# So my pastor asks me if I am considering seminary..



## ReformedWretch (Dec 30, 2005)

I have in the past and even began going to a school that closed down, but that was in my Arminian Dispensational days. Since becoming reformed in my theology I only ever considered it once and that was when I was working at Wal*Mart for a living.

I would love to have a degree, but I am not certain that I am cut out for preaching. I like to study and talk, but all the other ins and outs of pastoring don't intrest me too much.

I have been considering administration in my current field, maybe getting a degree but waiting until I am in my 50's or so to actually consider a move into that area of this work.

Do you think I should give seminary more thought since my Pastor inquired about it with me?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 30, 2005)

Adam,

If you are not called to preach and minister the gospel -- and I mean so called that you cannot do _anything_ else -- do not enter the ministry.

The problem is that in general piety has so declined in the Church that anyone who shows _normal_ Christian traits: reading his Bible, praying regularly, etc. is thought to be extraordinary and "bound for the ministry." I don't say that to denigrate your walk or calling. I say that because you have to be compelled to preach the gospel.

In my opinion, if you are not, you should continue in the wonderful work you do now - work that I would not be capable of, for instance. It is a very unique and special capability that you have.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Dec 30, 2005)

Fred's advice makes a LOT of sense...and, ironically, it is similar to what I tell my music students:
"Don't go to college for music unless you absolutely HAVE to..." In that sense, it's more like it chose you rather than you choosing it.

I know I couldn't be a pastor...but the idea of seriously studying theology in seminary really has a strong appeal to me just the same -especially since discovering Reformed theology out of the mess contemporary church jive that I came out of.


----------



## historyb (Dec 30, 2005)

Maybe instead of a pastor of a church maybe you could become an evanglist. Do reformed people have them?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 30, 2005)

Thanks Fred! Good points, and I appreciate the compliment and encouragement. And Chris, I too would love to study for the degree, maybe I could put one to use outside of preaching? Counseling maybe? Especially teens


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> Maybe instead of a pastor of a church maybe you could become an evanglist. Do reformed people have them?



I've wondered that myself on more than one ocasion.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Thanks Fred! Good points, and I appreciate the compliment and encouragement. And Chris, I too would love to study for the degree, maybe I could put one to use outside of preaching? Counseling maybe? Especially teens



You are welcome. And you deserve (by God's grace) the encouragement!

Study, especially in your field, would be helpful, I would think. Especially in the area of counseling. You might want to check out NANC and the Biblical Counseling Institute in Philly.


----------



## satz (Dec 30, 2005)

> If you are not called to preach and minister the gospel -- and I mean so called that you cannot do anything else -- do not enter the ministry



Fred,

could you prehaps elaborate a little on what you mean by called?

Is being called to preach the gospel something that is determined by God such that those who are called will definitely preach and those who are not should never preach ( in an official capacity )? Or is it a more subjective thing?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 30, 2005)

I take it to mean that you are restless and completely unfulfilled until you realize that God has called you to preach. If I am wrong Fred can correct me.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 31, 2005)

Mark & Adam,

I mean that one needs to be driven or compelled to enter the ministry. The far greater danger today is that men will be run who have not been sent (Jer 23:21), rather than men "missing out on the ministry." There are more of the men complained of in Jeremiah's day than Jonahs.

Al Martin has an excellent series on the Call to the Ministry:

http://tinyurl.com/a77du

Here is a paper I wrote for a seminary class that I think might be helpful.


----------



## pastorway (Dec 31, 2005)

ditto to Fred.

If you are called by God to the minstry you will not only know it, but you can do nothing else. And yes, Christ specifically calls and appoints pastors in His church - Eph 4:11.

thanks for the paper Fred!

Phillip


----------



## BrianBowman (Dec 31, 2005)

Fred,

I've just read your paper above. Very honest and clear! For many years I considered if I were truly called to "full time" Pastoral ministry - even to the point of pursing ordination in the arminian/Dispensational sect that Anne and I used to be a part of. It was that pursuit that led me into Reformed Theology and the wonderful assurance that being a Software R&D guy for God's glory is just as valid a call. I'm now convinced, more than ever, that glorifying God and defending the faith right _where I'm at_ *is* God's call on my life. As you point out above, it *should be* normative for "men the pew" to be very Biblically literate, fervent in prayer, and even masterful in theology and apologetics - without any pressure or necessity to become Elders _or_ enter the pastorate.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 31, 2005)

I too agree with Fred's excellent advice, Adam. You must consider the _internal_ call of the Holy Spirit as well as the _external_ call to the ministry. Paul said, "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, *woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!*" (I Cor. 9.16) If you are not _compelled_ to preach the gospel, then I would take that as an indicator that you are not _called_. And if you are not called from above -- "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Heb. 5.4) -- then rather labor to pray for the furnishing of the church with all gospel officers and ordinances (WLC 191) than to step into the pulpit without a commission from above. 

It is good to prayerfully consider these things. We have need of faithful ambassadors of Christ and we ought to pray that God would raise such men up, and if you are such a man, Adam, then praise God! But it may well be that you are called to serve God where you are now currently or in some other capacity, and if so, praise God that he has gifted you to serve his kingdom elsewhere. We are all many members of one body. It is an honor to serve our Lord wherever he has truly called us.

For additional reading, see the resources listed here, in particular Dabney's The Call to the Ministry.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 31, 2005)

Fred,

I appreciate what you have written here, and do not wish to call any of your wise words into question . . . I am just a bit confused as to the connection between what you are saying here concerning a call to the ministry and some things you wrote before in another thread, concerning individualised guidance for Christians.

Pray do not think that I have any subtle purposes here . . . I just really see a tension, and think my understanding might be greatly helped if you could help clear it up:

In this other 
thread, you said:



> It is the Word that is the rule of faith and life. If the Word does not tell me what to do, how can I know it? Is the Word capable of completely differing application? In other words, how do I know that I have to chose Harvard over Yale, and to do otherwise would be sin (without knowing all ends), and yet for you the exact opposite could be true.



Now, if I understood you correctly, you were saying that only the plain commands of Scripture are morally binding on the Christian, and any decisions not governed by the commands of Scripture are left to Christian liberty; and further that Christians should not expect to receive specific individualised guidance to let them know what God's "secret will" is for them, nor should they fret over such choices.

