Getting a Masters in Theology

[/QUOTE]

Part of the research done regarding homeschoolers, regard simple statistics regarding scores from SAT, ACT etc. Other sources also confirm this. Homeschoolers, on average, have higher scores on these standardized tests. Simply no arguing with this: you cannot argue with mathematics.

On a personal note, I home school my children, and know several other families who do as well. ALL of them, without exception are far ahead of their public school counterparts. My oldest daughter will be finished with high school by the time she is 16. My 5 year old knows addition, subtraction, can count to 100, is learning her times tables, and can read, somewhat. NONE of the 5 year olds that I have worked within the last 6 months, from public schools, could read, count to more than 10 or 20, and certainly none of them could add double digit numbers (most could not add at all).

Both statistically, and from personal experience, one on one homeschooling, is FAR superior. And you get the added bonus of not having the numerous bad influences from public school.

I believe these same advantages carry over into DE. I can learn homiletics far better, by taking a DE class, in conjunction with guidance and mentoring from my pastor and the other preachers in my church, who are on the "front lines" every day, than I can from hanging out with a seminary professor, who may, in fact, have minimal experience in the subject matter, and a bunch of other inexperienced young men. one on one (or even 3 on one!) instruction, is superior to 30 to 1. This is just common sense.

Now, I believe we have hijacked this conversation long enough. If you would like to carry it to a different thread

 

added arguments for brick and morter seminary ed

I am certainly for distance education. I recieved my entire undergraduate via online. I am now attending a brick and morter seminary that follows this old wives tale of destroying a students faith, which is false, it challenges and deepens faith. If you are looking for seminary to provide you with a diploma to hang on the wall, then pure distance education school is for you. This is not to say that some seminaries cannot mix standard classes with de, it certainly can and should. There are some aspects that cannot be taught via de, preaching, pastoral care, clinical pastoral education, to name a few. Each of these require one to wear the hat of a minister, and the seminary should provide that opportunity within a class setting. There is also something to be said about the relationships, as stated earlier, I have learned from both the professor, my pastor, and my classmates through the discussions, and debates which goes far beyond regular book learning or class room lecture. Moreover, these relationships will and have created a wonderful network of friends whom I cherish. When I graduated with my undergraduate, I didn't know anyone in the class. Seminary should be different, I have the ability to relate, struggle, debate, and network with others going through the same things I have. Online education does not allow for practicums, or critical critiques of your preaching, nor does it give you the network of friends that will last a lifetime. I love distance education, I have a family of four, and it was incredibly expensive to move, but it has been worth it. A good seminary will mix de where it can and use traditional means otherwise. As to the biblical references, Paul studied under Gamiel, then went away for three years. The other apostles spend how many years with direct teaching from Jesus? Timothy followed Paul for how long until he began to pastor? While the Bible does not specifically use the term "Seminary" it does envoke us all to "study and shew thyself approved." Regarding the thread question: you might consider a MAR or if your looking for low cost just for fun, why not audit one of those KY seminaries already mentioned.

 

All things that can be learned FAR better in a church setting, interning under an experienced Pastor. Seminaries and University are for knowledge. The Church provides mentoring and practical experience.

The only way that DE would be in any way inferior, is if a person was not involved in a local Church, where they could gain experience. How many families must be uprooted, and put through the financial ringer, before people realize that knowledge is knowledge?

 

Ever read the book "How To Lie With Statistics"? It is done all the time unknowingly among Christians with good intentions. Years ago I wrote to Dobson and informed him about who was taking the SAT test. If only the top one percent of those in public schols were to take the SAT where do you think that would put the average of all home schoolers? Home schooling ensures nothing.

Finland has the highest standard of education in the world and you will not find any five years olds in school. They do not start school until they are one year older than those in the U.S. and finish one year later in age.

The fact is that some kids are not physically able to read until they are seven years of age because they are not developed enough.

Where do you think parents send their home schooled kids when they do not know what to do? My experience at the university level has shown that the best prepared students are those who have gone to large schools where it is competitive and the classes have enough students which are educated at a higher level. The best preparation for college is a demanding high school experience.

Your personal experience is very different than mine. Mine is quite the opposite. My daughter was never home schooled and she shares her faith with fellow students. Currently she has a 4.0 in college. She tells me that she finds college easy because of her high school experience.

When my daughter was in high school she had to finish assigments on time because if she did not it was late. Sometimes that meant she had to stay up late because she was busy with other things or may not have used her time as wisely as she should have.

