Why Masters Have Many Credits

Why do religious degrees require so many hours for a Masters degree?

I do believe that I have seen 48 hrs, 60+ hrs, and 70+ hrs just for a Masters.

Why?

 

Because they can. LOL. Seriously, do you really need a 72 to 90-credit MDiv to preach about the Bible?

 

The old standard is the MDiv, which usually consists of around 90 hours. It's considered a professional degree, and it, along with pastoral internships or residencies, constitutes the traditional track to pastoral ministry. I think of it as the accepted academic gateway for the pastoral profession just in the same way the JD is for lawyers, the DPharm for pharmacists, and the MD for medical doctors. Other degrees, like the MA or MTS are considered academic degrees and these vary in length and usually do not take the sort of generalist approach as with the MDiv. I've seen religion MA's vary from 36 hours to 60+ hours. This depends on the institution and the focus of the degree. Some religious MA's function as professional degrees. For example, one might complete an MA in Counseling to become an LPC. These programs typically require around 60 hours or so as with Geneva College's MA in Counseling. Rarely have I seen an MA exceed 60 hours but I've seen a few. Most MTS or MTh (not ThM) degrees land somewhere around 36-48 hours. Although, a few are even less such as Campbellsville University's 30-hour MTh. A post-grad program like the ThM can be as little as 25 hours as with SBTS' ThM.

 

30 hours of study. 40+ for praying that you'll pass.

 

I'm sure many churchmen wish they only preach about the Bible. Rather, the vocation of pastor typically involves far more than preaching (e.g., pastoral care, extensive teaching, counseling, administration). Moreover, if preaching involves the exposition of a biblical text, it also involves translation, consideration of textual issues, exegesis, theological interaction, and finally, a sermon. I might also add that most churchmen view the ministry just as seriously as a medical doctor or lawyer might view his practice.

 

I used to be an ordained minister/chaplain and a secular counselor. While I'm neither a physician nor nurse, I've studied medical science. I don't believe that ministry requires as much study, but I'm a former Christian turned atheist. To me, religion is philosophy and cultural studies.

Teaching the Bible - Unless you're teaching college classes, a bachelor's degree should suffice. There are K-12 teachers teaching with only a bachelor's degree. It's not like your typical Mdiv program goes deep into pedagogy or andragogy. There are, however, religious education programs.

Counseling - MDiv programs vary, and they don't all focus on pastoral counseling. Of course, I believe that counseling should be evidence-based and not based on philosophy and mythology. I don't think that having one or two courses on counseling is adequate.

Administration - There typically aren't many administration courses in MDiv programs, but the curriculum varies by selected concentration.

Exposition and translation - Many, if not most, Protestant pastors are not heavily involved in academic activities. They teach whatever their chosen denomination believes. If they're greedy, they'll latch on to the prosperity doctrine.

You can list a bunch of activities that a pastor, preacher, or priest might be involved in, but at the end of the day, the foundation of all of it is just in one book. They end up learning a lot of other tasks by working under a senior clergy member, which is what pastors were already doing before the advent of all these long MDiv programs. My opinion is that you shouldn't have to complete a bachelor's degree plus a 90-credit master's degree just to learn about one book of literature. The MDiv is trying to be everything while not covering anything adequately except for biblical studies. If a church is large enough, they normally hire specialists to handle other duties.

 

Yep. One course on administration and two courses on counseling. Might as well self-study and save money.

https://www.forge.education/master-of-divinity

 

I would agree with you that Clergy need more pastoral counseling education.

By your comments about it being just one book would indicate to me that you probably weren't educated to the MDiv level (that is the kind of comment I hear from people without theological education). There is a lot more to it in terms of studying history, ancient and modern culture, translation issues, philosophy, denominational issues, systematic theology, liturgical study (as applicable), etc.

In some less educated denominations you can get away with less educated clergy who are simply good public speakers and life coaches. But that accounts for a lot of the issues in our poorly theologically educated culture. Joel Osteen , Creflo Dollar, TD Jakes and a host of these type of people are examples of theologically uneducated preachers who get theology wrong. Some of them don't even have four year degrees. They are entertaining life coaches.

 

I see.

We have very different visions of what teaching the Bible should involve.

The MDiv is a generalist program that usually provides significant coursework in pastoral theology and care. As for the content of pastoral counsel, that is an area that is theologically dependent and thus, what you call "evidence-based" may depend upon assumptions others don't buy.

Fair point. Usually, there are one or two. Mostly, these courses are bound together with ecclesiology. In any event, my point was that preaching the Bible isn't merely what a pastor does.

Not in my neck of the woods. In any event, translation, exegesis, and exposition is the bread and butter of most local church pastors-- and it is certainly not merely an academic activity.

Consider letting go of that silly canard. That is about as accurate as the time someone told me that men got together and decided what the Bible would say at Nicea.

No argument there. Although, we ought to note that, unlike the slim ethical codes medical doctors and lawyers supposedly adhere to, ordained churchmen are supposed to be accountable to their congregations and held to a very high moral standard.

While I know that to be true in my communion, I'm not convinced its true in others. We can hope for a change, however.

