DMin's and Their Place in the Educational Scheme

I think that most schools require the PhD for most teaching positions. Right?

 

I can't understand why anyone would go the less rigorous route other than for the Dr. in front of their name.

Presently I am studying to get a D.I.T. There is only one place that awards that doctorate. It has exactly the same requirements as a Ph.D. Politics was the reason it is a D.I.T. instead of a Ph.D. Many years ago a neighboring university did not like it that the university where I am wanted to give a Ph.D. and complained. They had a similar but lesser program and didn't want the competition.

 

There are, relatively speaking, so few teaching positions open for the number of PhD's seeking them, that without a PhD (or equivalent---sometimes one may have a DMin plus a substantial number of PhD hours without having finished the degree) one has very little opportunity for teaching at the undergrad level, much less the graduate level. Some DMin's do teach, but their number seems to be few.

Bill

 

Nord,

I would think the difference between a D.Min and Ph.D would be about the equivalent to the difference between a Psy.D and a Ph.d in psychology. This may be wrong but the D.Min is intended for those whose main goal is a specific ministry besides teaching. For instance, a minister may want to earn a doctoral degree but not wish to teach. Most take the D.Min because it is more practical in means of studying an area of ministry to apply it to. Then again, I may be wrong I still have two and a half years left for my M.Div, but I do want a D.Min someday.

In Christ,

Brooks

 

Dr. Bob,

Do you see someone with a D. Min teaching pastoral subjects (homiletics, church administration, and so on) as problematic on an academic level?

My primary influences in that area were men with a D. Min. and honorary doctorates. Much of what they shared was not something that could be honed through acadmic rigor. It was the years of practical ministry experience that was crucial to their effectiveness, IMHO.

 

I think that the DMin has a place in our educational system. I am currently working on a DMin in Expository Preaching at Southern Seminary. I have found it to be extremely challenging and I am thoroughly enjoying it. However, I personally would never consider it equal with those who have a Ph.d. And at some point in my life and ministry I may go on to pursue a Ph.d.

 

Hello PastorSBC1303,
I consider SBTS's DMin in Expository Preaching to be a valuable exercise. Congratulations on pursuing it. Too bad Danny Akin is not still there. I had him for a PhD seminar at Southern a few years back.

BTW, with solid DMin programs available at accredited, evangelical seminaries, why would anyone go through the substandard institutions to get one?

Blessings,
Bill

 

"BTW, with solid DMin programs available at accredited, evangelical seminaries, why would anyone go through the substandard institutions to get one?"

AMEN to that! My answer would be, and I am only guessing, that they either don't have the ability to get through a real program or they don't have the money. The later is sad and is a good example of why people should take advantage of all forms of financial aid. As for the former, that is sad as well. However instead of trying to by pass a real education they should start at the BA level and work up. It may take time, and alot of hard work, but in the end it is worth it.

Martin.

 

My answer to that is that at this level, you aren't getting a degree for the title it brings, but for the education. The "less rigorous" route is designed for a different purpose. It is designed to enchance a pastoral ministry, not to be an academic teaching degree. I have toyed with both, but don't have the heart to do either right now. I would want the PhD for the title; I would want the DMin for my life's work. since I don't have a lot of interest in teaching.

 

If one expects to lead people or teach then he should be the best example of a learner. A learner pays the price for whatever is necessary to become the best he is capable of becoming.

There is no excuse today with all the wealth in America why one could not get through a seminary with some sacrifice and discipline. We have foreign students coming from places like Africa with little or no money going to the same seminaries and universities we go to. Some of those people are very poor. One student I met in seminary wanted to be able to take enough money back to buy some bicycles for pastors where he was from so they could ride a bicycle rather than walk.

Just a few days ago I met a lady who came from communist China in 1986 to this country to get her doctorate. Before she left the Chinese government required her and her husband to reimburse their government for the cost of their bachelor's degrees. Both her and her husband came to this country with about 100 dollars when they arrived in 1986 speaking very little English.

It is the first step of faith that is always the hardest.

 

My answer to that is that at this level, you aren't getting a degree for the title it brings, but for the education. The "less rigorous" route is designed for a different purpose. It is designed to enchance a pastoral ministry, not to be an academic teaching degree. I have toyed with both, but don't have the heart to do either right now. I would want the PhD for the title; I would want the DMin for my life's work. since I don't have a lot of interest in teaching. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry,

I take issue with the common idea that the DMin is for the pastoral ministry and the PhD is for teaching. Please understand what I'm about to write in no way is to denigrate those who pursue the DMin. Find a strong one and go for it.

Nevertheless, having both, I find my PhD more helpful, if I have to compare the two, for my ministry as a pastor than my DMin. In our culture, IMO, we put too much emphasis upon the practical. The practical, of course, is important, but I think the pendulum has swung too much in that direction. I think our people need to understand theology and church history. They need to understand the insidious attacks upon the inerrancy and authority of the Bible which are being made even by some calling themselves evangelicals. They need a ministry which seeks to be both deep and wide (don't start singing!).

Of course, one can have that type of ministry with neither a DMin or a PhD. The pursuit of the PhD in church history, however, helped me understand better our heritage as Baptists in particular so that I can better lead our people to recover that biblical heritage. In addition, it sharpened my reasoning and communcative skills.

Again, my purpose is not to denigrate the DMin. It can be extremely helpful. Instead, I want to challenge the idea that the PhD is only for those going into academia and not the pastorate.

BTW, you're right to pursue neither until your heart is in it. The rigor and time involved will make quitting look attractive. It has been well said that obtaining a PhD is more a matter of perseverance than genius.

Blessings,
Bill

 

I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a large extent. I think being both deep and wide is good and necessary. But I still think the purpose of a degree is a big factor. Given the two options, I would prefer a PhD, because to some degree I think a DMin is the easy way out. However, you can do a DMin non-resident and there is only one PhD that is that way (BBS). I have looked into it and talked to them about it. I just don't want to do the work right now at this current stage of life and ministry. And the reality is that I could have had a PhD for less work than I did for my current degrees.

I would never denigrate a PhD nor underestimate its value for pastoral ministry. I didn't mean to communicate that. I was simply referring to the design of the degrees.

 

Good insight, Larry and Nord.

Bill