And yet in this present thread, it seems that you are arguing that a man called to the ministry must be _certain_ that he is so called by the Lord:



> If you are not called to preach and minister the gospel -- and I mean so called that you cannot do anything else -- do not enter the ministry.



Now I appreciate that in the article you wrote concerning your call, you put much emphasis on the sober examination of personal giftings as well as the assessment of your church. And yet, in the end, it would seem that the kind of certainty to which you are referring would have to be proven by an _inward compelling sureness_ of the man that he individually has been called by God to the ministry, that he in fact cannot do anything else.

But if, as you seemed to say in the thread on specific guidance, individuals cannot expect to be convicted by Scripture in a binding and differing way than other individuals would be by the same Scripture, and if Christians cannot be certain of God's "secret will" concerning any decision, and may only be certain of his revealed will in the Scriptures, on what grounds may a man be certain of his call to the ministry, when clearly no man today is explicitly individually named to the ministry by the Scriptures?

Thankful for your elucidation,

Jie-Huli


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 31, 2005)

Jie-Huli,

I am happy to clear this up a bit. 

Understanding a call to the ministry is necessarily a two-fold process: there is an external and internal element. They work _together_, not independently; that is, the Church assists the man in determining what his internal call is, and whether it is true.

This is also different than what I said in the other thread. I did not say that one could _never_ have a level of certainty from the Word, but that it was not to be sought to have complete certainty _in every decision_. The Word gives a great deal of guidance and specificity regarding the ministry, and one's calling to the ministry. It gives no specific guidance regarding whether I should work for Toshiba as opposed to Compaq. Therefore, I should not expect that there would be the exact same level of certainty in the latter case as the former.

Do you understand what I am saying?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 31, 2005)

Note: This post originated as a talk I gave to the URC intern lunch this fall. 
---

Without saying whether anyone in particular is called to the ministry, let me take a bit of a contrarian position here. 

Fred is exactly right that there are two aspects to ministerial vocation, internal and external. The latter is relatively easy, either the visible, institutional church calls a man or she does not.

The second aspect is much more difficult. Without reference to Fred's position in particular (I haven't taken the time to read his paper) I think Jie raises an important question. We who are usually strong cessationists tend to become a little wobbly when it comes to the internal call to the ministry.

*A. The Problem of Knowing God´s Will*

Because of the unhappy influence of pietism in confessional Reformed churches, we have a general problem in our time in "knowing God's will." 

*B. Approaches to Knowing God´s Will*

There are typically approaches commonly followed.

1. The Pietist-Mystical View - still, small voice (1 Kings 19:12)
2. The Mechanical View - the fleece (Judges 6:37)
3. The Reformation View "“ the Word

Of these, the third (of course!) is correct, but it is correct for _every_ vocation, even ministerial. Frequently, however, when we come ministerial vocation folk retreat to the PMV and/or the MV. 

Neither of these approaches (#'s 1 & 2) is appropriate in any case, let alone discerning ministerial vocation. The passages weren't given as examples to show post-canonical, post-apostolic Christians how to discover "the will of God" in particular situations. These episodes, like the flood and the exodus, played a particular role in redemptive history and the progress of revelation not to be replicated in our time.

*I. God´s Mind and Ours*

Fundamental to Reformed theology and piety is the distinction between God's mind and ours. God knows providence extensively from all eternity. We only know providence after the fact. We never know anything the way God knows it. This is nothing but the Creator/creature distinction (Isa 55:8). 

This truth means that we know what God wants us to know and we know that only by revelation, by use of divinely authorized analogies of the divine mind. Our minds _ never_ intersect with the divine understanding as it is in God. We know by submitting to God's holy Word, by learning to think his thoughts after him.

*A. The Secret Things and Revealed Things (Deuteronomy 29:29)*

This means that only know God will happen when it happens. We cannot ever know "what will happen to me" in the future. That knowledge belongs to God. We should not ask because God will not tell. We are morally obligated to submit to and obey God's revealed will. 

So, in approaching the question of ministerial vocation the question is not what will happen, but what should I do?

*B. Covenant and Canon (Deut 31:26; Rev 22:19)*

We ground our approach to canon in the nature of the relations between covenant and canon. Briefly, the canon is what it is, because it is covenantal in nature. Scripture is the testimony of the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. These covenants are constituted by God. As a covenantal document, Scripture is sacred and inviolate. To seek to get behind Scripture is a violation of the constitution of divine-human relations. We are not authorized to add to, subtract from or circumvent God's law or God's gospel.

*C. Sufficiency of Scripture (WCF 1:6)*

Our doctrine of Scripture is pretty clear:



> WCF 1.6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.



The WCF hits the perfect balance between the centrality of the Word, the work of the Spirit through the Word and the necessity of wisdom (see below).

*II. The Ministerial Office (Objective criteria)*

Scripture teaches us what sort of folk are eligible to candidate for the ministry. 

*A. Objective Criteria (1 Tim 4:6"“16; 6:11-12)*

These are the fundamental spiritual and moral qualities necessary for pastoral ministry. They are objective because they are revealed and they can be observed. We aren't perfectionists, however, so we recognize that these virtues will develop gradually and imperfectly in any candidate. If a man's life bears no relation to them, however, that is not a promising sign, to say the least!

*B. Opportunities for Service*

Does the local congregation begin to ask a man to serve? This is a good opportunity. It is not absolutely necessary, but it is a good indicator that perhaps a man may be called. It is an informal part of the external aspect. Again, if the idea of a man teaching or preaching is impossible to conceive, that isn't promising. On the other hand we had a young man who was a brilliant student but rather shy. As it turned out, however, he was a dynamo in the pulpit and has gone on to become a gifted and useful pastor. Some folk might not have thought of this fellow as "pastor" material, but apparently God did!

*C. Training and Preparation*

I suppose as a prof it is easy for me to over emphasize this aspect of the objective criteria, but in our anti-intellectual culture, Americans are too quick to dismiss solid training as a part of the process. 

