The Problem with PhDs

I’ve been asked frequently of late about where and whether to do a PhD if one wants to pursue a career in teaching the Bible. First of all, let me be clear that it depends on what sort of teaching you have in mind. If by teaching the Bible you mean at the level of a Christian high school or in the church, then no…. you don’t need a PhD. If by teaching the Bible you mean in various places on the mission field, then again, no, you don’t need a PhD. If however you feel you are called to teach in Europe or Down Under, or in North America, or in various other places where doctoral degrees are the necessary terminal degree and pre-requisite for teaching, then yes you need such a degree.

The second question I am usually asked is— where should I get a PhD? Of course much depends on where you believe you will be called to teach. If you feel you are called to teach the Bible in secular colleges and universities, then frankly you will need a degree from an institution of that sort, in all likelihood. One reason this is especially true these days is because frankly there is glut of PhDs out there looking for work in North America. If however you feel called to teach at a Christian college or seminary of some sort, then you may not need such a degree. A degree from Trinity or Fuller or Asbury may be just fine for such a calling. It just all depends on what sort of venue God is guiding you to teach in.

A third question I am frequently asked is what about going part time or doing a good deal of it online? Nowadays this is becoming increasingly common, but I really do not recommend it. This is about the least advisable way to get a PhD, but often for financial reasons it is the way some bright students go. The reason I don’t recommend it is that doctoral work is extensive and intensive, and its very difficult to do total immersion a bit at a time. You keep starting and stopping, and you find yourself having to continually rev yourself up again and get back up to speed. Not good. You need a continuous flow of development and growing skill and understanding.

Yet another question I am asked is what are the pros and cons of doing doctoral work in North America vs. in Europe or Down Under or South Africa etc.?

The American system of doctoral work is necessarily long and lugubrious, in part because the process is supposed to weed out the weaker candidates. If they can’t run the gauntlet they are given the consolation prize (an MTh or the like) and let go. Normally this process takes a good five years, not to mention a lot of life blood and mental energy and money.

Even in Kentucky, one of the poorest states in the union, it ends up costing about $30,000 a year to do this process. You can multiply that by 5 or 6. What about scholarships you say? Well there are loans, and grants, and scholarship to be sure, but increasingly it is loans that are available for a good reason—- doctoral programs are loss leaders— they do not make money. They are labor intensive for both the professor and the student. Some schools these days are only taking one or two students a year in Biblical Studies both because of the cost of seeing them through to the end, and frankly because of the lack of full time jobs in the field.

I am in a rather unusual position in that I am on the doctoral faculty both in an American program and in a European one (Asbury and St. Andrews). This gives me some perspective on the relative merits of each, and I have to say that each have strengths and weaknesses, but on the whole if we are talking about a student who has already had plenty of Bible, writes well, knows his or her languages, and frankly doesn’t need a lot more course work or comprehensive exams, then the European program is to be preferred.

Yes, there is the disadvantage that when it come to employment time you are not immediately in the American network or good ole boy network for hiring over here, but that can be overcome. It is telling to me that of the more well known and widely published North American Evangelical scholars of my generation, almost all of them took their degrees in the U.K.— that includes me, Darrell Bock, Joel Green, Scot McKnight, and many more.

The problem as well with giving advice as to where to study is that it is a moving target. By this I mean that it all depends on who is on what faculty when, who is gone on sabbatical, who has a full compliment of doctoral students and so on. I was initially going to go to and was accepted at Oxford and wanted to work with J.N.D. Kelly, but he was near retirement, and so instead I went to Durham and worked with C.K. Barrett. I could have gone to Princeton and worked with Bruce Metzger, but frankly it was too long and too expensive and involved some redundancy in my case. I had already had 13 exegesis courses in seminary and with excellent professors— Lincoln, Fee, Scholer, Michael.

What I am suggesting of course is that one must count the cost in every sense of that word before pursuing a PhD. I have much more to say about this in my book Is There a Doctor in the House? where I talk about the toll such a degree takes not only on the individual but on his family and resources. Think about these things.

  • http://cramercomments.blogspot.com D C Cramer

    Of course, one pro of American research universities (over seminaries and UK universities) is that they are typically fully funded, including an annual stipend, if you are one of the 1-2 people to get in. Thus, even if it takes an extra year or two, you can get out without being strapped down with school loan debt. Plus, you get to be a part of the “good ole boy network”! ;)

  • http://patricklmitchell.wordpress.com Patrick Mitchell

    As one who has asked you recently, thank you for posting this blog. I have wrestled with the issues surrounding PhD pursuit for some time and am finally headed in that direction. Knowing how competitive the programs are and having been out of my masters program for a couple of years now, I am going back to school for work in Gk/Heb and hopefully will write a paper or two worthy of a PhD application.

