# The Seminary Bubble Parts One and Two



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 31, 2011)

Worthwhile article on the problems with the current model of theological education.

Well worth the read.

The Seminary Bubble

Bursting The Seminary Bubble: Part 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 31, 2011)

Even though I am a seminary student myself, I actually completely agree with this. Unfortunately, the various denominations have not gotten on board and so a seminary degree is still a virtual requirement. I know several men here in seminary who were pastors of small churches prior to coming to seminary. The reason they came to seminary is because their churches simply couldn't afford to pay them anymore and no one else would hire them because they did not have a degree. It is a sad but true fact that the vast majority of churches would not even consider calling someone who didn't have an MDiv, and many others require a doctorate. I am praying that one day churches will see the light, but until then we will just have to keep bearing our cross.


----------



## Douglas P. (May 31, 2011)

How accurate are his historical claims to the origins of seminary? 



> Seminary came much later, when church life became much more about one kind of Christian (Catholic) fighting against another kind of Christian (Protestant) Reformation and Counter-reformation formed theological armories from which the soldiers of the Protestant/Catholic Christian Cold War were armed. Eventually those wars calmed to the point of truce, or at least containment, but the armories remained.


----------



## FenderPriest (May 31, 2011)

I remember reading the first article. The second is just as good. I appreciate his clarity on the issues. There are churches here or there who are doing different models (Sovereign Grace Ministries, my denomination, is doing things differently with a good amount of success in producing Gospel loving _pastors_). For the reasons he innumerates I haven't kept pursuing seminary. It's just not feasible for me. I got into Westminster Seminary just fine, and I did well in the classes I took (I was actually in the class for the audio of the Doctrine of God class he links), but being an involved member of my church, in leadership, working full time, having a family life, etc. just didn't match up with all that they required for their degree's (any of them, especially the M.A.R. and M.Div. with their uncredited Greek/Hebrew requirements). I'm not listing that to gripe, but simply say that seminary's need to reevaluate how they operate or they are going to be put under by the iPod holding 30 something who's got his head on strait and under good pastoral care.


----------



## athanatos (May 31, 2011)

Interesting. My friend once brought this up, but with the bigger issue: he thought that any Christian should be able to teach in a Church, if they have the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Philip (May 31, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> How accurate are his historical claims to the origins of seminary?



Inaccurate, to say the least. All of the major universities of the west began as training grounds for either priests or lawyers.


----------



## FenderPriest (May 31, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Originally Posted by Douglas Padgett
> How accurate are his historical claims to the origins of seminary?
> Inaccurate, to say the least. All of the major universities of the west began as training grounds for either priests or lawyers.


Not entirely. You're right that the old, major universities in Europe were all started and run by the Roman Church - if you control the knowledge base, you control the people - but the observation isn't off. The whole notion of separating the priests from the congregation to a non-local-church setting for a period of training to be pastors/priests in a local church goes back to the beginning of the monk movement. The distinction is bound up in the Roman Catholic idea of sacred and secular places. Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley has some great stuff on this subject.


----------



## Rufus (May 31, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> > How accurate are his historical claims to the origins of seminary?
> ...


 
To continue here is a quote from my textbook:



> At first the university was not so much a place as it was a guild of scholars organized for learning. Classes were held in rented rooms, churches, or outdoors, Because books were scarce, a teacher read the text and discussed it, while students took notes on slates. Classes did, however, meet regularly, and university rules set down the obligations of students and teachers toward each other. To qualify as a teacher, students had to pass an examination leading to a degree, or certificate of completion. By the end of the A.D. 1200s, universities had spread throughout Europe. Most southern European universities were modeled after the law school at Bologna, Italy, and specialized in law and medicine. Universities in northern Europe, on the other hand, specialized in liberal arts and theology. These where generally modeled after the University of Paris.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 31, 2011)

See the comments here, especially those of Dr. Mohler and Dr. Pratt TGC Asks: What one thing would you change about seminary? – The Gospel Coalition Blog. I think they are really saying similar things, but Dr. Pratt says it more vividly!


----------



## Philip (May 31, 2011)

FenderPriest said:


> You're right that the old, major universities in Europe were all started and run by the Roman Church



Note that during the Reformation, they were hotbeds of dissent from the church, particularly in the English-speaking world (as the large number of Oxford martyrs will attest).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 31, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> See the comments here, especially those of Dr. Mohler and Dr. Pratt TGC Asks: What one thing would you change about seminary? – The Gospel Coalition Blog. I think they are really saying similar things, but Dr. Pratt says it more vividly!