We're not apostles or in the company of the apostles. Lacking those endowments, we need to give ourselves to preparation that they might not have needed (though the Apostle Paul had excellent academic preparation as did Luke and the writer to the Hebrews). The pastoral minister is far too demanding and potentially dangerous (in the wrong hands) to entrust to earnest but ignorant men. We can all think of examples of these sorts of pastors. The damage they do is not easily repaired. 

III. Vocation



> I am speaking of the external and formal call which relates to the public order of the Church, while I say nothing of that secret call of which every minister is conscious before God, but has not the Church as a witness of it; I mean, the good testimony of our heart, that we undertake the offered office neither from ambition nor avarice, nor any other selfish feeling, but a sincere fear of God and desire to edify the Church. "˜This, as I have said, is indeed necessary for every one of us, if we would approve our ministry to God. Still, however, a man may have been duly called by the Church, though he may have accepted with a bad conscience, provided his weakness is not manifest. It is usual also to say, that private men are called to the ministry when they seem fit are apt to discharge it; that is, because learning, conjoined with piety and the other endowments of a good pastor, is a kind of preparation for the office. For those whom the Lord has destined for this great office he previously provides with the armor which is requisite for the discharge of it, that they may not come empty and unprepared (Calvin, Institutes, 4.3.11)



*A.	External (objective)*

It is interesting that when Adam mentioned an informal example of the external call (it surely doesn't begin with Presbytery! - doesn't the external call begin when a pastor approaches a man he believes might have the gifts and the call?) Fred's first response was to lever that external, relatively objective indicator with the subjective, internal indicator. The effect of this move is to say, "Here's my test of the internal call, a religious experience of a certain sort, so that if you do not meet this test, you do not have the call." 

How does anyone know whether they meet someone else's subjective test? 

Appeal is made to 1 Cor 9:6,



> For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!


 does not observe the context and intent of the passage. 

To use this passage this way in this context is not far from the abuse of the OT passages that we cessationists rightly decry.

Here I'm speaking as a pastor with 18 years in the trenches (I am associate pastor presently in Oceanside URC http://www.oceansideurc.org). There have been many Mondays when I have wondered whether God really called me to the ministry! Things get better on Tuesdays and those doubts don't come as frequently as they did 18 years ago. That's the point. The internal aspect of vocation is not always a bolt from the blue. It is just as often a gradual realization. 

Could I do other things? Well I have. Indeed, it's a good idea for pastors to have experience in other fields (as Fred does!). I have seen men who "can't do anything else" become pastors because they "can't do anything else." I'm equivocating with "can't" here. I know ministers who entered the pastorate because they couldn't find work elsewhere. I won't elaborate, so don't ask but it's a fact and any honest, experienced pastor will confirm this judgment. 

The formal aspect of the external call is the exercise of ministerial authority by a session/consistory and by a presbytery/classis in the supervision of the preparation and training of a pastor. This aspect of the external call is essential. A local pastor's encouragement is invaluable, but only the visible, institutional church can say finally that a man really is called. 

*B. Internal (subjective)*

There is an unavoidably subjective aspect to ministerial vocation. It cannot and should not be eliminated, but it does need to be conditioned very carefully. 

_1. Illumined by the Spirit_

We do believe and confess that the Spirit illumines the Word and does apply the Word. That illumination and application is essential. This process, however, is just that: a process. I see it all the time. Students come to seminary _all the time_ with significant uncertainty. Is this wrong? No. I was not entirely sure that I should enter the pastorate until my senior year. I frequently see my students gradually gaining confidence that, indeed, they are called. They must wait for external confirmation from Presbytery/Classis, but they go with more confidence than that with which they entered seminary. 

Seminary is not the place for the _sure_ as much as it is for the _searching_. Those folks who are cocksure are not always as teachable as those who are searching. 

This isn't to say that a man might not be confident that he is called, but that confidence should be tempered with humility and submission to authority.

_2. Wisdom_

More than voices or fleeces, we need the grace of Wisdom. By this I mean personal, spiritual knowing about who God is, what one is, how things really are; acting and/or thinking appropriately to a situation (Ex 31:3; Deut 4:6; Prov 1:2, 7, 20; 9:10; 10:13; 14:8). 

Again, getting "heart of wisdom" takes time and exploration. Nothing in Proverbs suggests that wisdom comes instantaneously.

_3. Spiritual aesthetics (Phil 1:9; Heb 5:14)_

The ESV translates the Gk noun _aisthesis_ with "discernment." It can also be rendered with "judgment." This is a grace. It is a corollary to wisdom. We need to be able to decide things rightly. We must see things as they are and decide accordingly. Again, this takes time and training.

_4. The Grace of Honesty_

Perhaps the most significant grace needed is the grace of honesty. We must learn to be honest with ourselves and others about our gifts, our sins, our failings, our faults etc. The truth is that no one really has all the virtues necessary for a pastor all of the time. The Pauline lists are intimidating. Ministers, however, are not lowered into pulpits from the sky but rather formed through training, prayer, study, and practical experience. 

There may come a time, during this process, where one may have to conclude that they really do not have the gifts and temperament to be a minister. After taking a preaching course, a man may rightly decide that he really doesn't want to be in the pulpit for the rest of his life. His pastor and/or prof. may (and in some cases should!) help him come to that conclusion.

*Inclinations*

God doesn't often call men to pastoral ministry who have no inclination whatever. It happens but it isn't the norm. In my experience and reading, most of those whom God calls have some inclination. They find the idea intriguing, frightening yes, but interesting nonetheless. They think about it and ask themselves, "Is this something I should do?" Asking this question doesn't mean that a man is called, but it is an indicator that deserves attention.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 31, 2005)

Dr. Clark,

I agree with almost all of what you have to say here. I would only say that I believe that one must give one's own subjective test to the external test. Why? Because it has been my experience both in a congregation, and Presbytery and a seminary, that external, "objective" encouragement is handed out like candy at a parade.

The statistics of men who leave seminary and never enter the ministry, or who drop out after a year or two, are frightening. Far too often the Church (through its elders at Session and Presbytery) has pushed men on the ministry track who have no real business being there. I do not mean that men are ordained who blunder through exams - although that would not be unheard of - but that men who show the least piety (praying regularly, understanding of the Word, etc) are rushed off to seminary. 

