# Training Men For Pastoral Ministry



## ServantsHeart (Jan 18, 2011)

It is my understanding based I believe upon Scriptural evidence that the local Church is to recognize and train men for the office of Elder/Pastor and to appoint Deacons as well. I add that schools for this training should be under the Oversight of the Elders of that local Church. If a candidate for ministry must be trained at a better equipted Church he should relocate and become a member of that Congregation. Is this a basically sound understanding. Your input is desired,thanks.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 18, 2011)

How one answers this question is largely determined by what one thinks a minister is and what a minister is called to do. If one thinks that knowledge of the English Bible and a cursory knowledge of systematic theology, church history, and biblical history, for example, is sufficient then training in a local congregation might do. If, however, one agrees with the historic Reformed approach to pastoral ministry, that a minister is called by God, through the visible church, to read God's Word in the original languages, with the conviction that ministry requires a thorough and careful grounding in systematics, exegetical theology, church history, the theory of pastoral ministry (as well as practice) then one will seek to train ministers accordingly. This is why Calvin sought to establish an academy in Geneva and why the Reformed churches sent their ministerial candidates to places such as Heidelberg and Leiden for university, where theology was taught until the Enlightenment created the necessity for seminary faculties in exile.

Here's an introductory essay on this topic.

Here's a resource page with more on this topic.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 18, 2011)

R. Scott Clark said:


> How one answers this question is largely determined by what one thinks a minister is and what a minister is called to do. If one thinks that knowledge of the English Bible and a cursory knowledge of systematic theology, church history, and biblical history, for example, is sufficient then training in a local congregation might do. If, however, one agrees with the historic Reformed approach to pastoral ministry, that a minister is called by God, through the visible church, to read God's Word in the original languages, with the conviction that ministry requires a thorough and careful grounding in systematics, exegetical theology, church history, the theory of pastoral ministry (as well as practice) then one will seek to train ministers accordingly. This is why Calvin sought to establish an academy in Geneva and why the Reformed churches sent their ministerial candidates to places such as Heidelberg and Leiden for university, where theology was taught until the Enlightenment created the necessity for seminary faculties in exile.
> 
> Here's an introductory essay on this topic.
> 
> Here's a resource page with more on this topic.



Please be patient as I probe this as it may come across as really rude.

Calvin needed an academy set up precisely because in his context of coming out of the RC church few had a good grasp of the subjects you mention. You seem to imply that the local church is equipped/qualified to teach things in a cursory manner - you exclude the languages as something the local church can do and you mention that in what a seminary can do as if to say that the local church can't do that (at least not well).

But I have to ask: How does this reflect on how well you are doing your job? After all, if the graduates of your school and your classes aren't, in your apparent estimation, able to teach things beyond a cursory level, then what I hear you saying between the lines is that you are either teaching them at a cursory level or that you don't trust your students to retain what you've taught them. If anything, I think you potentially indict yourself and your own paradigm, sir. IF you are teaching to a high degree of proficiency, then is it not at least in principle possible that a local church - who has as their pastor one of your graduates - could train subsequent ministers to a high degree of proficiency?

Again, I wanted to pose the question directly because I think your words leave you open to that type of criticism, but I'm hoping you can/will elaborate. I do not intend to convey any malicious or negligent motive or action to you. I'm not using the 2nd personal pronoun as if to say that you are singularly the problem. But, I think the use is fair given that you are in the business of seminary education and a professional scholar who trains future pastors... and it keeps it "safe" to leave it "out there," but the ante gets upped a bit when we bring it closer to home.

Yours,
Ben


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 18, 2011)

Stephen, I actually have some sympathies for this model (Bob B. and I talked about the view one day at lunch a while back). A couple of things:

1) I see Dr. Clark's point in that there are different degrees of preparatory teaching that can be accomplished. Could I train someone for the pastorate, given enough time? Sure, but it would not be a very indepth, at least in certain areas. If I could put it this way: Would you rather Tim Phillips train pastors, or would you want Mike Horton and Scott Clark doing it, or Sinclair Ferguson and Doug Kelly doing it, or Al Mohler and Tom Schreiner doing it, well I think the answer is obvious.

2) The local church model has the advantage of immediate oversight. In other words, the local church itself knows exactly what is being taught and can handle matters that might arise in a more direct fashion. How long did the whole Norm Shepherd affair go on at WTS? That can be a problem with a Presbyterian-type system. OTOH, it can also help in cases of false accusations by instilling a system of due process. But there are ways around this as well (such as not issuing tenure and working on a one-year contract basis -- I think someone once stated that this is the policy of Reformed Theological Seminary).

3) The local church model potentially opens itself up to problems. Without an oversight over the local church, it is possible for a church to become rogue and depart from a particular system of doctrine. Or a local church could simply begin perpetuating itself (badly -- imagine if Westboro Baptist began its own ministerial training school). Reformed Baptist Churches possibly escape this dilemma by confederating themselves and providing that extra layer of oversight over the schools. At least that is what it appears like to this outside observer. Please correct me if I am wrong here.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 18, 2011)

> because in his context of coming out of the RC church



I'd be curious to know how many of us (pew-dwellers or ordained) came out of a solid reformed church. Several of the strongest pastors I know came out of non-churched, liberal or RC backgrounds, but had excellent seminary educations and were closely mentored either during or after seminary (during an internship). In my understanding, local church oversight has to be there, but strong seminary training is also essential to meet the high scholarly standards necessary to work fluidly with the original languages and theological disciplines. I am grateful for the solid education I've received as a pew-dweller due, in part, to the excellent education my pastors have received.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 18, 2011)

jwithnell said:


> > because in his context of coming out of the RC church
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to know how many of us (pew-dwellers or ordained) came out of a solid reformed church. Several of the strongest pastors I know came out of non-churched, liberal or RC backgrounds, but had excellent seminary educations and were closely mentored either during or after seminary (during an internship). In my understanding, local church oversight has to be there, but strong seminary training is also essential to meet the high scholarly standards necessary to work fluidly with the original languages and theological disciplines. I am grateful for the solid education I've received as a pew-dweller due, in part, to the excellent education my pastors have received.



What I meant by that was given his context as a first generation reformer, Calvin (and others) could realistically expect that those coming to him had not grown up reading Scripture in the vernacular (much less the original languages) and hadn't studied much theology or history - if the reports of scholarship among the catholic priesthood at the time are indicative, - that a great many were illiterate and only knew enough Latin to recite the mass - I'm pretty confident in my assertion. Guys like Aquinas or Erasmus were not normative, I assure you.

I am not intending to cast disrespect upon the notion of a seminary. I had a great time at Southern, and I learned things that I use daily. My question is simply this: If the seminary does its job well in terms of providing a great education to the student, then when the student goes off, gets ordained and pastors a church, is it utterly beyond the pale of possibility that this now ordained man still has a strong grasp of the academic disciplines and can pass that knowledge on to another? The odds of this happening are (in my opinion) raised exponentially if we considered a co-op model where a presbytery could share responsibilities between ministers so that each could instruct in the area of his particular strength.

I'm not saying "let's trash the idea of a seminary!" because I realize that not all seminaries train students to an equally rigorous degree and I also realize that many graduates go on to disregard much of what they learned in schools. I'm simply casting doubt that such a model is the only possibility.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 18, 2011)

Ben,

"[C]ursory" wasn't the best choice. Let me be clearer. Our graduates are prepared to enter pastoral ministry (70% of our students are MDiv). The MA students are prepared to fulfill a variety of vocations (academic, high school teacher, missions etc). Few of our MDiv or MA students, without further preparation, are ready to become seminary profs.

If you read the materials I've linked you'll see that I've tried to explain why that is. I don't mean to denigrate our grads or WSC (or other schools) in any way by this comment. 

As I explain in the materials linked what we now call an "MDiv" used to be a BD. Nothing in substance has really changed but, for a variety of reasons, the nomenclature of the degree has changed. It is a first degree in ministerial studies. It is not intended to take the place of the extended academic work involved in earning a PhD in preparation for teaching at this level.

As I've explained before, few pastors possess the expertise to replace an entire seminary faculty! We have experts, who are also pastors (!), in ancient near eastern studies, systematic theology, apologetics, church history, homiletics, missions, etc. 

A pastor who is fulfilling his vocation as a preacher of the Word and a shepherd of the flock, cannot possibly spend the time necessary to do those things AND learn more than one of these fields. It's probably the case that the days of a man being able to serve a congregation and earn a PhD are are almost over. The explosion of knowledge, the speed at which knowledge is being transmitted, has increased markedly since I began as a college prof in 1995. 

