









































72  ATLA 2022 PROCEEDINGS

Theological Libraries and Non-
Credit Pathways for Ministry
Andrew Keck, Executive Director of Strategic Initiatives and Special Assistant 
to the Dean, Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University

ABSTRACT Non-credit pathways for ministry include pre-degree, post-de-
gree, or alternative to degrees. This paper addresses models for non-degree 
programs, changing economics, reimagining a non-degree theological edu-
cation, and the intersection with theological libraries.

INTRODUCTION

While I have been thinking about these things for a while, it was 
really put into focus over the course of a year when managing a 
$50,000 seminary planning grant from the Lilly Endowment: the 
topic of non-credit programs emerged in a significant way during 
our planning retreat. We then struck up a conversation with Wesley 
Theological Seminary that subsequently developed into a $5,000,000 
Lilly Endowment grant proposal. As part of preparing that grant 
proposal, the library implications became increasingly clear, and 
so I proposed this paper, conducted a modest survey, and had a 
number of valuable conversations with colleagues. I acknowledge 
that this paper owes a significant debt to large number of conver-
sation partners.

My family tree is littered with Methodist clergy—we trace back 
to the 1790s in Methodist clergy, and even today there are four of us 
among three living generations. Among an earlier generation of pas-
tors, we had James Franklin Brown, Harry C. Brown, and Clifford C. 
Brown; all were Methodist pastors who took different routes through 
theological education that are instructive to the kind of theological 
education that I will be describing. James Franklin, my great-great-
grandfather, heard the call to ministry around the age of 43 years old. 
He moved from Ohio to Illinois when he was 18 years, never went 
to college, and never knew anything but farming. So, when he was 

PAPERS



PAPERS  73

licensed to be a local preacher, his only education was a non-credit, 
non-degree program known as the Course of Study. And he contin-
ued to be a farmer in addition to being a preacher.

James Franklin’s son and my great-grandfather, Harry Brown, felt 
a call to ministry at a younger age of 23 years old, a full two decades 
earlier than his father. Still, he had not finished college, and so he 
went through the same non-credit, non-degree course of study that 
his father had completed. But after about ten years of ministry, he 
decided he should go to seminary to better himself and his family. 
And so he packed up the family to get a seminary education at Gar-
rett while pastoring a church outside of Chicago. Harry’s son and my 
grandfather, Clifford C. Brown, felt the call to ministry when he was 
31 years old. He had already finished college and so, rather than go 
through the non-credit, non-degree course of study program, he went 
directly to seminary—again at Garrett. But he pastored a church as 
a student and took the train to Garrett from southern Illinois.

We have three examples who all happen to be in different genera-
tions of the same family and had different experiences of theological 
education. James Franklin was both a second-career pastor and what 
we might call bi-vocational or multi-vocational in farming and min-
istry. His non-credit, non-degree program was the only preparation 
and offramp he needed for decades of ministry. Combining farming, 
pastoring, and going through a traditional degree program would 
have been both unaffordable and impractical. Harry gets started a 
bit earlier in the ministry, goes through the same non-credit, non-
degree program as his father but then finds it difficult to advance in 
full-time ministry without going to seminary. Unlike his father, he 
has no second vocation or career. In this case, the non-credit, non-
degree program becomes an onramp to a theological degree. Finally, 
Clifford bypasses the non-credit, non-degree program altogether and 
goes directly into a theological degree. Each of these stories illustrates 
both the past and future of theological education.

MODELS FOR NON-DEGREE PROGRAMS

In the Wesleyan movement, we have had since at least 1816 a non-
credit, non-degree program known as the “Course of Study.” While 
it has changed and evolved over the last 200 years, it is a required 
theological and leadership education program for licensed local pas-
tors. Prior to that time, the model was a simple apprenticeship—the 



74  ATLA 2022 PROCEEDINGS

new preacher would be attached to an older preacher to travel a cir-
cuit together and was given a small set of books, sized appropriately 
for the saddlebags of the day used by the circuit-riding preachers.

Many models for non-credit, non-degree credentialing of clergy 
and other types of church leaders can be seen within a wide range 
of religious traditions and cultures. In terms of theological educa-
tion, one might say that traditional graduate theological education 
is more the outlier than the norm. Religious bodies themselves have 
often piloted and directed this type of education. The contemporary 
counterpart to an apprenticeship model is quite common. Similarly, 
correspondence-based education, competency-based education, and 
video-based instruction is widely available.