Most often there is at work another great legacy of pietism: sacred calling over secular. We would not want a man who so cares about people and the Word to "waste" his life in computer programming, or factory work, now would we?

I believe that an internal subjective call is essential. Being a cessationist, I believe that the test of the reality and understanding of that internal call is the Word, and the assistance of Christ's gift to me- the elders (Eph. 4).

I am not sure we are disagreeing here, but I would only say that (in the most general, sweeping kind of way), I think it would be a better thing if we had _less_ seminaries and seminarians, not more. Not because Christ needs less ministers, but because an incredible number of men he has called to be salesmen, doctors, lawyers, computer technicians, etc. are denigrating their _call_ to be in seminary.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Jie-Huli,
> 
> I am happy to clear this up a bit.
> ...



It is always good to read James Henley Thornwell on this subject as well. He has some great things to say in Volume 4 of his Collected Writings Here are just a few choice quotations:



> *It is the prerogative of God, and of God alone, to select the men who shall be invested with authority in His Church; and the validity of this Divine call is evinced to others and rendered satisfactory to ourselves by the testimony of our own consciences, the approbation of God´s people and the concurrence of God´s earthly courts. Conscience, the Church, the Presbytery"”these do not call into the ministry, but only declare God´s call; they are the forms in which the Divine designation is indicated"”the scriptural evidences that he who possesses them is no intruder in the sacred ministry. (4:24)
> 
> No one is to show cause why he ought not to be a Minister: he is to show cause why he should be a Minister . . . He is not here because he can be nowhere else, but he is nowhere else because he must be here. (4:25)
> 
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 31, 2005)

Mike,

Excellent material. Now if only some kind rich soul would send me a copy of Thornwell for my library! :bigsmile:


----------



## BrianBowman (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Most often there is at work another great legacy of pietism: sacred calling over secular. We would not want a man who so cares about people and the Word to "waste" his life in computer programming, or factory work, now would we?



Spot on Fred! I was a "willing victim" of the pietistic legacy of classical dispensationalism for 9 years. I worked full time in Software R&D and also "studied for ministry" on weekends and some in the evening. Much of this was done "in isolation" from a local Church Community (because we were living remotely from the "sect" we were part of). I really "came to" when it occurred to me that after several years of living in the legacy of Darby, Scofield, Finney, Chafer, etc. I was less able to explain the Christian faith to men and women in the Software R&D field (i.e. Mathematicians and CompSci types) than *before* I started all of the "deep piety/discovering the will of God stuff".

Things are so much better now that I'm convinced that my life is in no way being "wasted" by working as a "Software Super Geek", but rather glorifying God with the gifts He has given me! Anne and I love the local PCA Church we are in, and in addition to reglar worship with Christ's body there are many other Engineers and Programmers to share experiences with.

God is good!

[Edited on 12-31-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 31, 2005)

> Because it has been my experience both in a congregation, and Presbytery and a seminary, that external, "objective" encouragement is handed out like candy at a parade.



My ecclesiastical experience (in the RCUS, URC, and a little time in the OPC) has been different. In these communions it is quite difficult to enter the ministry. The trials are very daunting, the rewards few, and the candidates fewer! 

I understand that the PCA has a surplus of candidates; but there can never been a surplus of men who are truly called and gifted. There is a problem with the administration of the external call, I agree. I think we also agree that misadministration doesn't invalidate the principle. It calls for Reformation according to Scripture as confessed by the churches.



> The statistics of men who leave seminary and never enter the ministry, or who drop out after a year or two, are frightening.



Again, our experience here is different. About 90% or more of our MDiv graduates find a call. Our program is pretty demanding and it sorts out folks before they come (there are some who do not come because they don't want to do the work; one president of another, unrelated, seminary said to me some years ago, "If there are any students who don't meet your standards, send them to us, we'll admit them") and it sorts them out after they arrive. 

Of course we have MA students who are preparing for vocational, pastoral ministry so I'm not considering them, but more than 70% of our students are MDiv.

We do have a few students drop out for various reasons. Occasionally it is because they don't belong in seminary. That's fine, but I don't see students falling like flies. Our students are very committed. 

Indeed, by blurring the line a little between "secular" and "sacred" vocations (i.e., by applying a similar standard to both, which I made explicit in the talk but not in the post here) I was trying to ease their minds a bit. They don't have to sit around and wait for small, still voice etc.

I quite agree that a robust view of the spirituality of the church and of the two kingdoms eliminates the pietist and transformationalist mistake of trying to baptize everything in order to make it into ministry and therefore a worthy vocation. 

A computer programmer who is fulfilling his vocation, is doing well. God bless him. Not everyone who is spiritually mature ought to be in seminary, but neither is seminary purely a place for those who know without doubt they are called to pastoral ministry.



> Far too often the Church (through its elders at Session and Presbytery) has pushed men on the ministry track who have no real business being there.



I guess our contexts are quite different! My concern is that I don't see men encouraged to consider seminary at all! How many mothers and fathers say to their sons, "You should think about the pastoral ministry"? In my experience, they're far more likely to say, "You should go to law school...". I fear that, sometimes anyway, folk think of seminary as a last resort. We have a gifted student body and I'm not reflecting on them at all, but I do get that sense from talking to some laity.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 31, 2005)

Scott,

I am glad that our experiences are quite different. I also think that you are *right on* about parents. I was thinking more of other people in the Church, who tend to push every young man into seminary they can.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Scott,
> 
> I am glad that our experiences are quite different. I also think that you are *right on* about parents. I was thinking more of other people in the Church, who tend to push every young man into seminary they can.



Fred,

Would you send some of those foks west? Maybe it's a "southern" thing? I don't know, but I know it isn't happening out here. 

When I was first introduced to Christianity in the mid-70's, I was given to think that the best way to serve Christ was to become a Crusade staff worker (or failing that, Nav or IVP was just before apostasy). Pastoral ministry wasn't even on the radar. 

Out here we can still count confessional Presbyterian congregations on our fingers and toes. We need church planters and are busy training them as fast as the Lord permits. 

There are millions of folk in San Diego county, many of whom have not heard the gospel and there are many more millions in Orange and LA counties to the North. If we planted a church a year for the next 25 years we would still only scratch the surface of the need.

rsc


----------



## BrianBowman (Dec 31, 2005)

... go west young man, go west!