The need of minister for an academic education is no less now than it was in 1559. Indeed, the students who come to us today are rather less well educated than the students Calvin and Beza received into the academy in the 1550s. Few of our students can already read Latin (maybe 1-2 every few years). Few of them can already read Greek and Hebrew. When WTS was founded in 1929 the expectation was that students would have already learned Greek at least. That's why, to this day, at WSC Greek is called "propadeutic," i.e., preparatory. It was difficult to find a Hebrew teacher in the 16th century (as it is today) so I guess few students came to Geneva with Hebrew but Greek is just Latin with funny letters. Students were taught Latin as boys. They were discipline much more rigorously than students are today. Indeed, the greatest sin a teacher can commit today is to damage the self-esteem of student. Not so in the 16th century.

The general literacy of the American population is declining. We spend more time on remedial studies today than we did in the early 80s when I came to seminary. We could easily establish a year of remedial studies. Students are verbally articulate but they do not all write as well as they speak. Critical thinking skills seem to be diminished. Knowledge of history seems to be diminished these days. 

No, sem students don't need less education but more. 

As to the theological background of students, those (which include most) who come from a broad evangelical background are in no better shape than students who were emerging from the Roman communion in the 16th century. Indeed, those students might have been better prepared for ministry in the Reformed context than evangelical students are today. 

The local congregation is not supposed to be a post-graduate school. It is a hospital for sinners. Christian education is vital but it's not meant to be done at the same level as it is done in a seminary classroom. Our students are not taught in a cursory manner. We educate them rigorously and thoroughly but they are not expected to take their class notes to the local congregation, at least not without some mediation. 

You're welcome to sit in on any of our classes. I guess that most folks find them challenging enough.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 18, 2011)

On today's Dividing Line with Dr. James White, two of my pastors/professors talked about the Midwest Center for Theological Studies, which is a seminary out of a local church. I appreciated Dr. White's statement when he taught here last week: "_This_ is how theological education ought to be done." To keep him in context, he was referring to how MCTS is operated specifically; neither he nor my church believes it is wrong to pursue education from a seminary, but we believe the ideal for at least _most_ of the education is the local church. Why does training for pastoral ministry have to be either or? It can be both, and in fact the local church may be an ideal context for the majority of pastoral training, assuming it is a healthy church, etc.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 18, 2011)

> What I meant by that was given his context as a first generation reformer


 Yes, I have great admiration for the first generation of folks -- clearly the Holy Spirit blessed them greatly in illuminating the word and through them, and in doing so, blessed us as well. But I think the churched/unchurched divide is getting even stronger. Folks from the examples I gave, RC etc., are actually much better off than many of the folks under 35 today who have grown up completely outside the church. Add to that a culture of increasing diversity and the seminaries take on an even greater importance in developing men to lead the church before the watching world.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 18, 2011)

First of all, no education whatsoever qualifies a man for the pastoral ministry. If his character does not line up with Scripture then he is unqualified and seminary will be detrimental to him and any church he is sent to. Too many men think they're qualified for ministry because they get a MDiv from a recognized seminary. Also, a statement such as:


R. Scott Clark said:


> Our graduates are prepared to enter pastoral ministry


would seem to supercede the biblical qualifications for the role of overseer. I don't think Dr. Clark intends to do that for I've seen him make clear statements regarding the need for personal piety. But the character aspect of a pastor must be stressed just as Scripture does. 
Second of all, as Stephen says, it is the church's responsibility to train pastors. When this is "relegated" to institutions, outside of the oversight of the local church, it departs from the biblical pattern and takes on a life of its own. That is not to say that a church should not send a man to seminary. Seminaries are good resources for the church to use in training men for ministry. But the problem arises when the seminary sees itself as having oversight rather than as an tool for the local church. I've never been to Westminster, so my comments are not in regard to my perception of WSC to any degree (the "Who Should Go to Seminary" article is quite good, though I do wish it would stress character before seminary more).

Finally, I'm really happy because I now have a "this post is helpful" option. I don't know why or how, but it is really quite exciting for me.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm very thankful for the input everyone is bringing and want to see this post remain civil and helpful to us all for I have many questions and comments to make upon this subject. My intent/motive for starting it is for true interaction and good knowledge to be shared from every angle. I am not a very educated man but I enjoy hearing from those who are and from those who have walked long with the Lord. Every Christian on this Board should benefit from this forum no matter what level or degree of Education or teaching in the local Church they have,to me that is what difines a truely gifted teacher. The M-DIV and the lay-person alike should to some degree be helped by the discussion. Those of you who contribute to my post who are Educators on the Highest level I thank you for what ever you have time to share as well as you my Brethren whom GOD has blessed with good minds who are not yet at the Masters level. So I would pose another question which concerns me on this issue. Pastor Clark you have much to say and good insight so I would ask you based upon your position this question. Most of the Apostles seemed to be poorly educated men and never really advanced beyond the local church level in advanced education nor their students who would fill their roles as Pastor/Teachers after the Apostolic era was over. Can not the Holy Spirit gift men who meet the required standards layed out in Titus,Timothy and other biblical standards for leadership roles without a great deal of more technial education? If we educate men and sharpen their intellects in the Technical aspects of advanced study are they truely prepared for service in the church when they fail to meet the qualifications GOD says they MUST have or MUST be those things specified in the Scriptures. How can an Educator or Professors fulfill this role or are these men recommended by their Elders and are therefore accepted to the School and not just because they have the money and desire and meet entrance requirements?


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 18, 2011)

I'd like to add something, because it's a very real challenge. There are men who grasp theology, love Christ and strive to serve in the local church faithfully, but are not really in line with their church. Their calling should still be visible, but the challenge of how to go about seminary training is daunting. It would be preferable if they could find a local congregation that was more biblical to send them. But that's not always possible. In such a case, what's an aspiring pastor to do? I say this reluctantly because it is not preferred and elitism can easily be a part of the motivation, but it may be that going to seminary will offer him the opportunity to become involved in a good church where he can flourish under strong pastoral oversight. But, in saying that, once he's found a good seminary, I would put the pursuit of a good church over his education. The former cannot be sacrificed on the altar of the latter. And I would encourage him to seek the oversight of the pastors throughout his education in order that he can be properly assessed for character growth as well as academics.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 18, 2011)

Sorry Joe I must have been typing while your post was submitted,you hit a cord I was concerned about as well. I do not believe an Educated man is auotmatically a man full of the Spirit even when truely converted if he neglects the weightier matters of personal holiness and real piety. This is a no brainer but I like speaking at times the obvious.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 18, 2011)

Isn't there a level of practicality here? I mean isn't it more concevably practical to educate pastors in a seminary where they have scholarly oversight as well as education? I mean one of my elders is taking me under his wing to one day, years from now, do some teaching in our large church, so my "education" can suffiently be accomplished in this way with the oversight of my session and the pastors who have been educated at a seminary. We need scolars in the various fields of theology who can guide and educate. If a student is going over into say FV, we need scolars at that level to practicly be able to spot it and correct it. I don't think that you can practicly achieve that at the local congregation with in essence making a mini seminary, which really then negates your point.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 18, 2011)

The level of Scholarship in some Seminaries is a great blessing to the whole church regardless of the distinctives that define who we are and this is needed,we all benefit from this rich resource even down to our excellent study bibles and study helps. My concern is this, is this the priority and chief qualification for a Shepherd when it comes to the care of Christ Sheep/Lambs in the work a day wourld we all live in. The role of the Holy Spirit in gifting a man for service,His divine enablement and leading in each duty required is to me not discerned solely in ones giftedness in Hebrew,Greek or masters level Theology as taught by the best of Professors. Are there not secular schools who have Theology Departments and Professors who are not even Christians where men go to get Degrees for good and not so good reasons? If I have a M Div or Masters degree from say the University of Chicago then I go to England and get more Degrees at Oxford then I go here and there and receive acceptance and appointment as a Professor in a Seminary. Is such a person qualified to teach a person how to be a Pastor never having been one himself? I'm not anti Seminary or anti Intellectual but it seems to me if a church requires all these credentials of a Christian Minister does GOD and the Bible require this as well of a Shepherd to be truely effective? Up until recently we had five Pastors at our church of 140 members, we understand the need for a Plurality of Elders/Pastor/Shepherds or Bishops if your prefer. The Seminary John MacCarthur is part of also John Pipers Church do they fit the church based Training of men for the Pastoral Office or do they require other Training at a higher level?

