying that a person can't teach what they don't know. Even when it comes to the "practical stuff" like preaching and counseling, many pastors have a style or approach that "works for them," (maybe!) but they don't know the basic principles to teach someone the borad strokes so that they can develop their own style.
If every pastor had a mind and a heart like that of our dear Rev. Greco, I'd be all over the idea that most of the instruction could occur in the local church. But as it is, lamentably most pastors are not like him in their intellectual prowess.
 
RIGHT! I totally agree! But a classroom does not help. People need real world experience, not fake world experience in a clasroom, whether digital, or in the flesh. A DE student, under the internship of a real pastor and real elders at a REAL church, would be the optimum, in my opnion.

I totally disagree - a classroom DOES help. It may not be all that is needed, but to say that it doesn't help is way overwrought.

I believe that a discussion forum is better for conversation. It requires one to stop and think; to digest what someone is saying. It helps temper the tendency in you average young seminarian, to make a quick reply. It robs a person of their flair, charisma, etc., and makes everyone discuss a subject on its merits alone.

As I said, in certain things, such as Homiletics, I can see the benefit of some classroom interaction. However, I think this is completely limited to certain practical types of classes: perhaps 1/3 of a total M. Div.

I believe in the centrality of the local church. Unfortunately, most of the churches and most of the Christians and most of the pastors in our culture do not. I think you're able to take for granted here what "should" happen because you're in the company of people who have a high ecclesiology. But the fact is that most pastors and churches in this country are NOT prepared to properly train a minister. Indeed, I will refuse to name names, but I know a great many PCA ministers who have a working knowledge of the original languages just barely sufficient enough to enable them to use Bible study software. In my opinion it shouldn't be this way, but it is. I'm not saying these men can't counsel or can't apply the Word of God, but I am saying that a person can't teach what they don't know. Even when it comes to the "practical stuff" like preaching and counseling, many pastors have a style or approach that "works for them," (maybe!) but they don't know the basic principles to teach someone the borad strokes so that they can develop their own style.
If every pastor had a mind and a heart like that of our dear Rev. Greco, I'd be all over the idea that most of the instruction could occur in the local church. But as it is, lamentably most pastors are not like him in their intellectual prowess.

I believe the scriptural method of training up young men is in the context of the Church: not the classroom. Just because certain men are not performing their duties as Pastor, does not invalidate a method. The fact that some Pastors are not doing their jobs, no more invalidates DE, than does the huge amount of B & M seminaries which have overloaded classes, and poor professors invalidate residential studies.

I have only met a few Pastors who have done their degrees primarily through DE, and all of them were in the top 10 percent of the Preachers whom I have met. I know one Pastor, who never went to Seminary (other than some unnacredtied Bible College work), who is probably the most Godly Pastor I know. The fact is, the optimum system, which combines mentorship and rigorous study from knowledgeable professors, is a DE program combined with internship at a local church. This combines the science, with the scriptural example; the best of both worlds.
 
Seeing how you live so close to Cedarville, I would talk to some people there.Get the ins and outs of a lot of different places. I would say (in my opinion) that your best 2 options are TEDS or Southern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top