----------



## crhoades (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> There are millions of folk in San Diego county, many of whom have not heard the gospel and there are many more millions in Orange and LA counties to the North. If we planted a church a year for the next 25 years we would still only scratch the surface of the need.
> 
> rsc



Very practical question: how to plant churches where the real estate is so expensive? Most seminary grads are paying back loans...I could see this being a pragmatic hurdle to overcome for the region.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



With all seriousness the answer is divine providence. The URC has planted several churches here and none of our pastors is starving. 

Yes, it is more expensive here, but wages are also higher here. Remember there are a lot of high tech jobs out here. It's like jumping into a fast-moving stream. Yes, it's fast, but we're all in the same economic stream. It's a different economic scale from other parts of the country, but it's the same for everyone here, so it's not really a handicap. 

It makes building more difficult, but we've learned to be creative in finding temporary meeting places.

rsc


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> The problem is that in general piety has so declined in the Church that anyone who shows _normal_ Christian traits: reading his Bible, praying regularly, etc. is thought to be extraordinary and "bound for the ministry."



I have seen this too, Fred. 

To your observation I would also add the general theological illiteracy and indifference on the part of many evangelical pastors today, which makes a layman who has some theological knowledge stand out even more. I've been told by several of the more serious minded and theologically literate local pastors that I probably know more theology than the vast majority of local pastors here, and I would really describe myself as almost a dilettante or dabbler who hasn't studied seriously on a consistent basis in several years. Of course this area is dominated by Romanism, Oneness Pentecostalism and Southern Baptists (including a mix of "moderates", evangelical Arminians/Dispensational and seeker sensitive). But I suspect it's not all that different in most places today.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Jie-Huli,
> 
> I am happy to clear this up a bit.
> ...



Fred, 

Many thanks for the response. I agree completely that the internal call and the external call must work together, and are both necessary to confirm a man's calling. If there is a claim to one while lacking the other, something is indeed amiss.

I believe I understand your distinction between what you have said here and what you said before on the "specific guidance" thread . . . because the Scriptures contain much more revelation concerning the ministry (compared to other callings), there is much more within the Word to guide a man in his assessment of his potential calling to it, and to gain a greater degree of certainty. Correct?

I still have a few lingering questions, but perhaps they will come out more clearly in my follow up query to Mr. R. Scott Clark below . . .


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 1, 2006)

Professor Scott Clark,

I do earnestly desire to understand what you believe the cessationist position on a call to the ministry to be, and I have read with interest your postings here. Some questions remain for me, however, and if your time permits and you think it expedient, I was wondering if you could provide a little bit more explanation in regards to the following questions:

1) Can a man be _certain_ that he personally has been called by God to the ministry? If so, what is the basis of this certainty?

2) It seems to me that the graces and giftings necessary for a pastor are characteristics for which _every_ man of God should strive, though of course a pastor needs them in a special degree. Aside from certain matters which would clearly disqualify certain men from the ministry, therefore, how do the Scriptures guide men in knowing they are personally called to the ministry? Or is it the case (as R.L. Dabney seems to come close to saying in his powerful work on a "Call to the Ministry") that every Christian man not disqualified by Scripture should start with the assumption that he is called to devote himself to the Gospel ministry if God allows it?

3) I have read what you wrote concerning the "internal call" several times, as I think this is at the root of my questions . . . I do not question the importance of the external factors which have been cited, I just want to understand better the nature and certainty of the internal call. Would you agree that the inward working of the Holy Spirit can, over time, apply the Scriptures in such a way to a man's heart to make him certain that he personally has received the call of God to become a minister?

Many thanks, and kind regards,

Jie-Huli


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 1, 2006)

Dear Jie,

These are good questions, exactly those I was trying to address.



> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> 
> 1) Can a man be _certain_ that he personally has been called by God to the ministry? If so, what is the basis of this certainty?



Yes, depending upon what one means by certainty. If one means a sort of certainty about which there could never, under any circumstances, be doubt, then no. If you mean (as you seem to suggest below) that one can have a growing confidence that one has a genuine call, a confidence that is able to withstand the many hard trials of ministry.



> 2) It seems to me that the graces and giftings necessary for a pastor are characteristics for which _every_ man of God should strive, though of course a pastor needs them in a special degree.



I know that I'm supposed to agree and I want to but I'm not sure I can. I note that in 1 & 2 Tim the apostle Paul gives distinct (but overlapping) instruction to Timothy as to qualifications for and the conduct of his ministry. I don't think those apply to everyone equally. Paul writes to and about special offices and addresses those special offices as distinct from the laity. We ought to observe that distinction. It's not that Paul is giving free reign to the laity to live impiously, but in our our desire to promote piety (with which one is not supposed to dissent!) we blur distinctions that Paul makes.

Yes, those who aspire to the offices of minister, elder, and deacon are obligated to meet special standards.



> ...therefore, how do the Scriptures guide men in knowing they are personally called to the ministry?



Given my distinction above, I think this problem is lessened. It's not that a minister has the same gifts that all men are to have, but that he has a different set of gifts. We're all to be pious, but is the ministerial candidate pious in the way that fits the office to which he aspires? Does he pray for God's people etc?

I'm not sure I agree with Dabney (I will read this asap) that the presumption ought to be that one is not called until one receives some indication to the contrary. This goes back to my discussion with Fred. How one thinks about this might be more the result of context that sheer principle. I'm not sure. If Dabney´s point is that one should not be presumptuous and arrogant in the assumption that he is called, then I say Amen. I have seen a number of gifted men say, "œOh I could never be a minister, on the assumption that they had not a sufficiently powerful mystical experience. This approach to internal vocation is problematic.



> ...Would you agree that the inward working of the Holy Spirit can, over time, apply the Scriptures in such a way to a man's heart to make him certain that he personally has received the call of God to become a minister?



Yes, exactly. I am more confident today than I was in 1984 when I began seminary and more confident today than when I was ordained in 1988. 