---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ----------

Yes James Scholorly Oversight is a must when heretical teaching comes in and seeks to undermind the Faith once for all delivered to the saints. Paul has much to say about that to Timothy and Titus and John as well in his letters to the Churches. MarrowMan spoke of the potential for a core group of Elder/Pastors all being caught up in a doctrinal error and leading the whole church into ruin or error with them. This is why in my opinion those who rule are Overseen by fellow Elders in sister churches as is common among Reformed Baptist Churches. And men such as myself and other mature Christians are required to know and understand the Mysteries of the Faith and stand against drifting away from our Reformed Standards fearing GOD more than any man. Our Elders are approachable and welcome our voiced concerns if they are errant in their statements or teaching. Our Deacons likewise hold the Faith with a good and pure conscience as Scripture requires, this is a defense against error as well and is most practical to me.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 18, 2011)

ServantsHeart said:


> It is my understanding based I believe upon Scriptural evidence that the local Church is to recognize and train men for the office of Elder/Pastor and to appoint Deacons as well. I add that schools for this training should be under the Oversight of the Elders of that local Church. If a candidate for ministry must be trained at a better equipted Church he should relocate and become a member of that Congregation. Is this a basically sound understanding. Your input is desired,thanks.


 
What local church was Paul's school of Tyrannus under?

The global Church of Jesus Christ is to train its ministers. Many such schools have a board of directors drawn from local churches. This is plenty of oversight.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 18, 2011)

As I asked at the outset. Do Reformed Christians believe in an educated ministry? 

That's the essential question.

NO ONE is arguing that education alone qualifies a man for ministry. There is a distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. Education is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. A necessary condition is a thing without which something else can't be, at least not ordinarily.

There are multiple conditions for pastoral ministry. A man has to meet the tests of holy Scripture (e.g., 1 Tim; 2 Tim; Titus et al) but not every man who meets those spiritual and moral tests is called to pastoral ministry. The goal is to combine the spiritual qualifications with the intellectual. That was the great mission of Princeton Seminary, to combine heart AND head. We don't have to choose between them. Reformed folk have never accepted the head/heart dichotomy. 

In the ordinary providence of God ministers need to have a certain level of knowledge. The Bible was not given in English. We have good and faithful English translations but we recognize that God's Word was given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (WCF 1.8). 

One of the great blessings of the Reformation was the recovery of the original languages so that ministers could preach God's Word having done their own work in the original languages. 

There are local pastors who are quite gifted in the study and use of original languages but the churches tried, in the 18th and 19th centuries, using local pastors to train other pastors. That system largely failed. That's why Princeton Seminary was established, because the church recognized that "each one teach one" wasn't working. 

i hope that you'll take a few minutes to read carefully some of the material linked because it addresses many of the concerns raised. At Westminster Seminary California we work with local congregations. Students are mentored. It's not an "ivory tower" abstracted from the visible, institutional church.

It is the church's vocation to judge the preparation of candidates for ministry. It is the church's responsibility to see that men receive the training they need. From that it does not follow that it is the church's duty to do that training. That is a _non sequitur_. The church's primary function is to prosecute the mission of the church: preaching the Word, administering the sacraments, and administering discipline. The visible institutional church, as such, is not called to the sort of academic expertise required in the preparation of ministers. 

Once more, the real question here is this: do we value an educated ministry?


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 18, 2011)

Thank you Pastor Clark,I will read your material suggested before I say any more. It may well answer my many questions and therfore will end me asking new ones. Thank You for your council and desire to keep this in perspective with good arguments. And now I'm of to read you links. Good Night Brethren.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 18, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> What local church was Paul's school of Tyrannus under?



Although I am not against seminaries (with a few necessary qualifications), I'm not sure if this is a good example. The local church was the one at Ephesus. The Apostle/pastor Paul, who had the authority to teach and inform the local church, taught the students at the school of Tyrannus, which means that this school had direct oversight from the local church. A vague parallel might be if the church rented a room to teach in, or had friends who were willing to let them teach in their facility during off hours, and the pastor was doing the training.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 18, 2011)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Once more, the real question here is this: do we value an educated ministry?



I'm not sure that is the real question. Your assertion of what constitutes the real question assumes within it what I believe is the true question: Is a seminary the only place in which a man can be properly educated for the ministry?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 18, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > What local church was Paul's school of Tyrannus under?
> ...


 
So, you would not be opposed to missionaries starting local language bible schools on the mission field, since these missionaries are sent out from local churches back home, right? Just as the Apostle Paul was sent out with an authority to teach, missionaries are commissioned and sent out to teach.

If that is the case, why not have professors at the major seminaries sent out by their local churches and commissioned as teachers.... then there would be less grounds for anyone to feel uneasy about it.

P.s. I still see no proof that the local church at Ephesus had any sort of oversight over the school at Tyrannus. Give me more evidence. Geographic proximity is not enough.

---------- Post added at 02:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 AM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Once more, the real question here is this: do we value an educated ministry?
> ...


 
Yes. EVERYONE values an educated ministry. Not everyone agrees how this education is to be done.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 18, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


 
I suppose it wasn't clear for me to say that the local church at Ephesus had oversight over the school of Tyrannus. My thought process was mostly about the authority of Paul, so it would be more accurate to say that the one who had authority at the local church in Ephesus had as much authority to teach the things of God in Tyrannus' hall. He was commissioned by Christ for this task, and drawing much of a parallel in this post-apostolic dispensation is somewhat difficult. That is why I said that one vague parallel may be an elder of the church teaching in a rented lecture hall or something similar. So you're right in your postscript: there isn't much evidence to defend my statement that the teaching in the school of Tyrannus was under the oversight of the local church. However, I hope we will agree that the Apostle Paul had authority to teach in both contexts. 

With further regard to the teaching that took place in Tyrannus' school, I don't believe there is evidence that this was for pastoral training to begin with. I'm inclined to believe that there were many unbelievers present and this venue was primarily evangelistic. See Acts 19:10: "And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." This reflects back on my original point, that Paul's teaching at the school of Tyrannus may not a good example in the discussion of seminary viability. 

I (obviously) would not be opposed to missionaries beginning and teaching in local language schools on the mission field. It would be a wonderful thing for seminary profs to be commissioned by their local church to teach at a seminary, but like I've always said, I'm _not_ completely opposed to seminaries. They can be very helpful resources, even though the vast majority of them spew garbage and train others to spew garbage. Faithful seminaries are a gift to the church, although with much of what ought to be learned by the prospective pastor this gift is a plan B, not the ideal in many cases. What are some of the ramifications? It doesn't seem uncommon to see graduate and post-grad degrees as a form of intellectual street cred with unbelievers when what is happening is the mass enslavement of a generation of pastors to loans and debt, though admittedly this isn't always the case. Regardless, my consistent appeal has been merely not to require something that scripture doesn't, i.e. a seminary degree, when biblical qualifications can be and have been met by other means.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 18, 2011)

Andrew: Yes, I think you are right in your assessment above. I wish we knew more about this Tyrannus school.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 19, 2011)

​
I printed off Pastor,Professor Clarks paper on, Why Pastors Need a Seminary Education, He brings up some good arguments though I must confess I'm not convenced that these viewpoints settle the issue in my own mind.

Point one, "The More Things Change" The electronics/internet means of training men from a distance or in home grown schools such as say MCTS in Owensboro KY. I do not think such church based schools will ever replace the Faithful Seminaries but will assist or compliment them on a local level. The Seminary can produce a greater number of candidates for Christian Ministry and at first no doubt a better trained student in some areas but as a Church based school matures and gathers to itself many able Professors I think this gap wil close somewhat. Quantity as long as it maintains quality is not a bad thing, but I don't think quality of education is only found in a well establisehed and long time Institution. Many once fine Seminaries are no longer such, if anything they are a great problem for the Church. His second point is the,"Face to Face is Best". I agree that there ia a dynamic in the face to face setting in same intimate groups which is much better than a computer screen or email system,this I agree with but it does not mean any other method is therefore not able to be used to teach by as is granted by Pastor Clark.

The Third point,"The Pastor Scholar" I would never want a Heart Surgeon only trained on the internet and there is no fear of this happening so it is not the best analogy to use,we all know what is required to be a Surgeon/Doctor and clinicals are a huge part of their training. The Pastor first becoming a Scholar while serving as a Pastor would be a great labor and sacrifice just as much if not more in my opinion as a student going off for four to eight years to a great Seminary. The on the job benefit while pursuing Biblical Studies will take longer maybe but is not any less complete in the end result. We have SBTS here in Louisville KY. where many Pastors get advanced training while being Pastors in this way the Seminary is utilized for many Pastors. A good School like MCTS in a church setting seems to do the same thing just on a smaller scale.