    Thanks for the honest thoughts, Dr. Ben.

  • Oscar

    On a purely local level do Ph.D.s make a difference? Probably only in the area of publishing, and then only for those whose writing style is most accessible.

    Most bible teachers are the lowly “called by God” types who find themselves in those positions, not because they sought it out, but because a divine gifting or a pressing local need placed them there. Of these workers it can be said “the harvest is ripe, but the workers few”. In my own church there is a crying need for those willing to sacrifice their time, if only as substitutes for the precious few teachers who are on the line week after week, whose only pay is knowing that they are doing what God has called them to do.

    This is not to say that a doctorate is insignificant, but the time, money and effort expended to attain a degree that MIGHT lead to a significant vocation is a huge gamble. Count the cost!

  • http://jmsmith.org JM Smith

    I’ve had a difficult time finding churches that are willing to hire someone to teach the Bible unless they also take on full pastoral roles. As someone definitely called to teach, but not necessarily as a traditional pastor, this is somewhat frustrating. Any tips from the good doctor? :)

    (Read your book, btw and it definitely helped in my own discerning of whether or not a PhD is in my future.)

  • RickC

    Thanks for the lecture Doc but I really wasn’t thinking about studying for a PhD. I was seriously hoping the big guy would super saturate me supranaturally especially since I’m in the middle of the OT right now. I’ve a lot of questions about more than a few things of the OT. History doesn’t seem to be terribly corroborating on some of these things. I’m not sure that really matters though.

  • http://www.benwitherington.com ben Witherington

    Hi J.M.: Well one answer would be become a Presbyterian— they have teaching elders and highly value persons with higher degrees. Many of their senior ministers as well have PhDs. BW3

  • dudabrad

    This is timely, as I’m wrestling with this right now. I’m turning 46 this fall, with a MA degree, 14 years of pastoral experience, and 4 years teaching at a small (unaccredited) Canadian Bible school. I’d often dreamed of a PhD, but, as they say, “life got in the way”. But I’d still like to pursue further studies and I’m wrestling with the good ol’ DMin vs PhD dilemma.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but assuming that I completed my PhD in 8 years (is that realistic?), I’d be a 54 year old brand-new PhD. My suspicion is that my chances of moving up in the field of academic teaching are virtually nil, even with the 10+ years of small Bible school teaching experience that I would have by then.
    If that is so, then, outside of academia, are there any other doors in church-parachurch-ministry that a PhD would open that a DMin wouldn’t?

    BTW, J.M., I hear you …. as a pastor a loved to teach, but struggled to “shepherd”. Sometimes multi-staff churches have additional teaching pastors, but even that’s rare. Pastoring seems to be a “both/and” deal in most places (I think sometimes to the church’s harm).

  • Ben Witherington

    First of all, there are tons of opportunities to teach in the two thirds world, regardless of your age. Secondly, the D Min. vs. the PhD. is not a fair fight. They are two very different degrees, with most D Mins. not really being doctoral quality degrees at all in terms of requirements and rigor. If you want a degree that will improve your Biblical acumen, do a M.A. in Biblical Studies. BW3

  • http://www.brianroden.com Brian Roden

    I’m currently 12 hours into a 48-hour MA in Theological Studies program. As much as I would love to do the doctorate in Biblical studies (I’m nerdy that way), I’m already 43, and most PhD in Bible/Theology programs would require an MDiv or several more hours of languages and other courses. So I’d still have the rest of my MATS plus a couple more years’ prep classes to even start a PhD program.

    Since I’m most likely going to be teaching on the mission field (I speak fluent Spanish and have taught Bible institute-level courses in Spanish here in Arkansas), I’m leaning toward getting some field experience under my belt after finishing my MATS, then coming back for a DMiss or PhD in Intercultural Studies, which could better equip me for the international work anyway. And my denom’s seminary has those degrees designed to work for missionaries on the field who would come back to the states a couple of times a year for week-long modules with their cohorts, with the other reading and writing work done from the field.

  • SisterSallySue

    Seems to me we beat the education of the mind to death and make our Christian walk so complicated we lose the simplicity of relationship with Jesus Himself. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against higher education as we have a student at Asbury Uni, but I believe we can over analyze Scriptures to the point we become dangerously close to be unchildlike in our faith. Just sayin… :)

  • Ben Witherington

    Hi Rachel: I think there is a difference between a simple faith and a simpleton’s faith. A simple faith involves trusting God, even with the life of the mind, and the exploration of all sorts of knowledge and ideas. It does not entail an anti-intellectual component, but rather involves ‘faith seeking understanding’ always. I don’t think it is possible to over-analyze the depths and riches of Scripture. I think the real danger is trivializing it, underestimating it, settling for less than a full understanding of it, boiling it down into pablum etc. Blessings Ben W.

