Brick and Morter Seminaries v. Distance Ed Seminaries

Come on. There is a fundamental difference between seminary-level education and Sunday School, even in the best of churches.

The idea would be to train lay leaders who would then be better prepared to lead in the local church.

 

Who said anything about Sunday School?

I agree. I think the local church should take this responsibility seriously. Train your leaders.

What does a lay leader need to know that can't be taught in a local church?

One of the problems with modern church is that we have dumbed it down to the point where anyone who wants solid biblical teaching has to go outside the local church to get it. That is wrong. We have turned the church into pablum of felt needs and created the situation where some feel compelled to send people out of the church for training to lead the church.

The church should train its own leaders, who can then train others also, who can then train others also.

 

Then why are you so down on distance ed. students, who are getting exactly this from their Church leadership? Why does this work for a churches leaders, but not the future pastors? Why do we need brick and mortar seminaries at all?

 

You are gracious and kind man. Let us rejoice in our agreement! :thumbs:

True but from my brothers in the biz (i.e. academics) ATS is giving these institutions a hard time and starting to become hardline about their residency requirements.

Actually I finished my doctoral work several years ago. I did end doing my seminars and a semester of dissertation work as a resident before heading out to work fulltime in another location while finishing up my dissertation. This is, of course, common to do. There really isn't any point of maintaining residency during dissertation level once seminars and oral/written exams are completed. (Well unless you're teaching.) If I suggested otherwise I apologize.

I'm a growing advocate for distance education when its done right. There has to be, imho, some kind of residency requirement during the semester. Whether that is a week or a Friday/Saturday kind of thing is up to the institution. Also, professor to student ratios need to be low and kept there. If the distance education degree is about getting more people in and thus more money this is silly. But I think we agree on this.

Thanks for the thread! I appreciate it. Funny how even this tame issue can bring out the beast in people.

 

==No class, online or oncampus, can teach a person how to handle those situations. That is something a person has to learn. Other people's experience (etc) can be helpful but, at the end of the day, the only way to learn such things is to be there are do it. As for emails not being able to "weep with you", I think you have missed the point. Christian/seminary distance education is not done in isolation. It is assumed, in fact it should be required, that the student is an active member of their church. In which case it is their church, their deacons, their pastor, their friends who do the weeping. Seminary is, at the end of the day, higher education (school). It is not a church and should never take the place of the local church in a Christian's life. Distance seminary education should also require mentors (usually the student's pastor). The academic stuff is done online while the personal stuff is done in the church. That is the way it is suppose to be anyway. The academic stuff is done oncampus, the personal stuff is done at church.

==That is great, and I share that feeling. One of my professors at Liberty University (online) has been a great help and friend to me. That is true despite the fact that I have never met him face-to-face. A professor in my M.A. history program (oncampus) was and is very important as well. Distance learning does not take away the ability to make connections. I suppose it simply depends upon what a person puts into it.

==Maybe you did not mean to suggest those myths but it certainly read that way. No, distance learning is not the same. But different does not mean less.

==Discipleship is done by the local church and not an academic institution (ie...seminary). It is nice when the two can work together (on or off campus) but the two are not the same.

==Face-to-face teaching is not the only form of teaching emphasized in the Word of God. The written word is also given a great deal of importance.

==I disagree and I think our disagreement is rooted in our different views of seminary education. You view it as a ministry, I don't. I view seminary education as one form of higher education. Certainly it can be a form of ministry, but the main purpose of a seminary is to educate students so they can earn a degree and enter the field they have studied.

 

==Yea, it can be a double edged sword. In the fall I am going to be teaching two sections of Native American History and two sections of African American History using a similar program which allows students at other community colleges and Huskin's High School students to view the class and interact with me live via the technology. They will be in classrooms at their schools and I will be in a classroom at the college but at least three campuses will offer the same class. Wild!! I am very excited about it. It is the first semester we have done this with the high schools. My fellow History instructor has taught classes via that technology with other community colleges. He really likes it. I'm sure there will be a learning curve for me but I am looking forward to it.