The Forth Point,"It Takes One To Know One". Keeping abreast of new developments as you admitted in Theology is not impossible or difficult in many ways due to the speed with which Pastors may communicate with other Pastors on current issues. The more diligent the Elders the better informed they remain, and does every issue that comes up require intense scrutiny and technical skill in order to refute or exspose as error? I don't see this as a absolute requirement or skill which is only gained by being in or having a Seminary level degree, though it would be very helpful in some situations.

Point Five,"Seminary And Church" This is the heart of my Post and my concern or reason for asking what the Bible says on this issue. The Resource argument,time,money,human and capital resources to train men for ministry is a good one and many churches can't meet these demands but some can and do sufficiently meet these needs on a limited bases I'll admit. That is why I suggested sending men to said Churches set up and resourced to do the training.

Point Six,"Seminary:A Place for Reflection" This is a reasonable consideration and one any man or woman who loves the scriptures yearns for in the hectic life pressed upon us all. This is why I rise very early in the morning that I might have hours with the Lord before going to work. Pators who are married with children and are lone Elders in a good sized church,I agree cannot have this often needed time to think long and deep or to heve time for profitable interaction a classroom seting offers, agreed on this point.

Point Seven,"Follow The Money" I have no idea what it cost but I'm sure WSC does all it can to make it affordable and not a cause for financual burden to the Pastor/Student. If money is to be spent on an Education I would rather see it go to a solid Christian Institution than a secular if possible. Which method is cheaper and more effective I have not the data on that but Pastor Clarks aegument is duely noted and reasonable.

Point Eight,"No Easy Way" Ministry is never ever easy and if a young student thinks so he better reconsider that attitude whole heartedly,this is not a Proffesion it is a life lived for the servic eof others and nothing less than excellence for the the GLORY of GOD will do. I believe WSC is a worthy place to send students in comparrison to other schools of which I have heard of and does a Christ honoring job in its service to Christ. I have never heard otherwise.

Point Nine,"The Old Fassioned Way:They EARN It" I agree with what is required and imparted to the Student/Pastor is this the only way and setting? I yield to those who know the situation in our times and Church History and Pastoral Ministry to answer that question with the wisdom and expirence they have.

Point Ten,"The Proper Role of Distance Education" If a local Church does not have a resident School or is close to a Seminary as I have stated it is a good thing to send our Pastors for continued training to such hopefully Church Overseen Seminaries. What I mean by Church Overseen is that no school should be Independant from the Churches that support it and use it to train future Pastors or better educated church members. It seems to me these Schools end up secular or full of Apostate Professors and students that become enemies of the Gospel.

Concluding Thoughts,As long as the Slogan "The Whole Council Of GOD." Remains true I will bless GOD for WSC and all Seminaries like it, but I think there should be a level of Unity and Cooperation between local smaller Home Based Schools and the Seminaries and not a unhealthy compitition or distrust between them. It is my conviction that the Local Church should have a greater say and role in preparing men for Gospel Ministry and that Seminaries can be a great help to this cause but should never be disjointed from the Body Of Christ and Local Churches. If this can be done and maintained then I believe it is has been and will be a great help to the cause of Christ.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 19, 2011)

Wow, that is one big block mass of words above. Can you turn this into some paragraphs so I don't go crazy reading it?


----------



## KMK (Jan 19, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Once more, the real question here is this: do we value an educated ministry?
> ...


 
I think we can all agree that, as was mentioned above, for practical reasons the seminary is the _ordinary_ means of properly educating men for the ministry. The same would be true for any specialized field.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 19, 2011)

I tried to seperate the various points into paragraphs but it would not work by the edit button. I was in a bit of a hurry this morning and kind of forgot to seperate my 10 points Professor Clark made on his paper. It is like a big WORD Monster looking at you. I'll do better next time,bare with me I'm new at this Blog Post stuff.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 19, 2011)

ServantsHeart said:


> I printed off Pastor,Professor Clarks paper on, Why Pastors Need a Seminary Education, He brings up some good arguments though I must confess I'm not convenced that these viewpoints settle the issue in my own mind.
> 
> Point one, "The More Things Change" The electronics/internet means of training men from a distance or in home grown schools such as say MCTS in Owensboro KY. I do not think such church based schools will ever replace the Faithful Seminaries but will assist or compliment them on a local level. The Seminary can produce a greater number of candidates for Christian Ministry and at first no doubt a better trained student in some areas but as a Church based school matures and gathers to itself many able Professors I think this gap wil close somewhat. Quantity as long as it maintains quality is not a bad thing, but I don't think quality of education is only found in a well establisehed and long time Institution. Many once fine Seminaries are no longer such, if anything they are a great problem for the Church.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 19, 2011)

KMK said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > R. Scott Clark said:
> ...


 
Ken, I would be very careful in not making that last comparison. Pastoral ministry is not, on any level, "any specialized field." We fail to realize that we buy into the world's thinking. By reading through a list of pastor openings in churches it comes to mind that many great preachers and pastors would not be qualified to be their pastors because one of their main credentials is an MDiv. Spurgeon is disqualified from such a position due to lack of "specialized" training. I know he's a major exception. But I would plead that we avoid a comparison of training and credentials between a pastoral call and a temporal career.


----------



## KMK (Jan 19, 2011)

Wannabee said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > SolaScriptura said:
> ...


 
You don't believe pastoral ministry is a specialized field? What kind of field is it? By pointing out that Spurgeon is an exception only strengthens my point. You may find major symphony orchestra musicians, or high ranking military officers, or computer programmers, or pastors without university experience, but they are the exception, not the rule. Why is that? Is it because universities and seminaries have beguiled everyone into thinking that they are useful when they really are not? Or is it because universities and seminaries provide the most practical means of attaining the specialization required for these fields?


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 19, 2011)

Perhaps you're missing my point. The reason is because pastoral ministry is not a career choice. Because churches somehow have the idea that they can hire and fire pastors just like a corporation. Because pastors leave one church for another as though it's a job and moving around as they want to, for whatever reason, is perfectly valid. Because seminary, while helpful, is not a necessary ingredient. Because God has laid down the credentials for the pastoral ministry and hasn't bothered laying out the credentials for any other calling. Spurgeon is an exception because he had a special set of circumstances and a mind to grasp and retain all he read, which most of us don't. I invite you to look through a listing of pastoral openings advertised anywhere. Count how many of them mention character qualifications. Count how many require an MDiv. Count how many require a certain number of years experience. I can almost guarantee you that the numbers will be disappointing. And yet these churches "call" these men to come be their "pastors" with little knowledge of their true qualifications as handed down by God. Again, Spurgeon wouldn't even get an interview at most of them. Neither would our pastor in Washington. But I think he's probably the best pastor we've ever sat under, by far.
Yes, it's specialized. But it's specialized by God accordingly to His mandate and credentials, not a piece of paper or institution. Science and the arts will never improve upon it. There are not new discoveries. While men may strive for godliness in all that they do, and should, only the pastoral ministry is a focused pursuit of godliness in not only yourself, but in all whom you affect. That is why there is no other calling, ever, that holds accountability for the eternal souls of men before God (Heb 13:17).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 19, 2011)

Well said Joe


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 19, 2011)

Joe, that is an incredibly humbling post. Thank you for calling our (us pastors) attention to that.

I was looking at ebooks by Samuel Rutherford today, and ran across this little bio blurb: "He had a true pastor's heart, and he was ceaseless in his labors for his flock. We are told that men said of Rutherford, 'He was always praying, always preaching, always visiting the sick, always catechising, always writing and studying.'" Rutherford was truly a pastor-scholar, but he was (or appears to have been) first and foremost a pastor.


----------



## KMK (Jan 19, 2011)

Wannabee said:


> Yes, it's specialized. But it's specialized by God accordingly to His mandate and credentials, not a piece of paper or institution.



I don't disagree with what you say. But just to take it a little farther, don't you agree that God uses means for the specialization of His Pastors? He uses the means of a wife and children and parents and elders and employers and brothers and sisters and very often, but not in every case, seminaries.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 19, 2011)

I must admit that the lack of belief in the ability of the Triune GOD to enable men and prepare men for service in the Church as Elders/Pastors without a Seminary Degree or formal training is troubling to me to a degree. The qulifications for Elders/Overseer/Pastor/Teachers what ever is your prefered translations usage in Timothy and Titus nowhere requires as has been said these degrees the Seminary provides. If a man is a gift to the Church from the Head, Christ our Lord he will have the grace and gifts needed to serve in the Pastoral Ministry. His knowledge of Theology,Hebrew/Greek and other tools will mature while serving, how much is enough to be ready to do what GOD requires to be set apart for service in the Eldership or Pastoral role? I still think the scriptures teach it is done in the local church. How and what that looks like does not mean the school can't be the size of a Seminary on a smaller scale or that the quality of education will be inferior because it has 50 students and not 5000, or 10 Professors instead of 200. All schools have small beginings and moving them out from under the Oversight of the local Church and its Elders seems unbiblical to me and more the way of the world to be quite honest. It seems to me nearly all the schools founded sence the days of the Reformers/Puritans/Evangelical Movement in the 17 and 18th century have mostly gone to secular or liberal institutions. Our newest ones are still strong but the list is short for the older ones. SBTS 20 years ago was going down the toilet until GOD in His mercy brought about a major change in the last decade or so for the better. I know my concerns and view on this will not change the current system in place but I hope if I'm wrong about it that at least some discusion will help all involved to think through the implications of getting it wrong. If the Bible says it should be done one way doing it another way will be seen to have been a great and costly error in the end. This is my last word on the post, I appreciate your interaction and ask for patience for Brethren like me who differ with the current view held by most.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 19, 2011)

KMK said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's specialized. But it's specialized by God accordingly to His mandate and credentials, not a piece of paper or institution.
> ...