  • daniel

    Dr. Witherington,

    I have heard that many mission seminaries would welcome PHD’s is this not the case?

  • Ben Witherington

    Dan it depends on the seminary, and it depends on the theological persuasion of the applicant as well. BW3

  • http://wadholm.blogspot.com Rick Wadholm Jr

    I hold a MDiv Honours (its an academic track) and was accepted to 2 PhD programs in the States but determined to hold out for two others (one in the UK and Wheaton). I have a family of 6 and have been wrestling with this decision. I hold competency in Greek, Hebrew, Ugaritic and Aramaic. I’m currently taking a course in Reading German from the U of Wisc-Madison. I also am a full-time pastor and teach as a sessional instructor of OT in Canada. Any specific recommendations?

  • marc axelrod

    Hi Dr. Witherington

    Just wanted to say that I agree, the DMIn and the Phd are two totally different things. I have nothing but love for the DMin program at Trinity in Deerfield. It was a lot of work, maybe one of the hardest DMin programs that there is: Ten classes, plus the final project (mine was 284 pages).

    With my DMin program in preaching, I had seminars in Romans, General Epistles, Old Testament, and priceless coursework on biblical exposition, plus some ministry classes. I received a very well rounded education that sharpened my ministry skills and made me a much better preacher. It’s not anywhere near as rigorous as what you went through at Durham, but it was a huge blessing. I don’t look at it as an inferior doctorate, but as the terminal degree for practicing full time ministers.

  • marc axelrod

    Something else I just thought of:You need a Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree, plus three years of full time ministry experience before most seminaries will even think about letting you into the DMIn program. Ten years of work before you can even be admitted! Plus, rather than focusing on a narrow slice of theology and a thousand wrong opinions about that slice, the DMin (at Trinity at least) requires broader coursework.

  • Ben Witherington

    Good point Marc. The terminal degree for practicing ministers. I agree. But since it doesn’t have the rigor of a doctoral program, even in your case, it should be called an M Min. or perhaps a Th Min. BW3

  • Ben Witherington

    Well Rick you could do a part time PhD at say the University of Durham, or through Asbury’s LST program. BW3

  • Bill

    Ben, you are an evangelical biblical scholar. You remain evangelical. You are rare. Few remain evangelical after completing competitive PhDs in biblical studies. In my opinion, this is a scandalous betrayal of the church and the cause of Christ in the world. Even worse, the West exports our critical hermeneutic to the growing churches in the two-thirds world. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the early Methodists who transformed the UK and America did not have seminary degrees. The same is true for the masses of preachers in Africa, India, China, Indonesia, and in other places where the church is remaining vital. Anecdotal exceptions to the contrary do not discredit the plan observation. Many growing churches and denominations are questioning the viability of the seminary approach to training people for service in the church. Personally, I am tired of post-colonial, liberationists, and historical Jesus hermeneutics that betray the soul of the scriptures and make the church sterile. Many also ask me about getting a PhD. I encourage them to follow the calling of Christ. However, I would never encourage an evangelical to pursue a PhD in a subject related to biblical studies in a mainline or secular institution.

  • Ben Witherington

    Hi Bill: I am certainly not a rarity. Go to the Evangelical Theo. Society meetings some day. There are thousands like me. You can’t really be serious that if someone has a calling to teach at a secular university (it’s called missions) that they should avoid getting a degree at such an institution. That’s just silly. And if indeed the Evangelical Gospel is the truth, then it should be able to stand on its own two feet in the marketplace of ideas, and show the weaknesses of other positions. You seem to forget that scholarship is not just for church planting, it’s also for engaging the life of the mind in the larger culture. Take for example William Wilberforce. As for your point about Wesley’s preachers, again you are wrong. Wesley set up a theological college experience for them by giving them a huge reading program and then having them examined before they could be preachers. In America we had the course of studies program which involved reading Watson’s Institutes among other things, and in due course being examined for ordination. Seminary education of course has its weaknesses, but most of the major leaders of the Evangelical world and their church planters have had such degrees and benefited from it. And in terms of just numbers— I would reckon less than 10% of all the Evangelicals I know who got PhDs in major universities ceased to be Evangelicals thereafter. For example, I am a John Wesley Fellow. There are now some 150 of us teaching and preaching all over the world, often in secular schools and church related schools that are not Evangelical. Of these I know of exactly 2 who are no longer Evangelicals. So before you pontificate about seminary education, you ought to bother to get the facts straight first. BW3

