ARTS achieves CHEA recognition.

It appears the Association for Reformed Theological Seminaries has been recongized by CHEA. From the director of ARTS:

ARTS achieves CHEA recognition
At its meeting on May 13, 2024, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) reviewed the recommendation of the CHEA Committee on Recogntion regarding the recognition application submitted by the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries-Commmission on Accreditation (ARTS-COA). The Board of Directors accepted the Committee recommendation and recognized ARTS-COA for the following scope of accredition:

ARTS Commission on Accreditation accredits United States-based institutions and other locations as determined by the Commission on Accreditation, which offer baccalaureate and/or graduate degrees in fields aimed at preparing students for Christian service and ministry through biblical and theological studies of Reformed traditions. (2024)

And from CHEA: https://www.chea.org/association-reformed-theological-seminaries-commission-accreditation

 

I'll be darned. Well that is good news. They seemed credible and accredited bricks and mortar reformed seminaries. They had a couple of non-bricks and mortar seminaries as associates.

 

Religious recognition may be more important than other forms of recognition. I think that was the point made by Neuhaus in another thread. But what happens when your religious tribe has just established an accreditation body under CHEA oversight with standards for recognition of seminaries within its own theological tradition? How will American seminaries outside this structure (or the parallel ATS structure) be seen? I would say that the actual value of a confessional Reformed or Reformed Baptist seminary outside ARTS is now significantly diminished, even if ordination to the pastoral office can still take place with an unaccredited degree, at least in the interim period. After all, we’re dealing with a new reality for the Reformed tribe. Michael’s own “Forge Theological Seminary is situated in the Reformed and Evangelical traditions (e.g., the Westminster Confession, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith).” So, why is it staying out of ARTS? What’s the new argument for not pursuing accreditation and the type of quality assurance that is now the norm in the confessional Reformed world? You could always argue that ATS accreditation enabled the association of faithful and unfaithful, theologically compromised seminaries. But with ARTS, it is much more difficult to make this argument.

 

I think the problem with ARTS for schools like Forge Theological Seminary, Log College (and some on the associate list) is that they don't meet accreditation requirements. I do not believe that ANY of the ARTS seminaries aren't bricks and mortar schools. They have some distance learning but are still bricks and mortar seminaries. There may be other requirements that preclude some of the associate schools from joining. Not sure why Forge Theological Seminary is not an associate School.

 

This comes from the ARTS Standards of Accreditation: "The institution , regardless of whether it uses a traditional classroom format, online studies, distance education (either alone or in cooperation with other institutions), competency-based assessments or blended delivery methods must ensure those studies yield graduate education that maintains educational integrity and that the institution provides appropriate administrative, quality academic instruction, resources, and support to the student." Is there anything that precludes online-only seminaries in the rest of the ARTS standards for non-associate, full accreditation?

 

That is interesting. For some reason they have not approved seminaries that aren't bricks and mortar but could I suppose.

 

That used to be TRACS, btw.

And I would say that your determination is rooted in assumptions most within the Reformed/evangelical traditions do not hold.

Not really.

Neither I nor any other FTS representative indicated that we are "staying out of ARTS." What I have said since '22 is that our institution will value the affirmation of churches, denominations, presbyteries, etc., well beyond the affirmation of an accreditor. Since our institution serves the church, it's the church's opinion that matters most to us. I have also repeatedly called out the golden calf that is accreditation for theological education and I have raised theological objections to the concept (even having written a book chapter about that very issue). In fact, FTS applied for ARTS affiliate status as a first step at some point (maybe last year, I don't remember), and because the trustees felt the application process wasn't handled well, it was decided that we back out even though our application was approved according to ARTS COA minutes.

In my personal opinion, ARTS was better off without CHEA recognition, given its commitment to the zeitgeist: "We believe that the rich values of diversity, equity, and inclusion are inextricably linked to quality assurance in higher education." However, those men who are involved with ARTS are good brothers whom I deeply respect and appreciate. I also hold in high regard its member institutions and affiliates. Whether FTS will pursue some kind of non-ecclesial recognition is an open question. A few possibilities are in the works. Whether these pan out, our work will be unhindered-- we will still provide rigorous theological education for churchmen, missionaries, and lay teachers at an extraordinarily affordable cost. We won't put our students into debt, nor will we pursue relationships with other organizations that are not directly beneficial to our students. And we certainly will not pursue any involvement with the state or federal governments. Our primary interest is the affirmation of the church, and we will not compromise our theological or practical convictions for recognition by an organization that does not share our values.