Ken - 

I can't speak for him, but as for me... I don't think he or anyone is saying that seminaries aren't helpful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that in most cases the best seminaries are hands down the best option. BUT. I think someone goes too far when they state or imply that the seminary is for all intents and purposes necessary and/or that it is all but impossible for a presbytery or church to properly educate a minister. 

I remember prior to going off to seminary my wife's boss (who was a pretty off the wall charismatic) was mortified that I'd waste my time and energy on going off to study theology. I don't believe that ANYONE here has ever articulated anything like that. 

The question is NOT as a previous poster said, whether or not we want an educated ministry. The question is whether or not the seminary is the only place in/at which a man can be properly educated for the ministry. If the answer is "no," even begrudgingly no, then in my mind that ends the principal discussion.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 19, 2011)

KMK said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's specialized. But it's specialized by God accordingly to His mandate and credentials, not a piece of paper or institution.
> ...


 
He does use means. But the man may not be married. He may have never held any vocation at all. He may have no children. The means are according to God. And the means can, and often are, totally contrary to what we would expect. Would you send a man to a RCC school to be trained? I certainly wouldn't. But God did so with Luther. Would you give him illness so he would sit inside and read all the time? I wouldn't, but God did to Spurgeon. God needs none of the things you mentioned to raise up pastors. He is the primary means. He is the author and finisher.

Now, the "ordinary means" is found in the context of the church. Men grow in godliness, are recognized for their godly character and serve faithfully. They share with others and impact their lives. The church recognizes God's work in their lives and begins giving them more resources and opportunities. Perhaps, if possible, the church will send them to seminary. Hopefully, if they do, they will hold them accountable throughout their seminary education. This is nothing like the "specialized training" of fields of vocation according to the world. Any man with the brains for it can become anything he wants, from a neurosurgeon to a chemical engineer. And he can be as vile as anyone you know and still excel in that vocation.

I did not perceive the tension in the fact that God uses means that sometimes are similar to the preparation for careers. I saw the comparison, "The same would be true for any specialized field," as an imposition upon God's means though; and as a denigration of the pastoral calling. I consider all callings to be sacred and espouse the pursuit of God's glory regardless of what one does for a living. But the preparation for the pastoral ministry is in the heart first, which is the work of God in the man more than any institutions influence. I hope that is more clearly set forward.


----------



## KMK (Jan 20, 2011)

Wannabee said:


> But the preparation for the pastoral ministry is in the heart first, which is the work of God in the man more than any institutions influence. I hope that is more clearly set forward.



You have made yourself abundantly clear on this point, Joe. 



Wannabee said:


> He does use means. But the man may not be married. He may have never held any vocation at all. He may have no children. The means are according to God. And the means can, and often are, totally contrary to what we would expect.



I guess that depends on what you mean by 'often'. If God 'often' went contrary to what we expect, then we would no longer expect it. Exceptions only establish the rule. Ordinarily God uses marriage, children and vocations to prepare pastors. (Tit 1:6) Ordinarily God uses a man who possesses 'sound doctrine' as well. (Tit 1:9) And ordinarily God uses seminaries as a means to equip pastors with that 'sound doctrine'. 

It does not denigrate the office of pastor to point out that there are some similarities with other vocations. After all, the Bible refers to pastors as 'shepherds', 'stewards, 'ambassadors', 'under-rowers', 'teachers' etc.

-------------

Edit: Sorry if this post sounds sarcastic. I meant what I said. Joe has made some very good points and they should be taken to heart.


----------



## War_Eagle (Jan 20, 2011)

ServantsHeart said:


> It is my understanding based I believe upon Scriptural evidence that the local Church is to recognize and train men for the office of Elder/Pastor and to appoint Deacons as well. I add that schools for this training should be under the Oversight of the Elders of that local Church. If a candidate for ministry must be trained at a better equipted Church he should relocate and become a member of that Congregation. Is this a basically sound understanding. Your input is desired,thanks.


 
Do you mean in lieu of formal education or in conjunction with formal education? If you mean the latter, then I could not agree more.

We're currently mentoring three young men in our church for ministry right now.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 21, 2011)

War_Eagle said:


> in conjunction with formal education?


 Yes my Brother in conjunction with a formal education. I have seen in our circles men with that good desire to serve as Elders taken under the wing of our current Elders and trained for the Pastoral Office while getting some Formal training from say SBTS or MCTS in Owensboro or other schools. We have very capable Elders in our church who teach them at least Greek and all the Disciplines of Systematic studies. Hebrew is a little tougher and they have limited ability here but can get that at Southern Seminary while they serve as Pastors or while they prepare for the Office. Our Elders persue continual training and studies as they serve our Flock so they are better able to train us for service to Christ. When you hold to this understanding some think we are against Seminary or advanced Training but that is not the case. We simply believe based upon what the Scriptures not what Tradition has been established but that the Local Church is thr beginning place for this task not an Institution outside the Oversight of the Eldership of the Church.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 21, 2011)

ServantsHeart said:


> I must admit that the lack of belief in the ability of the Triune GOD to enable men and prepare men for service in the Church as Elders/Pastors without a Seminary Degree or formal training is troubling to me to a degree.



Would you take the same approach to the preparation of physicians? Would you trust your health to a man who had not been to medical school but who said, "The Lord prepared me to be a medical doctor"? 

If not, why not?

Why should a minister have less preparation for his vocation than a physician has for his? Why do we accept the premise that academic preparation for ecclesiastical ministry is _desirable_ but not _essential_ when we wouldn't accept that standard for other vocations?

I suspect the answer has something to do with a view of ordinary means and how we define "spirituality" or how we use the adjective "spiritual." We've so defined it, in common use, to refer to moral qualities (even if they divinely wrought) that we've divorced them from ordinary means.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 21, 2011)

I don't think the analogy between an M.D. and a pastor totally works. 

At least you toned it down a bit this time...I think last time it was a surgeon and now it is only a medical doctor.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 21, 2011)

Perg,

A pastor is a lot like a GP. 

A pastor has to be equipped to handle a variety of different challenges, he must be generalist. Both must be well educated. Who would go to a GP who hadn't completed med school? Responsible MDs wouldn't attempt (and probably aren't allowed!) to replace medical school by teaching medicine themselves. Why not? Because they know that they aren't necessarily prepared to prepare others to become MDs. 

Why doesn't the analogy work? I've never been an MD but I've been a pastor since 1987-88 and I see many analogies. 

Why do we expect our MDs to be well prepared but we seem willing to accept less preparation in our pastors? I suspect it is because we think that pastors need less preparation. I suspect that, to some degree anyway, we've been influenced by the pietist notion that all that really matters in a pastor is godliness and that if a pastor can pick up a little book learning along the way, that's an additional benefit (a sort of second blessing). 

This might fit the American Second-Great Awakening pattern and the democratization (see N. Hatch) of American Religion but it has NEVER been the Reformed approach to preparing pastors. There's a chapter on this theme of democratization in _Always Reformed_

We expect our pastors to be BOTH godly AND learned. The sacred ministry is far too important to be committed to the hands of those who lack essential preparation. As I keep saying, MDs can only help us in this life and look how much we expect of them. If ministers feed us the bread of eternal life, how much more should we expect of them?


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 21, 2011)

It's interesting that medical school would be brought forward in light of the specialization and misinformation foisted on MDs in western schools. They graduate thinking they've arrived and many don't give their patients any credit at all for having a brain in their head. Some specialize in one aspect of medicine and fail to recognize that it's part of a whole picture. One endocrinologist we went to only deals with the thyroid. From his perspective all he has to do is treat yours and he's done. Frankly, he's destroying lives. Study of the whole body reveals that thyroid issues are, more often than not, symptoms of an underlying issue. And this often is the case with "pastors" who get specialized training. They think they've arrived. They think their perspective is the only one. They bring programs and promises divorced from the reality of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. So, I really wouldn't use the analogy of the training of a GP either. And they treat sin technically without truly understanding the underlying issue, the root sin, of the sin. Like so many medical doctors, they treat symptoms and never fully deal with the root cause.