In what I teach at the university people must be on time or early. The field they are going into demands promptness. If they are not, then they will lose the company serious amounts of money and will most likely get fired .

Some on the front lines are lousy preachers but are great people on the front lines. What you promote may sound like common sense but it is not always the truth. It would depend on the subject matter and what is being taught. Some instruction is better at a personal level while other instruction is better in a group. In what I teach I find that a group of about 20 is far better then a lot less because of the interaction among students.

If you were always correct than why go to church and hear the preacher?

If excellent teaching and education ensured perfection then Jesus should be seen as a failure because Judas failed.

 

Correct...if that pastor went to seminary. :laugh:

 

disagreement

Not all things! There are some things that are taught in seminary that can and will never be taught in a church setting. Knowledge is knowledge, but there are deeper levels of knowledge. If you wish to be taught what you already know, then don't worry about education, seminary will be worthless if that is the goal. A seminary education allows one to struggle with his or her faith, and deepen his or her own personal faith. Ask anyone who has uprooted their family and attended seminary, with few exceptions, none have regretted the experience. I repeat, I am for DE, I completed my entire undergraduate via the internet, and have never set foot or seen the campus and probably never will. There are some classes in Seminary that can be taught online and they should, but there are some where it is impossible, if you want a real practical learning experience in addition to book work and lecture. I've experienced both DE and a brick and morter school. There are several advantages to DE. Here is the learning equation DE offers: Book(s)+Prof lecture (written or video feed)+local church pastor=knowledge. Here is the learning equation brick and morter provides: Book(s)+Prof lecture+one on one with prof+student insights+local church pastor= knowledge. Both have their advantages, and I recommend a blended approach that involves DE, but not completely.

 

You have obviously had a poor DE experience. I have one on one with my professors. I also have access to discussions with other students. Everything you listed under "brick and mortar" can be equally available through DE.

In regards to the "with few exceptions", I have talked to many who have been through seminary, and have heard many regrets. In fact, it has caused many problems, including two divorces, which then, ironically, disqualified the husbands from Pastorates at certain churches, LOL!

In regards to "struggling" with one's faith; #1 I would hate to be someone struggling with my faith, and #2 In scripture, when God wants to teach someone, and deepen their faith, He does not put them in a class with 30 other students, but usually sends them off ALONE.

People who have been to "brick and mortar" seminaries, have a vested interest in keeping things that way, I understand. "I had to do it this way, so so should you!". But the fact of the matter is, their is simply no scripture or science to back that up. It is nothing but opinion; usually the opinion of older folks, who dislike change.

 

Seminary was not the problem of any of your friends. Immaturity was. Your comments tells one a lot about the relationship of those couples. Seminary strengthened my relationship with my wife and made us face issues that we had never faced. It also showed me a lot more about what Christ was like and how I needed to be. I know it made me a better witness, a better husband, a better father and able to share my faith better and with greater ease. I was 39 when I started seminary and had already discipled many people by that time. I had shared my faith publicly and in written form. In fact I had already led a discipleship program in a church. I have seen people become shipwrecked in seminary but the vast majority who had troubles were young and filled with pride. If seminary ruined them they did not come with much.

It was the rabbis who taught in an organized situation much like school today. They had students. So you do not think Jesus was taught and learned?

I find the same sort of argument among students who come to class thinking the faculty are ignorant and know little or nothing. Those of us who have been in the field for over 20 years recognize the ignorance of the students who have not. The problem is that most of the time you cannot tell them anything until they realize it for themselves. I find it rather interesting how many older people come back to school to study the very things of the same field they are in. What I find even more interesting is how many of their employers want them to take classes. Ever notice how many companies and unions train employees in "brick and mortar" situations?

 

==I don't believe a good seminary should cause a person to doubt their faith. In my opinion, a good seminary should teach a person how to defend their faith and therefore strengthen it. That does not mean spoonfeed, but it does mean giving students something to stand upon in their ministry/life. Distance education does more than just provide a diploma. The sky is the limit in distance education, literally. I just finished an online worshop at the college I teach at and I learned many new things about online learning. Sadly, too many online schools/instructors take the easy road. There are plenty of free tools out there, that are easy to use, that make distance learning interesting, interactive, and very educational. If instructors don't know about those tools or refuse to use them that is not the fault of distance learning. As a college instructor, it is my calling, my job, to help educate my students. I will gladly go the extra mile in helping them learn whether they are oncampus or online. Anyone who does not have that attitude should not be in education.