 
Dr. Pratt hits the nail on the head in this quote:



> Can you imagine what kind of soldiers our nation would have if basic training amounted to reading books, listening to lectures, writing papers, and taking exams? We’d have dead soldiers. The first time a bullet wizzed past their heads on the battlefield, they’d panic. The first explosion they saw would send them running. So, what is basic training for the military? Recruits learn the information they need to know, but this is a relatively small part of their preparation. Most of basic training is devoted to supervised battle simulation. Recruits are put through harrowing emotional and physical stress. They crawl under live bullet fire. They practice hand to hand combat.
> 
> If I could wave a magic scepter and change seminary today, I’d turn it into a grueling physical and spiritual experience. I’d find ways to reach academic goals more quickly and effectively and then devote most of the curriculum to supervised battle simulation. I’d put students through endless hours of hands-on service to the sick and dying, physically dangerous evangelism, frequent preaching and teaching the Scriptures, and days on end of fasting and prayer. Seminary would either make them or break them.
> 
> Do you know what would happen? Very few young men would want to attend. Only those who had been called by God would subject themselves to this kind of seminary. Yet they would be recruits for kingdom service, not mere students. They would be ready for the battle of gospel ministry.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 31, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Can you imagine what kind of soldiers our nation would have if basic training amounted to reading books, listening to lectures, writing papers, and taking exams? We’d have dead soldiers. The first time a bullet wizzed past their heads on the battlefield, they’d panic. The first explosion they saw would send them running. So, what is basic training for the military? Recruits learn the information they need to know, but this is a relatively small part of their preparation. Most of basic training is devoted to supervised battle simulation. Recruits are put through harrowing emotional and physical stress. They crawl under live bullet fire. They practice hand to hand combat.
> 
> If I could wave a magic scepter and change seminary today, I’d turn it into a grueling physical and spiritual experience. I’d find ways to reach academic goals more quickly and effectively and then devote most of the curriculum to supervised battle simulation. I’d put students through endless hours of hands-on service to the sick and dying, physically dangerous evangelism, frequent preaching and teaching the Scriptures, and days on end of fasting and prayer. Seminary would either make them or break them.
> 
> Do you know what would happen? Very few young men would want to attend. Only those who had been called by God would subject themselves to this kind of seminary. Yet they would be recruits for kingdom service, not mere students. They would be ready for the battle of gospel ministry.



I smiled when I read this section. That would be a fantastic improvement.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 1, 2011)

As a veteran, and a minister, I think there's a whole lot of armchair-generalship going on here.

There is a widespread attitude among people (in our country) that "practical," hands-on" training is the "solution" to perceived problems in training our church-leaders. In short, this "populist" perception (shades of Teddy Roosevelt) is bunkum.

I'm simply going to speak my (informed) mind, and let anyone argue with it as he pleases; I'm not going to get into a theoretical boxing ring over this.

The "old" standard, three-year seminary education (which has morphed somewhat into 3.5 years or 4 years in _decent_ seminaries, depending on how much remediation is needful, due to woefully inadequate H.S. and even College preparation), is what the Reformed world, generally, came to regard as _the bare minimum_ that most aspiring ministers required, in order to be adequately prepared for a call to the Ministry.

The idea that _one should get the academics out of the way as fast as possible, and then get on to "real" preparation_ is wonderfully anti-intellectual and anti-literary. A minister of the WORD is in the very nature of his profession, a man of letters, an intellectual, highly literary. There's a reason for all the books in an average preacher's library (or these days on his computer). *He's supposed to be reading them.* Why? To assist him in his WORD mastery.

By the way, I'm not negating practical training for the ministry. However, seminary exists chiefly for the purpose of storing the mind, giving men tools, and teaching them how to use them. The church is the "practical training ground." Give a man an internship, make more associate-pastor positions available. Help a man get experience, before and after school.

Oh, and let me assure you: the military is of a comparable mind. The situations are analogous, though not identical. I can tell you that I spent far more time in the classroom, in my Officer Basic Course, than I spent in the field. Listen: _there is too much information, and too little time already._ The "battlefield leaders" are the ones who take what they learn, and hit the ground running. And the sad reality is: in real bareknuckles wartime, most front-line Lieutenants don't live long, or make it long before becoming a casualty.