Curriculum might be uniquely prepared for certain cultures and 
contexts. A program in Iowa is specifically targeted to the preacher 
farmer. A Lutheran curriculum in Alaska is devoted to the Inuit 
Native American community. There are non-degree programs de-
veloped by or targeted to Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Epis-
copalians, Congregationalists, and likely many more. Many church-
es, judicatories, and even publishers and non-profits have created 
modest training programs in various areas of theological education. 
Several theological seminaries have developed certificate programs, 
online learning opportunities, and other kinds of formalized non-
degree programs. My brother-in-law, who leads a multi-site church 
in Pittsburgh, contracted with a Canadian seminary to provide a 
customized theological education to his whole staff.

Clergy preparation in this non-credit, non-degree space might 
consist of anything from a single preparatory weekend retreat to 
a multiyear set of courses, from individual learning to learning 
cohorts, from basic studies to advanced studies. In addition to the 
formal education component, religious bodies might add lengthy 
examinations, formal interviews, regular assessments, and ongoing 
mentoring or supervision. With few exceptions, there is extraordi-
narily little oversight or coordination among these efforts. If there 
are standards, they can be defined at the denomination level, at the 
local church level, or any place in between. Potential learners face 
a dizzying array of choices. As illustrated at the beginning, these 
non-credit programs can be sufficient preparation or offramp into 
ministry. Or they can be an onramp to other educational programs 
and even graduate-level theological degrees.



PAPERS  75

CHANGING ECONOMICS OF THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

The economic systems that have sustained full-time, graduate-
level trained ministry are fragile, if not completely broken. The 
economics of higher education as a whole also provide challenges 
to theological education. A major shakeout is underway among 
ATS schools as the pool of students seeking the MDiv and the do-
nor pool in congregations are both shrinking. This business model 
is no longer sustainable, practical, or directed to the needs of the 
emerging church.

Most seminaries in the ATS are or were structured to offer gradu-
ate-level education culminating in the expensive and time-intensive 
MDiv, because we believe forming full-time pastors is the core of our 
mission. Other master’s programs are often derivative of the MDiv, 
utilizing its core courses or outcomes. Tenured and non-tenured fac-
ulty are structured to serve that MDiv curriculum; it is the principal 
focus of accreditation standards and the denominator in tradition-
al measures of quality like teaching load and student-faculty ratio. 
Fundraising and endowment build toward subsidizing the MDiv. We 
offer other master’s, doctoral, and non-degree programs that utilize 
the excess capacity of the faculty, staff, and campus and only as an 
ancillary part of our mission.

Many seminaries, including Perkins School of Theology, were 
started through the generous support of churches and laity such 
that students typically paid little or no tuition, room and board were 
heavily subsidized, and weekends featured bountiful paid opportu-
nities for preaching and ministry. This is no longer the case. Tuition 
(which we control) and increasing layers of university fees (which 
we don’t control) regularly exceed the church and endowment sup-
port for scholarships. Seminary student housing was absorbed by 
the university many decades ago, and the local preaching/ministry 
opportunities for student pastors are neither as plentiful nor as fi-
nancially generous.

CHANGING ECONOMICS OF MINISTRY

On the church side, one can simply look at denominational statistics 
to see a reduction in the number of ordained clergies with graduate 
theological education. I attended the Oklahoma Annual Conference 
a few weeks ago where they counted one ordination and nineteen 
retirements. Many churches are simply not able to afford full-time 



76  ATLA 2022 PROCEEDINGS

clergy, and multi-staff congregations are typically employing fewer of 
them. Churches can merge, create larger clergy circuits, and deploy 
a greater number of congregational lay ministers, but the resulting 
reduction in full-time clergy remains the same.

The common thread among pastors in underserved communi-
ties is multi-vocational clergy and congregational lay ministers: 
despite their educational needs or desires, they often cannot access 
or afford theological education—particularly not an expensive and 
time-intensive Master of Divinity degree. Even more problematic 
for a large and growing number of clergy is the fact that the largest 
and best-organized non-credit programs are coordinated and sup-
ported by religious bodies, all of which are facing major funding and 
staffing challenges. For example, the UMC Course of Study has been 
traditionally supported by general church funds and robust staffing, 
at multiple levels, to ensure quality and coordination throughout the 
denomination. But the UMC has been in a long decline, and it faces 
a major splintering and potential reorganization that threatens to 
further dissolve funding and staffing capacities. As funding, author-
ity, and support continue to diminish, the ability to coordinate and 
fund robust and consistent offerings is threatened even as the de-
mand for such training grows. Thus, the denominational bodies that 
have traditionally organized and financially supported non-degree 
pastoral education face significant reductions in size, mission, and 
funding in the coming years, leaving an uncertain future even for 
existing programs.