==I have nothing against that, and it is a good idea, but there is nothing that requires that be done. Again, distance education can be just as interactive as oncampus classes. In fact, it can be more interactive since some students who will not talk in class will "talk" online.

==Preaching is not something that can be taught in a classroom or in a book. It is gift that is developed through practice and mentorships. I am not against a seminary offering classes in preaching but, at the end of the day, students learn through standing behind the pulpit and preaching. It is the same with teaching. You can take a course in teaching and practice in that course, but you really don't learn until you are teaching your own class. These things are gifts, but they are also skills that must be developed. I would say the same thing about pastoral care and clinical pastoral education. These things are best learned under the mentorship of a man's pastor.

Besides, those subjects can be and are taught online. Webtools and mentorships must be used but these subjects can be taught.

==That is the downside of distance learning. However a university/instructor can use internet tools to work towards overcoming many of those challenges. Still it is a weakness that cannot easily overcome. If a person needs one-on-one, face-to-face interaction to learn, distance education is not for them. Distance education works best for the independent learner who enjoys, but does not require, face-to-face interaction. With such a person, technology can provide the necessary communication tools so they can interact with their instructor and classmates.

==I graduated from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary's distance learning program with a M.A. in Religion. Before I transfered to LBTS, I attended Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary for about a year. I enjoyed oncampus class but my life situation did not allow me to continue on that path. While the early courses I took through Liberty were rather lonely, the later online courses were somewhat better. I have no problem relating to people in a discussion board or on a blog. I don't have to be face-to-face. During my time at Liberty I did develop a network with others. In fact, one of my professors at Liberty gave me a reference for me when I entered a M.A. in History program. I did my M.A. in History degree oncampus. I learned a lot through both programs and developed professional connections that will affect me for the rest of my life.

==Seminaries that refuse to transfer some of their programs to distance learning will be left in the dust. I predict that within 10 or so years every major seminary in the nation will offer at lest one degree program online. Those that don't, will see their enrollment shrink. Like it or not, this is the future. On campus degrees/classes will disappear at some point, but probably not within our lifetimes. This is not 1950 and time does not stand still. Seminaries, like all other universities, are going to have to adjust their approach. I'm not saying that is good or bad, I am just saying that is what is coming.

==They did not have distance learning in Paul's day. What would Paul think about it? I dare not answer that question because: 1. Paul would not understand the technology (he might be afraid of it). 2. Paul would probably not understand our approach to education. 3. Paul would probably think our educational system for pastors (etc) is too easy (on or off campus). Keep in mind that Paul was a very well educated man. If he were living today we would call him a scholar.

 

==This is true and represents part of the problem with the classical approach. Seminary is education, it is schooling, it is academics. Spiritual growth is a great result of that but the "job" of discipleship was given to the local church and not to educational institutions (Christian or not). Certainly attending a seminary should strengthen one's faith and provide one with a network of friends (etc). However that is just a side-effect of education. The main purpose of education is academic. Distance learning focuses on the academic. It does not have to be exclusive academics however. New technologies allow students to interact with their professor and fellow students. Social networks can, and are, established through these means.

Distance learning is not for everyone. Those who need in person, face-to-face interaction, will not enjoy distance learning.

==In part, I think you are correct. There are many older, and some younger, professors who are simply opposed to change. They either don't want to change the way they do things, they don't want to learn new technologies, or they are afraid they might have to do extra work. I have known and know professors in each of those categories. The guy who teaches most of the religion courses at the college I teach at refuses to teach classes online. He just refuses to change. So the college has turned to me to teach some religion courses online (in the future). The other gentleman is getting left in the dust. That is bad for his career and it is unfair to students who need to take classes online. As educators we should be willing to grow and change to help our students. At least that is my view of it.

Another problem is that many professors just don't think distance education is as affective as classical education. There have been surveys published that prove this. Sadly there are plenty of examples of poorly done distance learning that gives them plenty of "examples" (mainly in "christian" education).

 

I agree again, my distance education experience was wonderful, but I didn't get to know my profs, they lived hundreds of miles away. If DE wasn't available I wouldn't have been able to complete my undergraduate.