 

Why do you refer to accreditation as a golden calf? Could you share any articles that explain why you have taken such a strong position? Are you a worshipper of the golden calf with most of your degrees (except the PhD) coming from accredited schools? You keep talking about the government this or that. But that’s just one aspect of accreditation. How about quality assurance? Sure, you can talk about rigorous education at Forge, and I am inclined to believe you. But I also know that the vast majority of unaccredited seminaries provide a substandard education in the absence of enforced accreditation standards. On the other forum, we had a poster who evaluated the doctoral-level offer of Queens College of Theology, a liberal and unaccredited school, which boasts of “the highest academic standards” on its website. And that’s the point: many schools claim to be rigorous without ever submitting themselves to a real quality assurance process, which would verify their “rigorous standards.” This poster maintains that Queens’ whole doctoral degree program is less rigorous than a single doctoral class. I am not sure whether that is true but it is rather concerning.

I am not entirely unsympathetic to the unaccredited seminary cause. But I believe that the value of an unaccredited theological education is already very low (I think this option may be justified in a very small number of individual cases, mostly having to with ordination in select denominations) and the emergence of a mainstream body responsible for accrediting schools in the confessional Reformed tradition makes the value of non-accredited degrees for that segment even lower. You may disagree with this view but I don’t see how it runs against any Reformed assumptions, a tradition typically associated with premium value placed on proper theological education. The vast majority of Reformed pastors that I’ve encountered have received their education at accredited seminaries. People like James R. White are the exception, not the rule. He has received massive criticism over the decision to enroll in a doctoral program at an unaccredited school. In fact, his entire career has been colored by this decision. You can find hundreds of internet pages and tweets dealing with this single issue of unaccredited credentials held by the apologist. That’s why I am not convinced of the claims made in one of your articles that “There are signs within conservative Protestantism that the stigma associated with an education from an unaccredited seminary or Bible college is fading, especially among Reformed evangelicals. This is due in part to a number of highly regarded teachers and authors who have emerged with training from unaccredited institutions." You then provide James R. White as one of the examples of the stigma busting. I find that very hard to believe.

 

I wondered about James White. Intelligent no doubt. He finally began working on a South African PhD in textual criticism I believe. Was up on his page and mentioned in an interview. Couple of years go by and it is disappeared.

I wonder if he found it too difficult or time consuming? But along with The disappearance of the bench and of that also came the disappearance of his Columbia Evangelical Seminary degrees.
Those CES degrees were a constant strawman for people upset with his positions.

 

@tadj do you have a link for the Queen's College of Theology thread. I tried to search for it but nothing came up.

I saw someone pursuing that degree who had almost completed a PhD from Lifestyle Prescriptions University or something like that and that was doing a PhD or doctorate through Queens. At first I thought it was legitimate because it has a great name. But looking at the website it wasn't impressive. What you posted above makes it sound worse.

 

See this post by DeanLewis. It addresses the "free" PhD at Queens College of Theology; https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/Thread-Mostly-Free-Master-of-Ministry-in-Pastoral-Leadership?pid=424294#pid424294

 

To say something positive about James White, I would point to his appointment at a seminary that has become accredited through ARTS: https://gbtseminary.org/gbtseminary-faculty/james-white/
https://www.chea.org/grace-bible-theological-seminary

But considering his never-ending battle with accusations of questionable academic credentials, the appointment hardly serves as proof of the benefits of earning an unaccredited degree, especially at the doctoral level. His Wikipedia page entry states: "His ThM, Th.D. and D.Min. degrees are from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Theological Seminary), an unaccredited online school. The legitimacy of White's academic credentials has been questioned." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_White_(theologian). Would a graduate of a theological seminary and a professor want to have a public profile of this sort?