Hywel Jones asked me an interesting question: If classis said "You should demit the ministry, would you?" Of course, if I disqualified myself, then yes. If it came out of the blue, however, and was ungrounded, then no. Ecclesiastical assemblies, even those constituted by true churches err. Otoh, I don't expect classis to take rash actions and if they did I expect it would signal some sort of constitutional change in the classis such that it might have been corrupted. 

In other words,, all things being equal, Classis being in it's collective right mind (and soul, as it were -- there being no evidence of corruption), and said that to me, I would take it very seriously. 

I want to de-mystify the pastoral call a little bit. I think Dennis (I'm thinking of a seasonal American TV show "“ "œWhy am I such a misfit, I´m not just a nitwit"¦" ) could have an equally strong sense of calling to be a dentist and use an analogous process. Dennis has an interest in dentistry and seems to have some of the skills. He certainly has an unusual interest in teeth and fixing them.

Dennis has such a strong internal vocation that he leaves Santa's workshop on his quest to go to dental school. [NB: He didn't go to distance dental school! He suffers hardship in his quest to become a dentist]. He even has to conquer a great beast in order to fulfill his quest [think final exams and ecclesiastical exams]. In his conquest of this hardship he receives confirmation of his internal vocation. 

Now, the analogy breaks down at certain places, but it is instructive I think. I'm not suggesting that the gifts for dentistry and ministry are the same, but that (as Fred quite rightly suggested, I think) vocation is vocation. One can be just as "œcalled" to be a dentist as he is a minister and such a calling is just as valid. 

Dennis needed an internal sense of vocation and an external confirmation. If he flunks his "boards" or flunks dental school, well, then, he isn't called to be dentist is he, however much he wants to fix teeth? The same would be true of a candidate for ministry. If he has no interest, no sense of desire, then he probably isn´t called. If he has no gifts, the he certainly isn´t called, but even if he has all three and he can´t complete a basic course of instruction in seminary and sustain his ecclesiastical trials, if his attempt to teach in the church or exhort from the pulpit show no progress, then he lacks the call. 

In this case, his subjective evaluation of his call is wrong. That´s why we speak of both aspects of the call.

rsc

[Edited on 1-1-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## DTK (Jan 1, 2006)

*One comment*



> It seems to me that the graces and giftings necessary for a pastor are characteristics for which every man of God should strive, though of course a pastor needs them in a special degree.


With the exception of "aptness to teach," indeed these graces should be true of all in general. But what all should be, the pastor/elder *must be*. 

God doesn't call everyone to be a teacher, in the sense, in which He has set elders apart for public ministry. But 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 give us a list of what the bishop/elder *must be*. 

DTK


----------



## Craig (Jan 1, 2006)

Perhaps those with "extraoridinary" giftings...such as understanding the bible, practical wisdom toward holiness, teaching among other things...should be first considered for positions of elder? There are few undershepherds in our churches. Not enough people share a vision for the local assembly for assisting in shepherding and nurture. We have a severe lack in masculine leadership.

I do believe that pastors too often recommend someone look into seminary when they should first consider serving in that local assembly. It's here that a man will more clearly receive his call if he is called to preach.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 1, 2006)

Dear Professor Clark,

Thank you for your thoughtful and direct reply. I will ponder what you have said a bit. I had wondered how, if you believe God gives no specific guidance to individual Christians on things not directly addressed by the Scriptures, you would view a man's certainty that he personally has been called to the ministry. But perhaps I was viewing your position too absolutely? It would seem, based on what you have said, that you do believe a man can come to a certainty (tested by doubts at times, yes, but an abiding certainty nonetheless) about his call to the ministry, through a combination of a sober assessment that one has the giftings required of ministers, God's providence opening the necessary doors, and the internal ratifying of the call through the Holy Spirit's work in the heart. Is that correct? If so, I would just be curious what precisely your disagreement with what you called "pietism" earlier is . . . is it that "pietism" puts _ too much_ emphasis on the subjective sense of call, at the expense of submission to God's providence and sovereignty in giftings? 



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I'm not sure I agree with Dabney (I will read this asap) that the presumption ought to be that one is not called until one receives some indication to the contrary. This goes back to my discussion with Fred. How one thinks about this might be more the result of context that sheer principle. I'm not sure. If Dabney´s point is that one should not be presumptuous and arrogant in the assumption that he is called, then I say Amen. I have seen a number of gifted men say, "œOh I could never be a minister, on the assumption that they had not a sufficiently powerful mystical experience. This approach to internal vocation is problematic.
> [Edited on 1-1-2006 by R. Scott Clark]



I think I must have given you a mistaken impression of what Mr. Dabney said in his article, as it is rather the opposite of this. His position (in my understanding) seemed more that the presumption ought to be that a Christian man _should_ devote himself to the ministry as his calling unless prevented by God from doing so. I believe the following quotation from his article shows what I mean clearly:



> Go where we may, we see more merchants than can hand customers, more physicians than have patients, more lawyers than clients. Society has enough of them"”too many. But to supply all our home destitutions, to carry the gospel to every one of the eight hundred millions of pagans on our globe, the church needs a hundred times as many ministers. Now, what young Christian, qualified to preach, who asks in the spirit of the true convert, "œLord, what wilt thou have me to do?" can say in view of these facts, that God and his fellow-men have more need for him at the bar, behind the counter, or in the physician a calling, than in the pulpit? If he cannot, let him beware how he neglects the prayerful examinaÂ­tion of the duty of preaching, at the peril of the wrath of his Saviour. We hesitate not to say, that while all Christians, of course, are not to be preachers, and while none should preach "œwhom God does not call, in such a time as ours every Christian who can preach, should conclude that the a priori presumpÂ­tion is in favor of his doing so until the contrary is evinced; and he should approach the examination of his duty on this supposition.



