# Do Reformed Seminaries give enough emphasis to missions?



## Pergamum (Nov 5, 2008)

Hello, here is a letter I got from a friend. How should I answer it? Does ithavemerit?




START LETTER:

Do Reformed seminaries give enough emphasis to training leaders for world
> missions and evangelism? 

It seems like very few Reformed seminaries offer
degrees in missions, and most don't even have resident faculty in missions,
relying instead on adjunct and visiting professors. This limits the course
offerings in missions significantly.
> 

> RTS Jackson has the biggest Reformed missions department, with four resident faculty, and is the only Reformed seminary that offers a doctorate.
> 
> Others are sparse. WTS Philly has one resident faculty and an urban
> missions degree. Covenant Seminary has one resident faculty with no degree, and Greenville Seminary has one missions/evangelism faculty, and no degree.

> Knox Seminary has an MA in Evangelism, and the president is a church
> planter, but there are no other resident faculty in missions.
> 
> Besides those, there is almost nothing. RTS's other campuses, Erskine
> Seminary, Westminster Seminary in Escondido, Reformed Presbyterian
> Theological Seminary, and Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary don't even
> have resident faculty in missions.
> 
> In contrast, nearly every Baptist school has a degree in missions. Three of
> the Southern Baptist seminaries have doctorate programs in missions.
> Southern Seminary alone has more resident faculty in their school of
> missions than all of the above seminaries COMBINED.
> 


> So why is that? 

Are there just not that many Reformed missionaries around
> to hire to teach? 

Do Reformed seminaries not value missiology in training
> ministers? Do they see the M.Div. as sufficient to minister anywhere, and
> cross-cultural training as unnecessary? Do they not value missiology as an
> academic discipline? Are they not supportive of research and dissertations
> in the field of missions and evangelism? Are they reluctant to give
> full-time faculty positions for missions?

END OF LETTER


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 5, 2008)

Someone else more familiar with the subject will have to comment on Reformed seminaries and evangelism. Besides, I'm really not interested in getting into another PB throw down right now 

It's no surprise that the SBC schools have a strong missions emphasis since the whole reason for the existence of the SBC is cooperation among the churches for the purposes of missions and evangelism. Luther Rice's activities after his and Adoniram Judson's conversion to Baptist views in getting Baptist churches to cooperate in mission work were the impetus behind the Triennial Baptist Convention in 1814, which of course later split over slavery about 30 years later.

Something worth researching would be to find out whether the schools established in Luther Rice's day and in the few decades afterwards had specific missions degrees the way the seminaries do now and how the training has changed over the years.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 5, 2008)

I have a friend who got a degree in missions. He says it was a waste and he should have gotten his degree in Bible instead. He is a missionary and has been for over 10 years.

A missionary is still a minister, so he does need to know whatever a minister needs to know.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 5, 2008)

If a missionary is defined as someone who goes to a foreign country to proclaim the Word of God so that the Holy Spirit will convert the elect, then I would think an M.Div. would be an appropriate degree.

I think once you have the M.Div. you should study the culture that you plan on missioning in.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 5, 2008)

Some colleges have classes on "intercultural" subjects and linguistics and principles of mission work. Is a missionary just a minister in another location or is there a necessary cross-cultural component that happens. A minister often goes to a church that already exists, while many missionaries i know have gone where no church was and organized the church once it came into being.


----------



## christianyouth (Nov 5, 2008)

It seems like most missionaries(at least in IFB circles) go to the country and go to language school to learn the language. From what I hear, this is really expensive. I wonder if it would be cheaper if seminaries offered language training for those aspiring to be missionaries. Do any seminaries offer language training as part of their missionary curriculum?

Also, Pergamum, what type of things do you think should be taught to missionaries? In what ways would their study differ from a regular minister?

Thanks!
In Christ,
- Andy


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 5, 2008)

I am strictly "baptist" when it comes to language learning; full immersion in language learning in the culture where you serve is best - Stateside language programs are less suitable. However, a few seminaries teach Arabic like Fuller and Southwestrn Baptist, which I think is a huge need. Rosetta Stone can help a little bit, though principles of language learning and translation would be more primary in need then teaching the actual languages themselves.

I went through SIL training which teaches how to reduce an unwritten language into writing, and also teaches principles of translation. 


Some courses needed to prepare a "Cross-cultural" worker would include not only a solid Bible base but also intercultural studies, principles of mission work, translation principles, cultural anthropology, Biblical basis of missions, global worship, missionary methods, contextualization, spiritual warfare, member care, etc, all would be helpful. 