The folks who are opining about how THEY would train warfighters, probably haven't trained any warfighters. And the way you train privates is different from how you train Lieutenants. Seriously, do these people think they are the first generation to think they can do it better than the last? How many times, and how many different models have been attempted? Some work better than others, and that's a fact. Most of these "better ideas" are like government programs--they create _different_ problems, even as they seem to address the other problems. But I don't see any forethought being given to the potential pitfalls of these other ways.

So why aren't these "suggestions" accompanied by historical analysis of the other times these ideas have been tried? Have they been found wanting in some other areas? What is the new, updated plan (thanks to new technology, perhaps?) to solve those problems?

One problem with the "mentorship" model is its sheer inefficiency. One-on-one is a way to make apprentices. But folks, I'm telling you, unless you are dealing with genius on both sides of that equation, it takes a LONG time, to make one copy of yourself. Seminaries get a handful of strong men in various fields, and combine them in a faculty that seeks to impart concentrated know-how (including practical wisdom) to quite a few men at once. Its called "division of labor" and it is extremely practical and effective in creating _a basic product_ out of the raw material. Not every one of those men will make decent pastors, but a good percentage of them will. And the truth is, not every mentored-product works out either, and that's several years down the drain for that one.

Can one man mentor half-a-dozen men? Sure, and his wife can visit the sick, and prepare his sermon outlines in between caring for his kids. Oh, but that's how Jesus did it! Really? First of all, Jesus didn't have to teach half of his aspiring apostles basic Bible content. Do you have any idea how many men now come to seminary who can't even name all the books of the Bible, much less tell you the name of the prophet who confronted David over Bathsheba. And that's the quality seminaries.

Jesus culled his herd, no doubt, but the fact is that Jesus was the Master-teacher. He came into the world, partly to create his Apostolate. Not every minister is able to mentor a single person, much less six, or twelve at once. Let's at least begin by acknowledging that Jesus was exceptional--and even he sorta "wasted" his time on one of the Twelve.

How much "bedside manner" did Jesus impart to the observers, as people were brought to him by the hundreds, and he methodically healed them one by one with a touch or a word? Did the disciples heal like he did? No, I mean LIKE HE DID, not did they ever heal anyone. I'm sure they learned something of compassion from Jesus, but not how to comfort the person who will never walk again after that fall; or see again after that scarlet fever. A mentorship cannot give a man EVERYTHING he could possibly need. And it's silly to pretend lessons in practica more than makes up for deficiencies in a man's ability to understand and apply the Word.

And my last shot: News Flash! There are plenty of seminaries out there that already emphasize the "practica." Most of them are liberal to the core. "Practical learning for the ministry" is all the rage; what planet are you guys on? If these guys want to encourage practical-training, why not send their candidates to one of those schools? They can get their Bible courses in at their local church. Well, those places aren't "Calvinistic." Then, if these guys start a seminary, I'm sure it will look like one of the liberal set-ups, with this exception: it will have a Good Man teaching the 1-2 Bible courses per semester they still require for the first year-and-a-half. I'll give you odds, that school will be "liberal" shortly.

Education is serious business. It takes hard work to build a good school, and to keep it. Anyone who thinks that our seminaries are simply looking to perpetuate themselves, and their "outmoded" notions of formal training, is just showing his ignorance. Sure, some places are hidebound and stuffy. But most of them are not, they are paying attention to the needs of the hour, and trying to meet those needs effectively and efficiently. Is West Point or Annapolis a waste of time? Maybe you think so. OK, but I think they serve a needed purpose. They are cranking out leaders for their institutions. Failures at such schools are more likely failures of the institutions themselves. And the same is true of seminaries.

I've elsewhere pointed out that the OT age had a "school of the prophets," (2Ki.2:1-15; 4:1, etc.). Jesus had his school of the Apostles. Paul had his Asian seminary, Act.19:9-10, by which means ALL THEY WHICH DWELT IN ASIA heard the Word of the Lord Jesus (no, they didn't ALL drop in to visit). Schools are fine. Some are better than others. They are not the WHOLE means of preparing a man for ministry, but they are useful. The church has found them so for a thousand years. I don't think they are going to disappear from the Reformed world soon (Thank God).


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jun 1, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> As a veteran, and a minister, I think there's a whole lot of armchair-generalship going on here.
> 
> There is a widespread attitude among people (in our country) that "practical," hands-on" training is the "solution" to perceived problems in training our church-leaders. In short, this "populist" perception (shades of Teddy Roosevelt) is bunkum.
> 
> ...