And regarding the point of whether a man's finding he lacks certain characteristics described of ministers gives guidance as to whether he is called to the ministry or not, consider:



> Of course, the church ought not to entrust the ministry to a man who has no heart to work. The true minister must, of course, have a desire to see souls snatched from hell fire, truth upheld, sin curbed, the hapÂ­piness of true religion diffused, and the Holy Trinity glorified in the redemption of transgressors. These are the grounds, the motives, of that desire which he feels to preach, if he may rightÂ­fully do it. But are not these feelings common, essential, to all true Christians? Does not the absence of them place a very black mark on any man's piety? The church, therefore, in judging a candidate's fitness to be called, will be influenced by his possessing this kind of desire, just as they will by his posÂ­sessing a healthy piety, and for the same reasons. . .
> 
> But how foolish and mischievous is the perversion of this scriptural truth to argue, as some have seemed to do, that, thereÂ­fore, if a young Christian does not feel an abiding and strong deÂ­sire for this special work, he ought to conclude that he is not called? Is it so, forsooth, that if a man, to whom God has given the capacities and opportunities to do a certain laborious work for His glory, feels himself sinfully reluctant to it, because of a selfish and cowardly fear of its toils and self-denials, or because of a false and wicked shame, or because ambition and covetous-ness rather impel him to a different calling, he may, therefore, conclude that he is exempt from all obligations to it? Nay, verily. It is that man's duty to repent immediately of this his reluctance, and to crucify it, for it is sin. How can a man be what every Christian ought to be, except he earnestly desire God's glory in the salvation of souls? But the minister can usually do more, caeterls paribus, for this cause than the layÂ­man; so that every true Christian on the earth, young and old, male arid female, ought to feel, with reference to the work of preaching, that he would be glad to preach if God permitted him. Away with the notion that the young man is not called to preach unless he hath fallen in love with this special work, in some senseless and unaccountable manner, as though pierced with the invisible arrow of some spiritual Eros, or Cupid! It is nonsense, it is wickedness. The Holy Spirit is a rational being, the Bible is a rational book, and every Christian emotion which he produces in the human soul by applying Bible truth is proÂ­duced according to the laws of the human understanding; it is a reasonable emotion prompted by reasonable and intelligent views of truth.



Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Thanks Fred! Good points, and I appreciate the compliment and encouragement. And Chris, I too would love to study for the degree, maybe I could put one to use outside of preaching? Counseling maybe? Especially teens



Adam, you can go to seminary to learn too, if you have the time and money. You don't necessarily have to go to be a minister. And you will certainly learn a healthy appreciation for the minister in the experience too. It is always beneficial to immerse yourself in the Word and history. It will help you grow in ways you never thought of, and you may be exposed to some influences which point you into a new or revitalizing direction for ministry, even if it's not pastoring. So don't feel you can't go to seminary just because your not called to be a pastor.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> ...It would seem, based on what you have said, that you do believe a man can come to a certainty (tested by doubts at times, yes, but an abiding certainty nonetheless) about his call to the ministry, through a combination of a sober assessment that one has the giftings required of ministers, God's providence opening the necessary doors, and the internal ratifying of the call through the Holy Spirit's work in the heart. Is that correct?



Yes.



> If so, I would just be curious what precisely your disagreement with what you called "pietism" earlier is . . . is it that "pietism" puts _ too much_ emphasis on the subjective sense of call, at the expense of submission to God's providence and sovereignty in giftings?



I was using pietism broadly (it is a broad phenomenon) to describe what I call the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE). 

It's not just that the pietism about which I'm concerned (about which the Reformed orthodox were concerned) over-emphasizes the subjective; we have a long history of Reformed theologians with a strong emphasis on the subjective including folk such as Voetius (often wrongly lumped with the pietists) and British orthodoxy (mostly known somewhat unhelpfully as "Puritans" as if they were some unique species of Reformed folk -- this name is too often used to include folk who weren't orthodox such as Baxter) but rather I'm worried about folk who go far beyond the "subjective" crossing barriers that ought not to be crossed.

I'm thinking about the common search for extra-canonical revelation, even by cessationists, in matters such as marriage, going to seminary, ministerial vocation etc. Even cessationists seem to give themselves "a pass" to take a peek into "the hidden things" (Deut 29:29) when it comes to these sorts of decisions. I think this a mistake.

As you say, it's not that there is no certainty, but there may not be the sort of certainty for which some folk are seeking. That sort of certainty entails an intersection, even if ever so briefly, between the divine intellect and the human (the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty or QIRC). We want to know what God knows, the way he knows it, even though if one asked us, we would say, "Heavens No! We're Van Tillians. We would never violate the Creator/creature distinction. We're not being honest with ourselves. We need to stop being practical Pentecostals when it suits us. 

Another way to describe this phenomenon is to call it practical Pentecostalism. We deny the Pentecostals position right up to the moment we join them, if only temporarily.

Luther followed by the Reformed (though we used different language) distinguished between the theology of glory (knowing what God knows, becoming justified by becoming divine, i.e., rationalism and moralism culminating in theosis) and the theology of the cross. We humans have only the theology of the cross. We need to content ourselves with this. The real problem, as many have pointed out, is an incorrect eschatology. It's an eschatology that wants to pull God out of his heaven, as it were, and climb up there, as it were, ourselves. This isn't heaven. Full stop. It's a fallen world. We're fallen people. We're depraved, corrupted in all our faculties. 

QIRE'er/QIRC'er: "But I´m not certain...." 

Clark: "With all due affection, get over it. Of course you don´t have the sort of certainty right now that you would like to have. That's the way it is in this life."

Let me explain. Life is dying to sin and living to Christ (HC 88-90). Neither aspect of sanctification is EVER perfect in this life (HC 115; Rom 7), including divine certainty about whom to marry, whether to go into or stay the ministry. Any minister who tells you he has no doubts is not being honest. It's impossible to leave a fractious church meeting or lose out on a call to a pulpit because someone wasn't satisfied with you and not have doubts. 



> ...every Christian who can preach, should conclude that the a priori presumption is in favor of his doing so until the contrary is evinced; and he should approach the examination of his duty on this supposition.



This is helpful. I will endeavor to read it.




> ...if a man, to whom God has given the capacities and opportunities to do a certain laborious work for His glory, feels himself sinfully reluctant to it, because of a selfish and cowardly fear of its toils and self-denials, or because of a false and wicked shame, or because ambition and covetous-ness rather impel him to a different calling, he may, therefore, conclude that he is exempt from all obligations to it?



I quite agree. This roughly describes the process Machen himself experienced. He was quite uncertain about his call to ministry right up to the moment he was ordained. Lot's of ministers have been ordained in the midst of doubts, including Augustine and Calvin! These fellows, however, did not die with that same degree of uncertainty.