REIMAGINING A NON-DEGREE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

While graduate theological education has been normative for most 
of our lives, it’s a relatively new invention—as is most of higher edu-
cation that we experience today. Even the idea of formal seminary 
education didn’t really emerge until the 16th century. The Associa-
tion of Theological Schools was founded in 1918, with standards 
emerging in 1936, the birthing of Atla in 1946, and the now-familiar 
pattern of seminary self-studies and peer evaluations not appear-
ing until 1956.

Pastoral leaders need and deserve a quality theological educa-
tion that draws on the best resources seminaries have to offer. At 
the same time, even those completing a master’s degree need new 
skills and competencies at points in ministry, whether that is before, 



PAPERS  77

during, or after their master’s studies. Theological schools have the 
opportunity to develop affordable, accessible theological education 
offerings that can serve as pre-degree, post degree, or alternatives 
to the MDiv that allow more pastors in more communities to do the 
work of transformation.

Through a collaboration, we seek to develop, standardize, and 
market the educational offerings most needed to serve and strength-
en pastors, particularly in missional and underserved communities. 
In some cases, this may mean non-degree or certificate programs that 
serve as an alternative credentialing path to ordination or a creden-
tialing path for a specific set of skills (e.g., evangelism, spiritual direc-
tion, conflict transformation). We also see routes for stacking these 
credentials into a degree program; for example, courses can serve 
as an onramp to a Master of Arts or Master of Divinity degree, par-
ticularly for students who do not have a bachelor’s degree but who 
have the capacity and desire for advanced theological education.

As part of reimagining the seminary business model and stew-
ardship of seminary assets, we also must look at the specific busi-
ness model of offering non-degree courses, credentials, and cer-
tificates. What “price point” makes sense for learners? Do students 
pay per course or subscribe to get access to learning opportunities? 
What level of sponsorship from local congregations or denomina-
tional offices can or should be expected? What level of mentorship, 
community, or support do these pastors need, and how can that be 
provided? How and how much should faculty, mentors, and others 
involved in this work be compensated? What level of enrollment 
within courses or entire programs is needed to be sustainable? 
What are the fixed costs of infrastructure used to support these 
programs? These and other questions must be answered through 
consultation and experimentation to form an effective, sustainable, 
and replicable model.

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARIES AND NON-CREDIT PROGRAMS

Given this context of theological education and the potential role 
for traditional theological seminaries in non-degree, non-credit 
programs, what are or might be some considerations for theological 
libraries and indeed, for Atla?

As many of you know, I ran a brief survey in April that was distrib-
uted through ATLANTIS and several other channels. I had 25 respon-



78  ATLA 2022 PROCEEDINGS

dents to the survey and probably a half-dozen follow-up conversa-
tions with librarians who indicated a willingness to chat further. This 
is clearly a small sample of Atla membership that is not completely 
representative. Further, I freely admit that as an amateur sociolo-
gist, my survey questions and instructions did not always lead to a 
consistent response to each question. Thus, the results are sugges-
tive at best and will need to be improved upon or replicated further.

The first few questions were to provide a little background on 
the libraries and their contexts. The first question used the formulas 
from the ATS annual report about the type of library. Twenty-two re-
ported being an independent library chiefly serving their institution. 
Zero reported being in a department or departmental branch library 
within a larger university or college library system. Two reported 
being part of a library integrated with a larger university or college 
library system, and one reported part of a library system jointly ad-
ministered and/or funded by more than one educational institution.

For FTE enrollment, 15 respondents reported being from librar-
ies serving under 250 FTE, 6 from libraries serving 250–500 FTE, 2 
from libraries serving 500-1999 FTE, and 2 from libraries serving 
2000–5000 FTE. When asked about the funds devoted to electronic 
resources, the answers ranged from $9,200 to $200,000 with an av-
erage about $52,771 and a median of $35,000.