  • Bill

    Certainly, you will acknowledge that a seminary education is an innovation not required for effective ministry. In terms of the course of study and the test of “effectiveness,” American Methodism long battled against seminary training. Effectiveness was a practical term related to the visible fruit of one’s ministry. It had nothing to do with education. Wesley strongly chided Asbury and Cokesbury for founding Cokesbury College. He was strongly opposed to it and preferred that the MEC found orphanages. Additionally, the journals and minutes of early American Methodism chronicle the church’s negative sentiment to higher learning. Observation taught the leading preachers that OJT and the course of study better prepared a person for a life of itineration than having his spiritual vitality dried up in a school. I recall a famous quote of Asbury in which he says that learning is good. But, if one has to chose between learning and preaching, he should give up all the books in the world to dedicate himself to preaching. Wilbur Fisk was the one who normalized seminary in the New England context in order to place the Methodists on the same par as other established churches. Yes, Evangelicals need to get PhDs to influence the academy and the marketplace. However, many of those PhDs to include John Wesley Fellows have also influenced evangelicalism in the direction of their higher learning. I am very familiar with a host of JW Fellows who have drifted from core evangelical commitments. It seems that the two edged sword of higher education cuts mostly in one direction. Perhaps the larger issue relates to the professionalization of the clergy. When one looks at required competencies and curriculum mapping related to outcomes, it becomes evident that society and church have created a monster that vitiates the core of the church’s apostolic calling.

  • http://www.benwitherington.com ben Witherington

    Actually no Bill I would not agree with this assessment either. John Wesley was an Oxford don. Methodism was born in the context of profound study of the Greek NT at Oxford. Wesley was not ever anti-education. Not ever. He was concerned that sometimes zeal for knowledge other than knowledge of God’s Word could get in the way of salvation and preaching and the like, but this was a matter of weighing different good things. You forget that theology and Christian philosophy were major parts of education at Oxford and Cambridge long before Wesley and during his day. They did not need seminaries in addition to the profound theological education they could get at university. And Asbury and Wesley certainly did differ on education— Asbury wanted less of it, Wesley and Coke and Watson and Fletcher wanted more. BW3

  • Bill

    Ben, truth be told, Wesley’s vision for world Methodism did not include seminary because he was not founding a church. His was a movement of itinerant preachers who formed societies. He sought to renew the church, reform the nation, and spread scriptural holiness throughout the land. Yes, he was an educated priest like Coke and Fletcher. Yet, you cannot show me a place where Wesley wanted his preachers to get a seminary education. When Pilmoor, one of the first Methodist missionaries in NY, wanted a seminary education, he left Methodism and united with the Anglican community. Even after Wesley sent over Coke, Vassey and Whatcoat to form a Methodist church in America, he did not send over any instructions on seminary education. The itinerants were schooled on horseback. They studied as they rode. They were mentored along the way. Still, one can hardly make an argument for the seminary model of clergy training based on the writings of Wesley and Asbury. Personally, I think that the UMC has become too dependent on professional clergy with seminary degrees (people like us). We lack the equivalency of evangelizing itinerants. I’ll be at Asbury in August. If you like, we can continue this in person.

  • Ben Witherington

    Bill perhaps you do not know the story of either Cokesbury College or Bethel Academy. The point is, we live in a Biblically illiterate culture, and the church is largely that way as well. What we do not need is a bunch of itinerants who have not seriously been grounded in the Word, or church history or theology or ethics etc. It is irresponsible to argue that we need less seminary when the church and its clergy is becoming more Biblically illiterate and colleges and churches are simply not adequately training people in these educational fields. BW3

  • Bill

    Ben, what would you like me to tell you about the old Bethel Academy in Nicholasville or the ruin of Cokebury College. Asbury referred to the “charity boys” often and saw both of them as a bane. I do not think that the early Methodist itinerants or the laypeople were biblically illiterate. Yes, they had a precritical reading of the text. Yet, they read it and were very familiar with its content. Certainly you know that the NT writers did not share your critical method of reading the text. When I went to a UM Seimary for my M.Div. with a BA in Religion and training in the biblical languages, other students only had to take intro courses to old and new testament and one exegesis course. No languages were required. The curriculum contained almost no biblical content. In preaching class it was very evident that the students were not fluent in the Bible. I wonder, how has the modern seminary route in the mainline tradition improved the quality of preachers? How has it helped Europe? Where is the evidence? For some reason, you are wholly lacking a self-critical mindset and are being purposely closed minded. In its origins, Methodism did not advocate for seminary style education for its itinerants. Since Methodism has gone the way of the academy, we have lost our zeal and have become a declining movement/denomination. Have you been to a UM related seminary lately or interviewed the people from those schools when they go before a board of ordained ministry? I promise you this, Wesley and Asbury would not have appointed them. Mock as you will but the facts are on the table. One does not have to be anti-intellectual to realize that other ways of equipping men and women for ordained ministry are also effective. The question is, what is the most effective way or combinations of way and how does the seminary need to change to help the church fulfill its mission in the world?