> ...the layÂ­man; so that every true Christian on the earth, young and old, male arid female, ought to feel, with reference to the work of preaching, that he would be glad to preach if God permitted him. Away with the notion that the young man is not called to preach unless he hath fallen in love with this special work, in some senseless and unaccountable manner, as though pierced with the invisible arrow of some spiritual Eros, or Cupid! It is nonsense, it is wickedness.



AMEN!

rsc


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



Amen,

Seminary training is a great way to equip ourselves to provide an accurate and bold defense of the faith in our workplaces, neighborhoods, etc. The fact is, each of have many opportunities to express Christ's Lordship in our everyday lives. Being able to do this with intelligence and aplomb glorifies God and helps demonstrate that Chritianity is not some idle emotional fantasy.


----------



## satz (Jan 3, 2006)

hmm.. what an interesting and challenging discussion.

I was reading though the article by Dabney and found it most challenging. I do not know if i would fully agree with everything he says though.

For instance,



> The Christian who has begun this inquest and prayer, but is not conscious of the sweet, enlightening influences of the Spirit in his examination, may by no means conclude that therefore he is not to preach. For the influences of the Holy Ghost are as truly needed to answer the great question rightfully in the negaÂ­tive as in the affirmative. Is there not a possibility of error and sin on either hand? If, then, the reader has felt that while he investigated he did not enjoy those influences, let him by no means conclude that God exempts him from the sacred office; let him rather infer that he is under the hidings of God's counÂ­tenance, that he is a backsliding Christian, and that he is thereÂ­fore in imminent danger of perdition.



Is he saying that a christian who feels no call to the ministry should assume he is in serious sin? Or have i misinterpreted? Because i honestly do not see how that can be proven from the bible. 

[Edited on 1-3-2006 by satz]


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> hmm.. what an interesting and challenging discussion.
> 
> I was reading though the article by Dabney and found it most challenging. I do not know if i would fully agree with everything he says though.
> ...



I do not think you have misinterpreted Mr. Dabney, although I believe his point may be a bit more complex than that. I believe he is speaking first and foremost about the necessity of a Christian to totally consecreate himself to God, whatever God may call Him to, and to have a great desire to give himself to the ministry, if God so allows.

Consider this quotation as well:



> If, therefore, the young Christian does not feel this scriptural desire to glorify God by saving souls, so that he would be glad to do it by preaching if he might, he ought not, indeed, to thrust himself into the ministry like a slave going to a hated task. But he ought immediately to suspect himself of some most unchrisÂ­tian influence, of selfishness, indolence, vanity, ambition or avarice; he ought immediately to crucify these base feelings at the foot of his Saviour's cross; he ought never to rest till his heart is in such a frame that the desire to do good, in any way God may point out, is his ruling passion, and he ought to do all this wholly irrespective of his finding his way into the minisÂ­try or not. For while his heart is in its present frame, he has no sufficient evidence that he has ever felt the love of God, and that he has not the wrath of God and the daily danger of hell fire abiding on him. Certainly, without this pious desire, he is as truly unfit to serve God in any other calling as in the ministry.



It is a very thought-provoking article indeed. He does unflinchingly exhort Christian men to consider the ministry first and foremost before other callings, and to engage in other callings only if one truly believes that he may glorify God more in that calling than in any other. And neither does he say this as a mere platitude, but urges men to question strongly whether other callings they may engage in are truly as needful and worthy as the ministry.

His words ring with great power, I think.


----------



## satz (Jan 3, 2006)

Jie Huli,

Thank you for your reply. I did indeed catch on that total devotion to Christ and a willingness to serve him in any area was what Dabney was advocating.

Never the less, i did feel that the passage i quoted to the point to an extreme. Prehaps he was simply using extreme langugue to get across what he felt was an important point.

Regarding the passage you quoted, that did indeed catch my attention when i read the article and i re-read it several times. It is a very sobering reminder to examine our commitment to Christ. 



> He does unflinchingly exhort Christian men to consider the ministry first and foremost before other callings, and to engage in other callings only if one truly believes that he may glorify God more in that calling than in any other



It is at this point that i have difficultly following him. As i read the NT epistles, i see much instruction on how christians are to serve Christ where they are now. There is not so much (although there is) encouraging them to enter ministry. I guess i just don't see that 100% devotion to Christ equals considering entering the ministry. Obviously all christians should be WILLING to do so if called, but Dabney's point that all christians should assume such a call at first seems to me to be going a little too far.

Just as an example of what i mean. Christ says those who love father or mother or wife more than him are not worthy of him. Which implies a christian should be willing to leave his wife for Christ's sake. But not all christains will be called upon to make such a choice. Now before anyone jumps on me, i know fully well i am comparing apples to oranges. I am just trying to show the logic of what i am thinking.

To give a summary of sorts; 

1. All Christians must be willing to leave their families if they must.

2. All Christians must be willing to enter full time ministry if they must.

3. Yet while leaving one's family for Christ's sake is a very pure and noble thing to do ( if the circumstances demand it ) we do not have a presumption that that is what each christian should do.

4. Why then do we have such a presumption for entering the ministry? Obviously more will be called to the ministry than are called to give up their families, but can we prove a biblical difference between the two?


Please note i am not necessarily arguing for or against anything per se, just putting my thought on the table to refine them.


----------



## matt01 (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Al Martin has an excellent series on the Call to the Ministry:
> http://tinyurl.com/a77du



An excellent series. I borrowed it a couple of years back and went through it. It convinced me that it was pride alone that gave me any thought of going to the ministry.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 25, 2006)

Embracing discipleship, teaching Sunday School, and volunteering for church activities doesn't require an M.A. Theology, a M.Div. or a Th.D. 

I know _theologues_ that went to seminary to get a M.A.R. for lack of anything better to do but they never embrace discipleship, or ministry involvement. An attorney once told me law school, is just a means to the end of taking the bar, which is state's permission to practice law. It doesn't really give anything in terms of _higher principles_ of the profession or the requisite experience that can only come working in a law firm. I concur. The same holds true with seminary... it certainly can buoy your knowledge, and preaching skills at some schools, but it only enhances one's abilities-- it doesn't impart the willingness to embrace discipleship and ministry.


----------