A regular minister in his home country rarely crosses cultures and comes into a church already organized. A missionary often goes to a place that does not even have the Bible and tries to establish a church where one does not yet exist, crossing cultures to do so. They encounter issues never addressed in normal seminary, like: what to do with polygamous members, how to translate the Word God and the word Grace, which cultural celebrations can be "redeemed" and what must be thrown out, how to plant a church, integrate medical care and development and social concerns into ones work, and how to make the Gospel understandable across cultures.



Fuller has 3 islamic studies professors, CIU.edu has the Zwemer instittue of Muslim studies. I think these are good initiatives to point students out towards the neediest places in the world.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 6, 2008)

To some degree, I think that this is indicative of a difference between Reformed and Evangelical seminaries. Reformed seminaries tend to be more "academic" and "generalist" whereas Evangelical seminaries lean more toward "practical" and (in their academics) "specialist." 

I think the Reformed seminaries have chosen this route because they look back at the past and see that prospective ministerial students today are usually *way* less grounded and academically qualified than the average, say, 19th-century minister. What's the point in teaching missiology to someone who has never read their Bible cover to cover?

However, I agree with you that training needs to be done for effective mission works in some culture. I originally went to college intending on Bible translation, and though I veered away from it, I was part of a translation interest group and got to see a lot of the linguistics and anthropology training firsthand.

I think missiological preparation is great for women, who will have to face all the same challenges on the field as their husband, without regular seminary training.


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 6, 2008)

Isn't the US a mission field???



> Do Reformed seminaries give enough emphasis to training leaders for world missions and evangelism?



On the surface there isn’t a large focus on foreign missions however, what men learn in seminary is cross cultural. They learn how to study God’s Word, church planting, preaching, etc. Is it the job of the seminary to teach a pastoral candidate how to adapt to the foreign country? I would say no. The seminary is there to give the student the tools to be a minister of the gospel. If a minister desires to become a missionary in a foreign country then it’s the responsibility of the minister to understand and research the cultural. The seminary’s job is to give them the tools to be a minister of the gospel which transcends all cultures. The cultural details are so different that it would be impossible to cover all of the distinctive behaviors within a foreign culture.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 6, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> To some degree, I think that this is indicative of a difference between Reformed and Evangelical seminaries. Reformed seminaries tend to be more "academic" and "generalist" whereas Evangelical seminaries lean more toward "practical" and (in their academics) "specialist."
> 
> I think the Reformed seminaries have chosen this route because they look back at the past and see that prospective ministerial students today are usually *way* less grounded and academically qualified than the average, say, 19th-century minister. What's the point in teaching missiology to someone who has never read their Bible cover to cover?
> 
> ...





Blue Tick said:


> Isn't the US a mission field???
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Isn't the US a mission field?" Would you like to start another post on this?



Possible responses: NO, the US has the Bible and true churches within a day's travel of everyone in the US, plus Christian radio, etc.

Or,


Yes, and good missiology programs will address urban church planting, and cross-cultural ministries within the U.S. that will not be covered in a regular curriculum...


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 6, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> I think the Reformed seminaries have chosen this route because they look back at the past and see that prospective ministerial students today are usually *way* less grounded and academically qualified than the average, say, 19th-century minister. What's the point in teaching missiology to someone who has never read their Bible cover to cover?



You could also ask what the point in teaching church history to someone who has never read their bible to cover to cover. 

It almost sounds like a slander, as if missionaries don't read their bibles as much as seminary students. (And it's not true, either -- I've known church history grad students who have not read their bible cover to cover and most missionaries I know are the most grounded in the Word...in multiple languages).


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 6, 2008)

Blue Tick said:


> Isn't the US a mission field???
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The idea of this one is that one can simply study theology, and study the culture, and that bridging them should be no problem. 

The fact is that bridging is THE major issue, and it's not easy.



A good question to ask is this: 

Why do we study church history, systematic theology and historical theology in seminary? We study it because we want to know that the bible teaches about theology, and we want to know what work in theology has been done in the past so we can learn from them and their confessions and avoid error from the past and be able to sport error in the future. We do not need to redesign the wheel.

In the same way, studying missiology is vitally important for the same reasons. We need to study what the bible has to say about missions, evangelism, the great commission, and how the bible was conveyed across the cultures, such as from a Jewish mindset to a Greek mindset. 