The next group of questions allowed respondents to choose among 
various library services. This is where the data gets a little screwy 
because I allowed for multiple checkboxes. For example, in asking 
the question about who can use library computers, 17 respondents 
checked “Anyone,” and 6 respondents checked “persons enrolled 
in a non-credit course.” The problem here is that there is no way to 
distinguish the results from persons who are only able to use library 
computers because they were enrolled in a non-credit course from 
those who were already able to use library computers because they 
were part of “anyone.” The comments in the survey, as well as the 
follow up conversations, clarified some points here.

In many cases, libraries tended to be fairly generous to the public 
in providing access to an onsite library—using library computers, Wi-
Fi, checkout privileges, research guides, reference services, and on-
site use of library subscription databases. The generosity to the public 
became much more limited in the areas of offsite access to library 
subscription databases and interlibrary loan. Admittedly, several re-
spondents offered that their current license agreements and interli-



PAPERS  79

brary loan policies restricted access to registered for-credit students, 
faculty, and staff. Some interpreted “students” broadly to include non-
credit students as long as they were enrolled in recognized courses. A 
few libraries indicated intentional efforts to reach non-credit learn-
ers through offering information literacy sessions, research guides, 
library cards, and expanded access to digital resources.

My hypotheses, based on this data and the subsequent conversa-
tions, is that fuller access to library-licensed resources and interli-
brary loan is often based upon a person’s entry into an institutional 
or library-based identity management system. If non-credit courses 
or certificate programs make use of a learning management system, 
or if students need ID cards for building access, those students may 
be provided a broader authorization to library resources. Thus, per-
sons auditing a for-credit course were most likely to be entered into 
such systems and have the most access to these resources.

To the last question, 7 of the 25 respondents were interested in 
cooperative reciprocal borrowing agreements for non-credit stu-
dents, 9 of the 25 respondents were interested in cooperative access 
to a selection of licensed databases, and 10 of the 25 respondents 
were interested in developing open-access resources designed for 
non-credit programs.

I want to leave you with two final observations, two recommen-
dations for individual libraries, and a potential collaborative vision 
that has emerged from my thinking and conversations about this 
topic over the past year.

First, the appreciation for non-credit learners was mixed with a 
fairly low expectation of library demand or use by these students. 
Non-credit programs often meet during evenings or weekends when 
libraries were closed or minimally staffed. Other programs met on-
line or offsite in churches and instruction spaces closer to the stu-
dents. As noted in the survey responses, libraries offer something less 
than a full suite of resources to non-credit students. For their part, 
non-credit instructors also have low expectations for access to library 
resources, low expectations of the research skills of their students, 
and see little reward in engaging with library resources or services. 
Therefore, any argument for information literacy among church 
leaders is squeezed out by other needed competencies or skills for 
ministry. This is a difficult but not impossible situation.

Second, despite the lack of current demand from non-credit stu-
dents, libraries genuinely desired to provide the greatest access to 



80  ATLA 2022 PROCEEDINGS

scholarly resources for non-credit students. If non-credit enrollments 
continue to grow and exceed for-credit enrollments, it is critical for 
libraries to be part of the conversation. Further, there are some jus-
tice issues at stake for a library association that promotes hospitality, 
inclusiveness, and diversity. Non-credit programs, due to their lower 
cost and entry points, tend to serve a more diverse population socio-
economically, ethnically, racially, and geographically. What does it 
say if we don’t offer a full suite of library services and resources to 
these diverse populations? What happens to the place of the library 
within theological education when library services are out of align-
ment with a new majority of non-credit students?

Strategically, I recommend three things each library might want 
to consider on their own before painting a picture of a fully coop-
erative system.

For individual libraries, the precise strategies for addressing 
non-credit students will be multifaceted. The first step is careful en-
gagement. A focus group or ongoing advisory group of non-credit 
students could help one look at the library resources and services 
from the perspective of the non-credit student. There might be some 
initial “easy wins” such as setting up a webpage or research guide 
that addresses access to library resources from the perspective of 
a non-credit student. Libraries could also look at policies and pro-
cedures to better enable more seamless access to a wider range of 
library services and resources by non-credit students. A reference 
librarian might reach out to non-credit instructors to offer library 
instruction and support for research projects.

Second, when licensing electronic resources, check with your ven-
dors on the definitions of “student” and limitations of access by non-
credit students. Some vendors may allow for an expanded definition 
of student, while others might modify licenses to explicitly include 
non-degree students. Another approach might be to build non-credit 
students into existing or supplemental contracts with vendors. Such 
licenses might require a blend of standards for academic and pub-
lic libraries or somehow count non-credit students differently. See 
whether non-degree students can be entered into your library or 
other identity management system in a way that allows them access 
to licensed resources.