On a side note we, like many colleges, are moving our distance courses from Blackboard to Moodle. That means learning a new software program. I think Moodle will be better though. I support the changes.

==That is interesting. You are not the first person to agree with me on that point. I wonder why that seems to be a common experience? Interesting.

==You are a brave man indeed. Math is certainly my weak point.

 

==ATS (Association of Theological Schools) is a bird in this world, no doubt. They believe themselves to be way more important than they actually are. Seminaries and Universities want faculty who have their degrees from regionally accredited schools. ATS is not equal to regional accrediation. In many ways they are on the same level as TRACS. They are real accreditation but they are not equal to regional. It is always best, mainly if one has a career in education in mind, to attend a seminary/university that is regionally accredited. Having ATS or TRACS as an add on is nice (just like NCATE, etc). However schools that are only accredited by ATS or TRACS may end up limiting some of their students (not all). One could be critical of TRACS and ATS for different reasons. TRACS seems a bit too willing to accept almost any school that applies. This might indicate that their standards are a bit less demanding than regional standards. ATS has very outdated views when it comes to online learning. Because of that, they only end up hurting the schools they accredit by limiting their distance learning programs. Having said that, however, they are slowly getting better. One day they will come around though.

==My purposes were mainly secular in nature and not ministry related. However I would like to make some observations.

1. The fact that my Liberty University degree was mainly online has not been a problem at all. The secular University accepted 6 church history transfer hours into my M.A. program in history.

The college I teach at also recognizes my MA degree from Liberty University. Of course we have folks who have graduate degrees from Nova Southeastern and the University of Phoenix. So this school is very accepting of distance learning.

2. Many churches in this area have pastors who graduated from Covington and Andersonville (totally unaccredited schools).

So I guess it depends upon where you are and where you are going. In some circles distance learning is still frowned upon but not in all. The number of circles that frown upon online learning is, in my opinion, shrinking. Also if you earn your online degree from a brick and morter school like ECU, NCSTATE, or Liberty, nobody should ask if it was earned online or oncampus. They most likely will not ask and there is no need to tell. A degree from the school is a degree from the school regardless of how it was earned (online, oncampus, etc).

 

I'm not. I am saying they should get it from their church, not from DE.

Not sure. You would have to ask someone who believes that.

Because men need to be trained to be pastors in the local church. So a seminary should be run by a local church to train pastors.

 

I didn't say you should learn it in class.

I don't buy this dichotomy.

Seminary isn't discipleship??

HMMMM ... a great number of people couldn't read then. They relied on others to read for them and teach them.

Why isn't higher education ministry?

Isn't that ministry, considering that the education is for biblical ministry? It should be pastor-theologians training pastor-theologians.

The point of seminary is to carry out 1 Tim 2:2 ... faithful men training faithful men who will be able to train others also.

 

So they shouldn't read books either? Or discuss scripture on the internet? Or read their Bible at home? No one should learn anything, without it being a Pastor telling them these things, verbally??

The Bible says to "Study, to show yourself approved". It did not say "Listen to what I say, to show yourself approved".

I cannot get a handle on what you believe. You just ruled out most seminaries, including the "Big Six". So apparently you believe training at SBTS is not "legitimate" education either. Those people in Brick and mortar seminaries are not being taught by the "Church", they are being taught by "Professors", same as in DE.

By the way, Paul frequently gave Timothy and Titus education through DE. Haven't you ever read the epistles?

 

This obviously shows the problem with DE. You are either purposely being obtuse, or are not seriously thinking about what I have said.

It actually say "Be diligent to present yourself approved..."

I believe that theological training should be under the auspices of a local church. Al Mohler, president of the biggest of the Big Six agrees with me. However, I am not an SBC man so I dn't really care about the Big Six. I think the Big Six are prime reasons why it is important to have local church in control. The liberalism that took over could have easily been avoided.