Most of the time it is a both and. Formerly, secondary school was vastly more rigorous and liberal (in the best sense of the term) thus provided a better basis prior to the establishment of seminary training.

You make Christian ministry sound so utterly simple it is ridiculous. There is a broad array of disciplines churchmen need to be familiar with (e.g., Christian theology, church history, biblical studies, practical theology, etc.) in order to effectively do their jobs as under-shepherds. Your definition of the role is, inaccurate, and, therefore, your claim is misguided.

You might have a point there. Personally, I think practical theology needs to be taught in the church along with a variety of other issues. Perhaps that is why the MDiv seems to be going the way of the buffalo.

 

I didn't say that degree programs only use one book, although, there are some schools that only use the Bible. I bought many books when I attended Wesley Biblical Seminary. The foundation, however, is the Bible.

Hilariously, Wesley had us read an e-book about psychology and biology that was written by a guy with no background in science or behavioral science. His background was in the humanities. He attempted to cite research, but it was so horribly bad. I shouldn't have chosen such a conservative seminary, but it was free.

 

I didn't say you did say the degree programs used only one book. I was commenting on your comment, "but at the end of the day, the foundation of all of it is just in one book". There is so much complexity in the one book (which is actually 66 books written at different times in different circumstances and to different audiences by multiple authors.
To truly understand it requires significant graduate study including the history, theology, liturgical, culture and other aspects since the closing of the canon (there are many other aspects pre closure of the canon including ancient cultures, philosophy, history, archeology, and so on).

Without that background, some of the clergy are simply motivational speakers and life coaches who don't know what they don't know.

 

Oof. Well, some of us don't accept the psychology or the mental health establishment and instead affirm a historical iteration of Christian soul care. It sounds like the good brothers at WBS are half-heartedly taking an integrationist approach. Some evangelical institutions have highly regarded psychology depts, such as Fuller.

 

More like ψεθδαδελφοι.

 

I think those topics are best studied in secular programs or secular schools with seminaries.

WBS, for example, was attempting to use biological and psychological research as external validation for the biblical stance on homosexuality. The author cherry-picked and misinterpreted studies. Similarly, Young Earth creationists attempt to manipulate physics, biology, and geology to fit Genesis.

I appreciate that most Jewish people don't take the Torah literally, so they don't feel the need to do mental gymnastics to fully marry their holy book with scientific and historical knowledge. The Church of Latter Day Saints, on the other extreme end, tries to use science to prove that events that occurred in the Middle East actually occurred in the Americas.

It's important to consider whether someone is studying history to support their preconceived religious beliefs, or are they studying history to learn the truth, even if the truth will contradict some of their beliefs.

 

Indeed. A form of godliness but little to no substance spiritually or intellectually. Unfortunately for those of faith, people often see these people as the representatives of Christian faith. They lead people in the wrong direction.

 

I disagree. The experts in those areas I mentioned are likely to be theologians and biblical scholars.

Secular schools are as capable of indoctrination (as noted in many highly publicized cases). For instance, not just in the classroom but the sometimes violent attempts to keep other voices off campus. This is what one secular progressive Psychologist called the cognitive distortion of progressive students who label opponents fascists and so on and basically lived in a matrix (he noted conservatives have their own version).

A good seminary will teach denominational perspectives (eg Baptist) but also other perspectives as well.

The seminary you took classes from says on Wiki it has five full-time professors. Perhaps too small to develop a solid academic background? It says it is ATS and ABHE accredited though.

 

And, some of those biblical scholars are not Christians. There are also secular anthropologists and archeologists working to verify what is and isn't true in the Bible. There are plenty of Middle East historians writing about the histories of Abrahamic religions that aren't their own. You can't really expect someone to be Jewish, Christian, and Muslim all at once. Linguists studying biblical Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic don't need to be theologians.

The seminaries are teaching other denominational perspectives based on...interpretations of the Bible. Whether someone believes that the Bible says that homosexual activities are a sin, or they believe that what the Old Testament says doesn't matter because Jesus didn't address it, they're still forming an opinion based on the Bible. A mainstream psychologist or biologist wouldn't reference the Bible at all, unless it's a social scientist studying the impact of religion on the LGBTQ community. If you're studying what causes homosexuality, then the Bible is irrelevant. If you see the Bible as a moral authority and an accurate account of history, then you are Bible-based.

 

You just proved Garp's point. Also, if one believes the Bible gives an anthropology and a theodicy, then certainly the Bible isn't irrelevant as to the source of homosexuality.

 

Is baptist a denomination?

 

Which point? That Christian denominations have different opinions on what the Bible says, but they still believe everything that is in the Bible? Because that missed my point. I stated that what is taught in Christian ministry and theology programs is based on one book, not that different denominations don't disagree. They, obviously, disagree on something, which is why they split into different denominations.

You stated that biblical counseling rejects the field of psychology. What is taught is based on the Bible, not empirical research. How is the Bible not the foundation of everything that is taught in a ministry or theology program?

The Bible is at odds with physical anthropology. When I learned about genes that were linked to homosexuality, not once was the Bible mentioned. The men who wrote the Bible had no concept of genes. Cultural anthropology is the study of culture, not biology; they would be interested in the history of how homosexual activities and homosexual individuals have been regarded in different societies.