 
It would not let me hit the "Thanks" button more than once, so I just had to post: Amen, Amen, and Amen!

Do you know where all the craziness, seeker-sensitive methodologies, and horrible Biblically illiterate churches come from (for the most part)? People trained in practicum, that have not received the intensive doctrinal training that would keep them from it. The LAST thing we need to do, is in any way lessen the mental preparation pastors are getting today...they are already getting too little!


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jun 1, 2011)

I think one of the biggest problems with seminary is the cost. We ask men to shell out many thousands of dollars on undergrad and then seminary and then ask them to provide for their family while doing so much work in the local church for, often, very little money.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 1, 2011)

> In the battle to renew and rebuild the wobbling edifice of the Church in the 21st century, I’d put my money on the 30-something apprentice with an iPod, some business experience and a day job over the 20-something with a piece of paper and a huge load of debt every time.



Amen.

OK, a little expansion. Full disclosure: I'm an egg-head. A 450 pg. doctoral dissertation, 587 pg. masters thesis in Organizational Leadership, M.Div. from a fully accredited seminary in Pasadena (CA), college at Westmont, 30 unit program in Institutional Development from UCLA, most of the course work on a PhD at Whitefield, and 20-30 CEUs in health care administration every year for the past 14 years. I'm addicted to learning stuff. 

But, get real! You canNOT build a sustainable model of pastoral education on the hyper expensive seminary model. I agree with RSC who used to argue that distance learning is a poor delivery system, at least if it is distance ONLY. But, even Westminster (CA) posted a full year of systematic theology MP3s today for free done by Strimple! So much for not wanting to "cheapen the brand" by giving it away free! (One of RSC's former complaints on the PB if memory serves me).

Do pastors need scholarship? YES! But, can M.Div. grads with $50,000-$70,000 in debt afford to become full-time pastors of congregations with an average attendance of 50-100 people? No way!!!

We need creative models offering alternative routes to achieve equal competence. For some, it may be seminary. For others, the use of Bible software, iPods, free MP3 courses, intense mentoring and apprenticeship must be allowed to count as well.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 1, 2011)

Bruce, that was fantastic. I grew up Independent Fundamental Baptist. How do they train their ministers? Take 14-year-olds, and tell them they're called to the ministry. Then, give them lots of "practical" training. Have them preach devotionals about rock music or "loving Jesus" in youth group. Make them knock on doors and tell people they're going to hell. Then, send them off to "Bible-college" where people with no educational training show them how to run a bus ministry, work a flannelgraph board, and give dirty looks to people who show up to church in shorts. 

What do you get? A cult. 

On the other hand, we do have a problem. The seminary system was designed for a gentleman economy. In Europe and America, most seminarians were from the gentry class or sponsored by a member of it. They had money, which bought them time. If we want to perpetuate a system that costs lots of money, we need to tell our congregations that the wealthy among us have the responsibility to support our seminarians.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 1, 2011)

If I were a man of leisure with the creds to bend the world to my will . . .

I would create a fully rigorous and accountable system as follows:

* A set curriculum of MP3 courses and books to be read.
* Courses would be taken ONE CLASS at a time over a period of 4-8 weeks.
* A free Bible software package (probably theWord + a CD full of 2,000 or so reference works and a few premium items such as BDAG, TWOT, TDNT).
* Organized cohorts of apprentice pastors with a master pastor to facilitate discussion of the MP3s/DVDs and reading assignments.
* A "seminary" structure made up of people who would follow up with the seminarians and the master pastors to evaluate progress and growing competence.
* A requirement that the apprentice be involved in 20 hrs/wk of local church ministry.
* Before the "certificate" would be granted for successful completion of the program, it would require BOTH academic criteria and pastoral/professional criteria to be evaluated.

This system would NOT compete with the seminaries or be confused as an "easier" way to prepare for pastoral ministry. It would simply acknowledge, however, that for increasing numbers of seminarians, the cost of school is prohibitive given the de minimis salaries typically paid pastors in America.

While many of you Presbyterian brethren seem to take scholarship seriously, my experience with 500 Baptist ordinands is far less impressive. Many seminary graduates NEVER read a serious systematic theology or labor in the languages after graduation. And, a large percentage of the people I have interviewed could not answer questions that many of you on the PB handle routinely. The value of a small group cohort model with apprenticeship would be that it would mitigate in favor of functional competence observed first hand rather than some of my seminary courses with 75-150 students graded anonymously on the basis of a midterm, final, and term paper.


----------