Some seminaries are under a local church, and they are taught by professors who answer to the local church.

That wasn't really DE and you probably know that ... but it won't help your point to admit it.

 

Actually, it is you that has failed to think things through. You are saying that people should not be engaging in DE. You have no LOGICAL support for this, unless you are saying (as you seemed to infer in your earlier posts) people should not be engaging in self study. If this is so, then this would obviously include books, sermons on the internet/video, etc., or ANY material not specifically published by the Church itself.

If you are NOT saying this, then it is completely illogical to say that DE could not be done under the guidance of a local Church.



If you are saying that it lacks some things, this would still not forbear it's usage. If I say that a bicycle lacks a motor, this does not equal it being useless, or something that should be avoided. Indeed, a bicycle under some conditions, is superior to motorized vehicles.

Showing weaknesses in DE, does not equate to "It should not be done". I have learned tons through DE, including self motivation and discipline.
The problem is, your position lacks any semblance of logic, which is why you persist in being so vague.

And yet...

Could you please elucidate? Do illuminate us as to some quality church ran seminaries.

Actually, it was. Not a modern form of DE (Paul was not able to look Timothy in the eye, via videoconferencing), but it was instruction and teaching from a distance.

But it won't help your point to admit that. There simply is no Biblical support for disallowing DE>

 

It was not too long ago that the SBC had professors who also pastored but that changed. Now they cannot teach and be a full time pastor. The best scholars are not teaching in a church wsetting but in a seminary setting. I believe that if the profesors were allowed to pastor chruches then we would see a much different political situation in the SBC. The politicians in the seminary and SBC leadership would run as fast as they could because the professors would not be under the yoke of the politicians but the local church. It would also create a closer tie of the churches to the seminaries and pastors and professors.

 

One can make the EXACT same argument regarding pastoral staff.

Regardless, as has been mentioned on this thread, other factors are in play. If a person wants to study religion academically while also gaining knowledge for ministry, then the local church is not going to be poised for that. A church cannot provide credit hours.

 

You have to know your circles; that is for certain. In some circles, a DE degree will open doors. In others, it will close them.

 

I don't think I have technically said that. I think DE is a manifestly inferior style of education. I think that is obvoius.

Actually I have quite a bit.

Never said anything remotely similar to this. Your response again demonstrate the problems with DE. You simply cannot communicate as well in this medium.

I don't think I have been vague at all. I think I have been pretty clear that DE lacks many of the things that make for a good education, including personal face to face interaction, challenge with peers in live settings, the building of personal relationships. In a facebook type of world where people are increasingly isolated from real relationships and real content, DE makes sense. It also makes sense if you are a school trying to make money. In terms of quality education, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Detroit, Central, Calvary, Central East, Shepherds, and the Master's are all quality seminaries under local churches. Even the SBC seminaries are not a horrible setup, but it would be better under closer control. The lack of immediate control led to the devolution of those seminaries into rank heresy in many cases (though not all).

After both Timothy and Titus had spent years with Paul. It would be the equivalent of getting a letter from someone that you had spent years in ministry training with.

I don't think DE is a good way to make disciples. When Jesus made disciples he spent time with people face to face in small groups. That's not DE. Educationally, it is not a good model.

If someone chooses to go the DE route, I would strongly urge against it. I think there are inherent problems that almost cannot be overcome. If you disagree, fine. I don't really care. But understand that DE is not all that people make it out to be.

 

I think most are teaching in both. I know Mohler does, and many others do as well.

Perhaps ... That is one of the difficulties with the setup, particularly when churches don't exercise church discipline for aberrant doctrine.

 

No, not really.

Why not? There are a number of local churches who do.

A church with a seminary can, if they make the commitment to do it.

 

The churches with seminaries are few and far between.

And that's a big "if." You'd have to relocate all Christians to major cities with churches large enough to support seminaries. A small-town church isn't going to be able to run a seminary. Period.