As Spurgeon once said, a pastor who isn't a theologian is in his ministry nothing. It's impossible. They must be well educated. But "essential preparation," while it can include seminary, does not require it. That idea is a convention of man. The pastor needs to be more prepared than the MD. But the preparation is totally different. He is not studying in a lab. He can't put his ideas in a test tube and examine them under a microscope in order to arrive to exacting conclusions. And he can't treat the soul with technical precision. He must treat it with spiritual discernment according to the verity of God's Word. The last things our pulpits need today is more academicians. His constant study is living and active. The dynamic is totally different. A pastor breathes ministry. It reverberates in his heart. He is pastoring all day, every day. He is a pastor on his knees, in his study, in his interaction with all he meets and even in his greatest trials. An MD practices his trade.

I think the comparison CAN work. Both are involved in healing. The best of both are compassionate and sympathetic. But any pagan can be a good surgeon. Any pastor can pick up medicine. But no pagan and few doctors are qualified to be pastors; and no amount of seminary training will fix that. Perhaps a comparison in what they (should) do is valid. But to compare their training seems inconsistent with the calling. And we need to be careful not to impose western ideologies on God's Word. Missionaries often train men for ministry according to 2 Timothy 2:2. Godly men all over the world do this. If they can develop a school to help facilitate this, then it can be a good thing. But often the planting of western seminaries in new countries does more harm than good. This can especially be the case when a seminary trained man with no pastoral experience whatsoever is considered an adequate professor to train men for pastoral ministry. It might work in the medical field. But it's a bypass in pastoral ministry. The church can flourish without seminaries.

Blessings,


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 21, 2011)

Dear Brother/Pastor/Professor/Doctor/Scholar and everything else you have worked to be known for and I'm sure all who benefit from your hard work honor you for and I as well. I would delight in sitting under your able skills as a student and I mean that in sincereity. I fail to see why you can't believe or support a view that GODS means is not just one dimensional, namely a Seminary setting and not in other settings as well. The Church local and universal is blessed by GOD and has been so since Old Testament times the Isreal of GOD to the present with men very able to serve the people of GOD without what you are passionate about and believe is the only way to do it. You speak of the way it has been done by Reformed Churches throughout the history of the Reformation. Would I be ignorant in saying that not all Reformed efforts have been accomplised buy only those who have what you say is essential to be a Elder in Christ service? We focus on Calvin,Luther,Knox and all the most visible in the History of Reformed leaders, but was every Elder/Pastor Theologian educated and skilled to the degree you speak of?. True Spirituality is not without Understanding or a Good Mind trained by the Holy Spirit by whatever means He chooses, but you seem to demean and think little of those who are less educated than those with advanced education. I have met many who are very prideful and arrogant for Paul warns knowledge can Puff Up and make them very concieted if Spirit wrought wisdom does not guide and use that intellectual ability. Once again what you call (pietist notions) whatever that is I am not excluding a formal education where possible, I just refuse to make that the First thing needed but rather the Second. The requirements of GOD not the Reformed Tradition are first in my thinking if that is wrong show me in Scripture where it says so.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 21, 2011)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Perg,
> 
> A pastor is a lot like a GP.
> 
> ...


 




> The sacred ministry is far too important to be committed to the hands of those who lack essential preparation



I agree with this statement. Yes, adequate preparation is essential. That was never questioned. The assertion of many, however, is that seminary is not the only place to do so.


----------



## rpeters (Jan 23, 2011)

Dr Scott,
One could say I am bias because I am in the LAMP program through the PCA. Then again one could also be said of you. But we have established that we believe in education. Here is the question the seminary model the only way to train effective pastors? Is their another method where we can train pastors too? I think if you say seminary is the only way to train pastors then one you cut half the people who would be called and an even confidence in your own people to train the people for ministry. I do not think that an independent church can do train men for pastoral rather must belong to a denomination where you can pull people from. In our site our pastor can pull from many men in the presbytery who bring a breadth of knowledge and experience. This also takes an extraordinary pastor to do it, but it can be done. You have to be sold out to building the kingdom. FYI at this year's gospel coalition they will be talking about this topic in one of their plenary sessions.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 23, 2011)

Stephen,

It's not a matter of what God CAN do. His power is not in question. What is in question is what, in the ordinary providence God, are the best and most appropriate means for preparing for pastoral ministry. Surely good, thorough catechesis is essential (and many ministerial students lack that). A sound liberal arts education (again, something that too many students lack) and a thorough formal education from qualified scholars using the necessary means (e.g., library and other resources). Without writing a history of education (which I've discussed on the PB before at length) let me say that in the Patristic period the church began to formal education in ecclesiastically sponsored schools, catechetical schools, which contributed to the formation of ministers. That training later became more regionalized as it became associated with cathedrals. Typically ministerial training was done by one teacher who taught both the arts and theology. Over time, as learning increased and scholarship became more specialized, the cathedral schools developed into universities with multiple faculties (arts, law, theology, medicine). 

That was the pattern in existence during the Reformation. Where there wasn't a Protestant theology faculty, the Reformers sought to establish them and they did so across Europe and the British Isles. There were no "seminaries" (or not many of them) as we know them, in the 16th and 17th centuries, because theology was taught in the universities or in conjunction with them. Were Reformed pastors all trained in academies? As a matter of history the story is mixed. Most all had formal education in the 7 liberal arts and formal theological training was the goal. It wasn't just famous elites who had formal training. The Reformed churches worked very hard to establish schools and to see to it that their pastors received formal training, even even beyond their undergraduate education.

As the Enlightenment rejection of divine authority (whether located in the church or in the Scriptures) took hold the theology faculties were gradually turned to "religion" faculties or departments. Over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries orthodox theology was systematically excluded and the orthodox found themselves in exile. One can see this process in miniature in histories of Yale and Harvard and, to a lesser degree, in Princeton Seminary (which was distinct from the university but which jettisoned historic, confessional orthodoxy in the 1920s and 30s). There were "seminaries" of various kinds for various vocations in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is why the adjective "theological" was used, to distinguish them from other sorts of seminaries (e.g., for ladies). 

So, no "seminaries" are not essential for ministerial preparation but some sort of extensive, formally supervised, thorough, academic preparation is essential for pastoral ministry. In our time, for the reasons I've sketched, that has come largely to be done in seminaries. 

Joe,

I don't know how to respond. I'm thankful for antibiotics. Yes, western medicine is largely committed to "scientism" and materialism but that doesn't keep me from seeing my GP. I wouldn't go see a GP who lacked formal medical education. I guess the same is true for most folk.

Perg,

Is medical school essential preparation for a GP? 

Robert,

I don't know much about the LAMP program but the little I've seen and heard about it concerns me. I've talked to people involved in it and they seem to recognize that they are not getting the same sort of training they would in a traditional residential, setting. The great stumbling block seems to be funding. If our Reformed and Presbyterian churches would value ministerial education properly we could overcome the funding problem. 

I've tried to address your concerns in the various pieces linked to my post above.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 23, 2011)

Thank you Pastor & Professor Clark, Forgive me if my tone or comments have been anything less than respectful or lacking brotherly love to you a true Servant of Christ. I just want to affirm yet again that I am not anti Seminary nor anti Intellectual/Formal Training to any degree. I believe every Elder/Pastor should be trained to the utmost degree if possible and a Seminary setting in a Faithful GOD honoring school is I'm sure a great benefit to all involved. I sense your great passion and earnest desire to see men called to Christ service in His church and equiped as high priority and needful thing there is no want of agreement on this, in other areas I addmit we differ. I have only a High School level education I'm sure you have much more and have labored long and hard and are still laboring to ever advance your skills in order to serve your students,and they are the better for it. I only would say one thing that in our enteraction and those who agree with your position keep in mine but one important thing. The Roman Catholic Church puts a high premium on its Traditions, we believe so much so that it required the Reformation even to this day. The Reformation in my opinion is still moving forward in some churches in others it is dead because those bodies are Apostate. You spoke of the Reformed Tradition as regards Ministerial Eduaction being a reason why formal training is a must. I agree it is a good Tradition ie to train our Ministers well to be able Shepherds over Christ Flock. My earnest concern is that we do not fall into the same error as the Church of Rome and develop Reformed Traditions that over rule what the Scriptures teach and mandate in any area of Faith or Practice. If the Scriptures make clear what an Elder/Pastor MUST be in order to be set apart for the Pastoral Ministry and we in our Reformed Traditions add to that or in some cases take away from that then we fall into the same error as Rome. It is still my understanding and conviction that the local Church with Christ called and grace gifted Elders are the first and most responsible for this task of training future Elders and that this does not exclude a formal and more advanced training in the church and in a Seminary after and during their current service as ordained Elders. To me its not an either/or proposition but a both at the same time when possible. Once again thank you for you input and I think it has us all thinking and working through the issue which is a good thing. In Christ, Your Servant Gladly


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 24, 2011)

Scott, that really wasn't my point. I go to a GP too. We've been blessed to find a Christian doctor who doesn't think his education deifies him. He listens, considers and studies hard in order to try to dig deeply into the root cause of the illness. I'm very impressed with him. Many don't realize how much big pharma has tweaked the medical practice, especially in the states.