==I have nothing against that, and it is a good idea, but there is nothing that requires that be done. Again, distance education can be just as interactive as oncampus classes. In fact, it can be more interactive since some students who will not talk in class will "talk" online.[/QUOTE]


Here is where I disagree, discussion boards, and emails do not give tone, or facial expressions, things can be misunderstood, and that never happens on a Blog board! (Sarcasm Added)

==Preaching is not something that can be taught in a classroom or in a book. It is gift that is developed through practice and mentorships. I am not against a seminary offering classes in preaching but, at the end of the day, students learn through standing behind the pulpit and preaching. It is the same with teaching. You can take a course in teaching and practice in that course, but you really don't learn until you are teaching your own class. These things are gifts, but they are also skills that must be developed. I would say the same thing about pastoral care and clinical pastoral education. These things are best learned under the mentorship of a man's pastor.[/QUOTE]

I disagree again. In Seminary the students preach, some have never preached before, and they recieve good critiques of strenghts and weaknesses in sermons. They learn the mechanics of preparation. This should be complemented with a good pastoral mentor.

==Besides, those subjects can be and are taught online. Webtools and mentorships must be used but these subjects can be taught.[/QUOTE]

I agree.


==That is the downside of distance learning. However a university/instructor can use internet tools to work towards overcoming many of those challenges. Still it is a weakness that cannot easily overcome. If a person needs one-on-one, face-to-face interaction to learn, distance education is not for them. Distance education works best for the independent learner who enjoys, but does not require, face-to-face interaction. With such a person, technology can provide the necessary communication tools so they can interact with their instructor and classmates.[/QUOTE]

This is true, but difficult.


==I graduated from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary's distance learning program with a M.A. in Religion. Before I transfered to LBTS, I attended Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary for about a year. I enjoyed oncampus class but my life situation did not allow me to continue on that path. While the early courses I took through Liberty were rather lonely, the later online courses were somewhat better. I have no problem relating to people in a discussion board or on a blog. I don't have to be face-to-face. During my time at Liberty I did develop a network with others. In fact, one of my professors at Liberty gave me a reference for me when I entered a M.A. in History program. I did my M.A. in History degree oncampus. I learned a lot through both programs and developed professional connections that will affect me for the rest of my life.[/QUOTE]

This is good, but still difficult to maintain.


==Seminaries that refuse to transfer some of their programs to distance learning will be left in the dust. I predict that within 10 or so years every major seminary in the nation will offer at lest one degree program online. Those that don't, will see their enrollment shrink. Like it or not, this is the future. On campus degrees/classes will disappear at some point, but probably not within our lifetimes. This is not 1950 and time does not stand still. Seminaries, like all other universities, are going to have to adjust their approach. I'm not saying that is good or bad, I am just saying that is what is coming.[/QUOTE]

This is completely accurate.

==They did not have distance learning in Paul's day. What would Paul think about it? I dare not answer that question because: 1. Paul would not understand the technology (he might be afraid of it). 2. Paul would probably not understand our approach to education. 3. Paul would probably think our educational system for pastors (etc) is too easy (on or off campus). Keep in mind that Paul was a very well educated man. If he were living today we would call him a scholar.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't regarding Paul having a DE, he was taught directly by a teacher, kinda like seminary. The argument that b&m Seminaries are not Biblical doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering the way the Apostles were taught.

 

How do you know?

I supposed you think that you slammed the door on argument but you have done nothing of the sort. Again, you are spouting generalities without any factual backing. Saying it doesn't make it so. What is your source? Document your assertions. Tell me the source of the research. Please give me a verifible source. I am pretty well read in this area and I know of no reputable study attesting to the superiority of home schooling. Most certainly from my own experience, this is absolutely not true. There are many things to consider including research design, sampling techniques, statistical methods for analysis, demographic factors, etc. This just happens to be my area of expertise. Give me a source and I will evaluate it. BTW, I am not interested in some newspaper account where the information is filtered by some reporter.[/quote]

On a personal note, I home school my children, and know several other families who do as well. ALL of them, without exception are far ahead of their public school counterparts. My oldest daughter will be finished with high school by the time she is 16. My 5 year old knows addition, subtraction, can count to 100, is learning her times tables, and can read, somewhat. NONE of the 5 year olds that I have worked within the last 6 months, from public schools, could read, count to more than 10 or 20, and certainly none of them could add double digit numbers (most could not add at all).

Both statistically, and from personal experience, one on one homeschooling, is FAR superior. And you get the added bonus of not having the numerous bad influences from public school.

It may be "common sense" to you but it's not common sense because not everyone will agree to it. You have stacked the deck and expect to impress us with your dealing. Your pastor probably has already forgotten what little Greek that he learned in seminary as usually is the case. Admittedly, there are bad seminary professors who couldn't teach a duck to swim but there are also poor pastors. You cannot prove your case with picking and chosing the weak cases. Do you think you can learn more from your pastor than studying with Tom Nettles or D. A. Carson et. al.?