We need to study the history of missions to look at past formulations of missions and learn from their mistakes and build on their successes. If you're going into a country that has not yet been reached for the gospel, learning about how missionaries were able to reach China, or Papua New Guinea, or Africa, with the gospel can be better communicated. Missiology is an active, dynamic field.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 6, 2008)

> Isn't the US a mission field???



Thing is, with this one I think that of course the answer is yes, and you need not go to seminary to learn any "bridging" skills for this particular field. 

It's the largest English mission field there is; no language study necessary either, that's the shame of it.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Nov 6, 2008)

Blue Tick said:


> Isn't the US a mission field???



A definition I've heard is that missions is cross-cultural, and often works at establishing a church in a culture that doesn't have one, whereas evangelism is preaching the gospel to your own culture, with churches already established. 


I think that reformed seminaries do lack an emphasis on cross-cultural and frontier missions. I believe I am called to participate in foreign/cross-cultural missions somehow, so I have been looking for reformed seminaries that have a specific missions emphasis. The only one I've found is RTS Jackson. They offer an M. Div. degree with a missions concentration, which I have been looking into.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 6, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> You could also ask what the point in teaching church history to someone who has never read their bible to cover to cover.
> 
> It almost sounds like a slander, as if missionaries don't read their bibles as much as seminary students. (And it's not true, either -- I've known church history grad students who have not read their bible cover to cover and most missionaries I know are the most grounded in the Word...in multiple languages).



I'm sorry for not communicating well. I didn't mean to imply anything about missionaries. I don't think I even mentioned them. I would agree with your assessment.

My point is that many students are not entering seminary with a grasp of biblical languages, loads of memorized Bible content, and a deep awareness of Reformed doctrinal standards and history. Because of this, seminaries have to concentrate on "core" skills. 

I am in agreement that more should be done. Missions isn't the only area neglected. What Reformed seminaries have decent church music programs? How many offer substantial coursework in biblical counseling? 

If we want to teach more at the M. Div. level, we are going to have to ratchet up the quality of students BEFORE they enter seminary.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 6, 2008)

Charlie; what are some other neglected areas? Would this be worth another thread to discuss?


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 7, 2008)

Well, I already mentioned music and counseling. For example, look at this program by BJU and try to find a Reformed counterpart. (I believe Calvin does have a Worship grad program.)

Master of Divinity/Master of Music in Church Music ~ BJU

Counseling seems better off, considering the push from P&R and WTS. Still, I believe there is only one counseling class in GPTS' M. Div. After graduation, I think most students are more apt to deal with Amyraldians than with failing marriages.

Law might be another area. I had a class at BJU in Church & Law, which taught us the relevant current legislation. Especially important were things dealing with taxes, confidentiality, church discipline, sexual accusations, and working with children.

I'm sure we can improve in many areas. There is so much to know and do in God's work. Our best method for raising the effectiveness of our ministers is to raise the level of knowledge and holiness among our people at large. 3 years or so in training can only equip people so much. A lifetime of discipleship is our pressing need.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 7, 2008)

Seeing that most of Christianity in the US is a mile wide and an inch deep, how do we widen seminary training without making it more shallow or adding an extra decade onto a degree program?


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 7, 2008)

That's sort of why we're having this discussion. You noticed that Reformed seminaries seem to neglect an area, and I responded that given the available amount of time, they do not consider it "core" enough to merit significant attention. By purposely concentrating their courses, they are trying to go "deeper."

The only way to do more in seminary is to have more equipped applicants. I'm thrilled that classical Christian schools are teaching Latin and Greek to high school students. I have 27 credits of Greek. Imagine how much extra I could have learned if I had already known Greek. 

Even if you still want to have some Greek exegesis, you could save 9-12 credits just by having basic reading proficiency before getting to seminary. Also, Bible content classes usually take up around 6 credits of curriculum. Already knowing that would bring the total to 15-18 "extra" credits. That would be enough to do some missiology and counseling, I think. Or to allow students to have a concentration in their M. Div. 

We're just so far behind. Much of high school is repetition and unchallenging to the students. We don't nearly maximize potential, even in most college courses. If Christian education would truly raise the academic bar, rather than be proud of itself for comparing favorably with public education, we could really do a lot more with graduate level students.


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 7, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Seeing that most of Christianity in the US is a mile wide and an inch deep, how do we widen seminary training without making it more shallow or adding an extra decade onto a degree program?



One possibility is extending the intership for seminary students. Allowing them more hands on ministry with practical pastoral application. It's just an idea. I'm not sure how long the interships are currently but having an extended intership may benefit the student. This would allow them to be in the field with the congregation exercising pastoral care over the flock.


----------