I hope my point wasn't lost in all the medical discussion though. I appreciate my seminary training. Would I do it again? Absolutely, but very much differently. I do appreciate that men are dedicated to helping the church train men for the ministry. While I don't think it's vital in seminary form, I do see it as a tremendous tool and potentially a great blessing. As long as those teaching men are pastors themselves, subservient to the church and can avoid the elitist mentality that is so common among those who teach in "institutes of higher learning," there is much to be gained by using seminaries as tools for training our pastors.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 24, 2011)

I think we are asking too much for a seminary student to spend 16 weeks listening to a prof and absorb his lifetime of dedicated research on the subject. Do I really think that after 5 semesters of Greek, I will be as fluent as my prof who has been reading Greek for 20 years? Of course not. Because of this, it is better for someone to study under the prof who has lived this topic for decades vs. a pastor who has not.

The inability of everyday pastors to prepare men for ministry (as a general rule) is not a knock on seminaries, but rather a consequence of time.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 24, 2011)

Wannabee said:


> It's interesting that medical school would be brought forward in light of the specialization and misinformation foisted on MDs in western schools. They graduate thinking they've arrived and many don't give their patients any credit at all for having a brain in their head. Some specialize in one aspect of medicine and fail to recognize that it's part of a whole picture. One endocrinologist we went to only deals with the thyroid. From his perspective all he has to do is treat yours and he's done. Frankly, he's destroying lives. Study of the whole body reveals that thyroid issues are, more often than not, symptoms of an underlying issue. And this often is the case with "pastors" who get specialized training. They think they've arrived. They think their perspective is the only one. They bring programs and promises divorced from the reality of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. So, I really wouldn't use the analogy of the training of a GP either. And they treat sin technically without truly understanding the underlying issue, the root sin, of the sin. Like so many medical doctors, they treat symptoms and never fully deal with the root cause.
> 
> As Spurgeon once said, a pastor who isn't a theologian is in his ministry nothing. It's impossible. They must be well educated. But "essential preparation," while it can include seminary, does not require it. That idea is a convention of man. The pastor needs to be more prepared than the MD. But the preparation is totally different. He is not studying in a lab. He can't put his ideas in a test tube and examine them under a microscope in order to arrive to exacting conclusions. And he can't treat the soul with technical precision. He must treat it with spiritual discernment according to the verity of God's Word. The last things our pulpits need today is more academicians. His constant study is living and active. The dynamic is totally different. A pastor breathes ministry. It reverberates in his heart. He is pastoring all day, every day. He is a pastor on his knees, in his study, in his interaction with all he meets and even in his greatest trials. An MD practices his trade.
> 
> ...


 
I just recently read a great book (which i recommend) by Dr. T. David Gordon called "Why Johnny Can't Preach". In there he writes how people in the pulpit are not educated properly. He writes the reason many "ministers" can't preach today is the lack of a good education. Now, let me ask you this, can a pastor give: 1) his full and undivided attention to the student? Absolutlely not. 2) a proper education for the student? No. Would I say then that seminary is neccesary for the ministry? Yes. Why? Because it provides the much needed and most adequate educational training for the preparation of the ministry. I go to a church where many seminarians from WSC go and it's interesting to see that they do not have this "elitist" minset that you are portraying them to have(or the profs at the seminary). Your understanding of seminary must come from your experience from TMS because that is not my encounter with seminarians.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 24, 2011)

Andrew, Greetings to you and thank you for your comments,they are reasonable and needed. I agree with you that One Pastor could not give a great deal of attension to one or more candidates for Pastoral Ministry. But 4 or 5 can give more than One,this is why the Biblical pattern is a Plurality of Elders/Pastors.

Some men can't preach with or without a Seminary degree or training,I'm pretty particular about what I consider sound and excellent Preaching/Teaching. I have sat under many mens ministries in 30 years as a Believer and most of them do not have the degree of training some Brethren think they should have. So this comment is pretty subjective at best. Never forget an element of preaching that is beyond any mans gifts or abilities, the power and pressence of the Holy Spirit working through the Preacher and in the ones being preached to. 

I can't speak for others only for myself,I don't remember saying that Pastor Clark or anyone from your particular Seminary is prideful,arrogant or marked by an elitest attitude but it is out there believe me.

And lastly don't miss the main issue by getting caught up in the secondary ones. The main issue I have sought to point out is this, what do the Scriptures say a Man desiring the Eldership/Pastoral office MUST be? If it says clearly what He MUST be then all the things men think He Must be are not binding or required according to GOD Himself. 
Lastly no one is against training or equiping men for this great task but saying it must be done one way or no way is in my opinion simply not true. In Christ Stephen


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 24, 2011)

Stephen,

On tradition, there's a sizable portion of _Recovering the Reformed Confession_ that deals with the biblical teaching concerning "tradition" and how we, as Protestants who confess _sola Scriptura_, should think about it. The short answer is that we're not biblicists (see RRC on this). We read the Bible _with_ the church. 

Scripture doesn't speak at length or explicitly about ministerial education. We've had to work that out over time. Clearly Paul was well educated. We have some idea of his educational background. He had formal academic training. Luke and the writer to the Hebrews were highly educated. Some of the apostles and apostolic company were not well educated but we're not apostles. None of us has the apostolic office nor have we apostolic gifts (despite the repeated claims by the neo-Pentecostalists).

So, we're left to try to apply the basic principles of Scripture in the post-apostolic, post-canonical period. Ministerial education is largely a matter of wisdom. This is where we can learn from the church. This is where tradition comes in. The Reformed churches worked out a process of ministerial preparation over a long period of time. They, who know a little bit about being Reformed, didn't see a need to junk everything that had gone before. They were not radicals. In this they had a different spirit from the Anabaptists who were genuinely radical, biblicists. 

There's no question that God, in his freedom and providence, has used men who were not highly trained but those are exceptions that test the rule. Most of us need a thorough, formal preparation for ministry. There have been men who've been able, in extreme situations, to perform medical procedures but we wouldn't want to make that the norm or the routine practice. There's a difference between "is" (or "was") and "should." We're talking about should.

Should we encourage men who want to serve Christ and his church to become as throughly equipped as possible? Yes! Why would we settle for anything less than the best? One of the attitudes I've encountered and resisted for decades now is the notion that, when it comes to the church that "good enough" is good enough. It isn't, not at all.

The job is great, the calling is high. That is why we mustn't settle for educational mediocrity for our ministers. Such a choice will reverberate down through the generations and our grandchildren and their children will curse us for curing them with ignorant ministers. I'm quite serious about this. Refusing to let the church slip back into ignorance, from which it was delivered in the Reformation, is an act of the will as much as an act of the intellect. There was a time, a LONG time, when ministers could barely read and many could not read at all. With the collapse of our public (and private!) secondary and post-secondary educational system the return of pervasive ignorance is closer to hand than many would like to think.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 24, 2011)

Andrew, you clearly did not read my posts very carefully.




R. Scott Clark said:


> The job is great, the calling is high. That is why we mustn't settle for educational mediocrity for our ministers. Such a choice will reverberate down through the generations and our grandchildren and their children will curse us for curing them with ignorant ministers. I'm quite serious about this. Refusing to let the church slip back into ignorance, from which it was delivered in the Reformation, is an act of the will as much as an act of the intellect. There was a time, a LONG time, when ministers could barely read and many could not read at all. With the collapse of our public (and private!) secondary and post-secondary educational system the return of pervasive ignorance is closer to hand than many would like to think.



I think this is very well said Scott. Thank you.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 25, 2011)

Wannabee said:


> Andrew, you clearly did not read my posts very carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Joe,

I meant no disrespect by what I said. I should have wrote that a different way and I'm sorry if I came across disrespectfully. Forgive me.