 

My view is that the single greatest metric for Christian theological education is fidelity to the biblical faith followed by service to and the approval of the church. Accreditation ensures neither. Second, the church has the unique responsibility and authority to teach the Christian faith. The great commission was not leveled upon parachurch organizations such as seminaries or Bible colleges. Therefore, those institutions must necessarily serve at the pleasure of the church. When Christians are willing to forgo the above and go to a ministry school that teaches spurious views because the alternative is unaccredited or are willing to take on vast sums of debt, which will necessarily hamper their ministry in the long term, in order to gain a credential from an accredited institution, they have misunderstood the very concept. When seminaries and Bible colleges depend on student debt and government funding to sustain their operations, they have misunderstood the concept. When these institutions fear the accreditor more than the church, they have bent the knee to the golden calf. I wrote in one place, "Accreditation cannot answer the questions most students might ask of a Bible college or seminary: 'Is the faculty faithful unto God?,' 'Is the curricula effective and God-honoring?,' 'Will I receive the best training here?' or 'Will an education at this school prepare me for the mission field?'"

Setting aside the two public institutions I have graduated from, no. Accreditation does not necessitate the aforementioned problems. SBTS for example, certainly does not. When I say "accreditation is a golden calf," I do not mean all institutions and those associated with them are idolaters, obviously.

So let's start respecting accreditors not approved by the state, if that is merely "one aspect" that apparently isn't that significant to you. If "government this or that" is merely "one aspect," then why are all unrecognized accreditors characterized as accreditation mills? Right, because (in the words of one educator), "Accreditors generally function as an arm of the state."

Good point. Who should ensure quality assurance for theological education? An organization in bed with the fed? A cabal of institutions who continually suckle at the fed's breast? A parachurch organization?

This strange institution is called "queens" for a reason. Do you not believe there are institutions that require substandard work and promote unbiblical views that have the most prestigious possible accreditation? Shall I marshal the many readily available examples?

Thanks, I guess.

 

The degree-granting and quality assurance process might be arranged in ways that do not resemble the present state-licensing and accreditation system in the U.S., and I am quite open to hearing those alternatives. However, the proliferation of substandard U.S. religious-exempt colleges and the printing of meaningless degree titles that mimic secular ones aren’t ideal for a thriving Christian higher education sector. The church is probably the biggest victim of this practice. If the church has been entrusted with pastoral training and equipping of the saints, it does not follow that this entails any degree-granting responsibility.

You said that “the church has the unique responsibility and authority to teach the Christian faith. The great commission was not leveled upon parachurch organizations such as seminaries or Bible colleges.” But teaching the Christian faith and granting degrees aren’t synonymous. Ministerial training does not necessarily entail the granting of academic/professional degrees. Churches are always free to issue certificates, diplomas, or badges of honor, even in places with no religious exemption for degree-granting theological institutions. This ministerial training does not need to be conducted in cooperation with any outside academic institutions, colleges or universities. But if it is conducted in cooperation with such higher education institutions with the intent of awarding a final degree of some sort, I don't see why there should not be a set standard for issuing genuine degrees that actually mean something. I don't have any problem with the government setting a certain standard of what is generally required, regardless of the major and content. Each country’s degree-granting arrangement is a prudential issue, not a “set in stone” biblical principle. There is no automatic right of the church to grant specific types of qualifications known as degrees. But if the government denied the right of churches to train and license their ministers as they see fit, it would be a violation of Christian freedom.

 

Seems like a moving goal post. Pun intended. Anyhow, take a look at the LBU thread. LBU goes and gets accredited by ASIC, subjecting itself to whatever ASIC's quality assurance policies are and jumping through whatever hoops they require. Whereas I do not know much about ASIC, LBU apparently believes its a credible organization and likely felt its standards of accreditation met its needs. My guess is that they didn't go the route of TRACS, etc., because they don't have $30-40k to spend on such an endeavor and may have some issues with Titles IV and IX. LBU has sought quality assurance through this third party yet its efforts are still questioned, and its accreditation is still described as something other than "real accreditation."

 

As Rich noted on the LBU thread, as academic accreditation ASIC is meaningless.

It gets some mileage because it is confusing what it is and isn't and it allows schools (many unwonderful) to claim they are accredited by a recognized accreditor. Sort of but not in an academically meaningful way.

I am a little concerned about ethics when a Christian school like Louisiana Baptist University floats that out there and the wording could lead someone to believe that LBU has accreditation the way most people understand accreditation.

 

I’m automatically disinclined to believe most things that individual claims. What is your rationale for asserting that it is meaningless? I’m also interested in Steve’s opinion.