Third, open access. Strategically, there is broad interest in mak-
ing more scholarly resources available to everyone – inclusive of 
both credit and non-credit students. These could be Open Educa-



PAPERS  81

tional Resources (OER), other open-access journals or monographs, 
or copyrighted resources unlocked into open access. Over the last 
decade or more, I have occasionally fantasized about asking each 
Atla member library to contribute a percentage of its materials bud-
get to supporting open-access works. Beyond open access, we may 
find an increased appetite for projects like controlled digital lend-
ing, expanded reciprocal borrowing agreements, and other initia-
tives that provide greater access to in-copyright materials. A more 
universal access to scholarly resources could benefit a wide range 
of non-credit learners, including those in less formal and more ap-
prentice-based programs.

Finally, let me paint a picture of reinventing theological education 
as a non-credit cooperative enterprise. Imagine with me that there 
is a cooperative platform for offering non-credit theological educa-
tion. It starts with Perkins School of Theology and Wesley Theologi-
cal Seminary, and we create our cooperative series of preparation 
for ministry modules in both Spanish and English, then add further 
advanced modules—perhaps some cooperatively and others under 
our own branding or expertise. Ideally, we find church bodies, bish-
ops, and individual churches to recognize completion of a certificate 
as a credential demonstrating theological preparation for ministry 
and perhaps completion of advanced modules or certificates as cre-
dentials indicating preparation for specialized ministry. Going fur-
ther, we find other programs recognized by other church bodies that 
would like to join our cooperative. Perhaps we start to develop stan-
dards, so that courses taught by one school might be recognized by 
another and included or stacked into new credentials. Of course, we 
would have to figure out a revenue sharing model that would include 
the overall infrastructure, content creators, sponsoring schools, and 
cohort facilitators.

If we are going to have such a cooperative system, students are 
going to need to have a way to register, pay for courses, and manage 
individual transcripts of courses, certificates, or programs complet-
ed. This would have to connect or authenticate students to a learning 
management system for access to the subscribed courses and course 
content. Having created a system that tracks and authenticates stu-
dent identity, it’s a fairly minor effort to create an authentication 
system that works with licensed library resources. 

Vendors can be quite anxious about the access control questions 
and although FTE is meaningless in non-credit spaces, we could 



82  ATLA 2022 PROCEEDINGS

provide a headcount of students enrolled in various courses or pro-
grams for the purposes of pricing. We could decide upon a “once a 
student, always a student” model that provides continuous access 
to these licensed resources or perhaps purges the inactive roles on 
some regular basis. This could be similar to a public library pric-
ing model. Or, we could decide to establish pricing patterns on a 
regular snapshot of the number of students actively enrolled at a 
given time.

In this case, the cooperative project would then curate and li-
cense specific resources for the cooperative. This would likely not 
be the same set of materials as for graduate-level degree programs 
and would be focused on supporting the non-degree curriculum 
and programs. The curation and licensing decisions might be made 
in the cooperative or might be integrated into the program develop-
ment process at each participating school. If modules or curriculum 
are developed that needed additional licensed resources, one could 
evaluate what those might be against the materials already licensed 
or curated.

As I admitted earlier, this is a significant reinvention of theological 
education into a cooperative model—a reinvention that duplicates 
much of the systems and supports of traditional degree programs: 
admission, registration, payment, authentication, authorization. For 
libraries, it admittedly creates one set of institutionally licensed re-
sources available to traditional degree students and another set of 
cooperatively licensed resources for non-degree students. What then 
about library services? Would the cooperative itself need librarians 
to provide reference assistance, or would the librarians of participat-
ing institutions provide such assistance to the cooperative?

While many questions remain, I am attracted to this cooperative 
model for doing non-credit theological education. The model could 
potentially provide the breadth and scale to be sustainable without 
relying on the credit-hour-based tuition and scholarship model that 
forms the shaky foundation of many of our institutions. There are 
certainly risks in creating a cheaper product that might compete 
with our own degree programs but also the clear opportunity to 
convert some number of non-degree students into degree students. 
However, I believe the risks are greater for theological seminaries 
and libraries to not be involved in creating and supporting multi-
layered theological education for multi-vocational pastors within 
underserved communities.