Here is my concern. Too many men are coming to the pulpit uneducated and giving poor sermons. Without the proper education to read texts carefully (especially ancient texts) they will miss the understanding of God's Word and give a sermon that is either "introspective", "how-to", "moralistic", etc. I also know a hand full of "pastors" who went from being a lay-person with no education or training to a minister of the Word with no training or education. It's scary thinking about men "preaching" the Word that they don't understand. My conviction is that there is no better option then seminary.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 25, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Without the proper education to read texts carefully (especially ancient texts) they will miss the understanding of God's Word and give a sermon that is either "introspective", "how-to", "moralistic", etc.



Andrew -

Since you want to write Gordon's categories, perhaps you should note that the problem (as he sees it) goes far beyond the seminary's ability to correct. He's refering to a fundamental shift in how people in our culture are taught to read. (Interestingly, Gordon thinks that future ministers should major in English literature.)

I have to confess that I'm wearied by claims or insinuations that the seminary is the _only_ place one can receive a proper education for the ministry, or that the choice is between a seminary and an uneducated ministry.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 25, 2011)

We agree, men Must be prepared for service in Christ Church to the highest standard possible. We also agree that unqualified men and ignorant men must be filtered out by a Biblical standard and tradition based upon Scriptural wisdom and precepts. The Church its Eldership as equiped by GOD the Holy Spirit must oversee this process if the Word is to be rightly devided or handled with skill. 
How,where and by what specific process this is to be done we differ on,so let us agree to pray and labor to accomplish all we are passionate about and I am confident GOD will get it done through us His normal means to the Glory of His name and good of His Church. Ephesians 3:14 to 21


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 25, 2011)

> I have to confess that I'm wearied by claims or insinuations that the seminary is the _only_ place one can receive a proper education for the ministry, or that the choice is between a seminary and an uneducated ministry.


 
Ben,

Did you miss the post above? The point is formal, thorough, credible preparation for ministry. The question is how we get there. I tried to give a brief account how we came to the present situation. 

Question: how, without the seminary (or some institution of formal education) do we achieve the goal? Distance Ed lacks major, necessary components. How can local congregations efficiently replicate the same resources?

My question and concern is this: do we want an educated ministry? My concern is thatnwe are tempted to alternatives that have the effect of lowering standards. Already many seminaries have given up on the languages. Church history (ahem) ttlgets short shrift. In many places systematic theology is downplayed. Ministerial preparation becomes a Bible school with a little practica. Machen addressed this very problem at the founding of WTS 1929. 

We need to recognize that, since the 1820s, there has been a strong anti-intellectual strain in American culture. Thar tendency was at the heart of the pragmatism that dispensed with formal theological/ministerial preparation in the so-called 2nd great awakening.

The proposal to farm out ministerial prep (not to say examination) to the local or even regional church seems to be a step backward. It seems to be an implicit concession that we should just "make do." Most of the proponents of this idea concede that it would mean lowering standards, that candidates won't be as well prepared. Why should we settle for less?


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 25, 2011)

Is it possible that there are some speaking past one another here? In no particular order:

It seems that there is general agreement that seminary is not necessary.
All [here] agree that pastors should be well educated. Nobody wants an uneducated preacher.
All agree that the character qualifications must be a priority, as Scripture mandates.
All agree that there is a very real challenge in meeting these.
Some of the distance programs are really quite good. However, except in exceptional circumstances, they won't work well without good oversight from knowledgeable church leadership.

Seminaries can be excellent resources. But the challenge here is that the church must grasp the vision of making the seminary a resource rather than an outsource. If this is maintained then the integrity of both the seminary and the church is more likely to be maintained. Much that is theologically wrong in today's churches came from seminaries that were outsources of churches who had abdicated their responsibility.

Some churches have joined in an effort to train men locally. There has been some success with this and it can be a good model. Again, there must be the trained men in leadership already present in order for this to be viable.

Regardless of the model we pursue, those who train pastors should be pastors themselves. This is where there can be a terrible breakdown. It is heart work, not merely classwork. Those involved in training men to minister to eternal souls must have their own brokenness over sins, heartaches and the trials, tribulations and afflictions of others that they minister to in order to train a pastor to see all his training in light of ministry. Otherwise it becomes abstract. The "correct" answers become cold, mechanical and didactic rather than nurturing, dynamic, relational and comforting. From the first step of exegesis to the last condolences of a funeral must be seen as heart work. Whether reading the paper or visiting the sick, all must be seen through the lens of ministering to souls. It is to be the every thought and ambition of a pastor, whether he's a vocational or lay pastor, for we all will give account to God for the souls He's entrusted to our care.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 25, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Your understanding of seminary must come from your experience from TMS because that is not my encounter with seminarians.


 Andrew your comment about The Masters Seminary,did you mean that as a criticism of that school or simply that he might have seen some less than humble attitudes by some of the Faculty or students there as compared to WSC? I do hope it was not against TMS for we sure do not need tension between the Students and Faculty of these two Seminaries.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jan 25, 2011)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Question: how, without the seminary (or some institution of formal education) do we achieve the goal? *Distance Ed lacks major, necessary components*. How can local congregations efficiently replicate the same resources?
> 
> My question and concern is this: do we want an educated ministry? My concern is thatnwe are tempted to alternatives that have the effect of lowering standards. Already many seminaries have given up on the languages. Church history (ahem) ttlgets short shrift. In many places systematic theology is downplayed. Ministerial preparation becomes a Bible school with a little practica. Machen addressed this very problem at the founding of WTS 1929.
> 
> ...



Dr. Clark,

I know you have written on distance education and your argument that it is inadequate in the past, so I won't try to bring up all of those things again, but I would like to point out only a couple of things particularly in reference to what I highlighted above.

(1) Speaking from personal experience, I have learned far more from my distance-ed classes than I did on campus. Working full-time and taking classes part-time, I have both spent more time actually thinking through the issues in my classes, talking over them with mentors, and putting them into practice in the church than I did when I was on campus (I've spent a year in both contexts).

(2) If a "necessary component" that you speak of is interaction with professors, then I have two follow-up questions: First, is it the academic expertise that is at stake? If it is academic knowledge, that can be communicated by distance. Secondly, is it spiritual direction/mentorship that's at stake? I do not know how you can argue that this is better received from seminary professors than leaders in the church. I have gained more from meeting with elders and pastors in my church than I did from professors on campus. That is no knock against seminary professors. They can and did affect me. But that relationship can be had with a pastor, and honestly, in my experience, professors did not have time to spend significant amounts of time with students out of the classroom. Some did more than others, but as a general rule, I've had more interaction through online forums with my profs than I did on campus.

(3) If the necessary component is library or other resources, then I don't see how that holds water. If one lives in a city, or even within reasonable distance of one, there are libraries. E.g., I have 2 seminaries and at least 4 university libraries within an hour of me, and I don't live in that big of a city. And I have electronic access to ATLA/other databases, and any articles not available to me can be scanned and sent to me by our distance librarian.

(4) Lastly, if one trained by distance education can pass the *same* requirements of presbytery for licensure and ordination (including languages, church history, etc) as those trained on campus, then how is it that the level of ministerial education is going down? There will be no dumbing down of requirements for me just because half of my education was done by distance. 

I respect the work of campus seminaries and the work that you do. I enjoyed my time on campus. But I simply don't see the argument holding water that education by distance _and overseen in practical experience by the church_ will dumb down the quality of ministerial education.


----------



## KMK (Jan 25, 2011)

R. Scott Clark said:


> The job is great, the calling is high. That is why *we mustn't settle for educational mediocrity* for our ministers. Such a choice will reverberate down through the generations and our grandchildren and their children will curse us for curing them with ignorant ministers.



I agree. I think we should encourage our young men to get a formal seminary education. However, the answer is not a seminary education, but a good seminary education. The rise of liberal seminaries contributes to the ignorance of today's ministers under the guise of formal education. How can a man who doesn't even believe in the inerrancy of Scripture be prepared for the ministry?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 25, 2011)

Covenant Joel said:


> (1) Speaking from personal experience, I have learned far more from my distance-ed classes than I did on campus. Working full-time and taking classes part-time, I have both spent more time actually thinking through the issues in my classes, talking over them with mentors, and putting them into practice in the church than I did when I was on campus (I've spent a year in both contexts).



Joel,

This is not an argument in favor of distance ed. It's an argument in favor of funding seminarians properly. Had you been funded properly in a residential setting you would have benefitted more from your preparation. 

I agree that it is difficult to assimilate and appreciate everything that is happening at sem in 3 years. For this reason students are increasingly taking 4 years. That's not a bad thing. Very young men, right out of their undergrad degree, probably should slow down. 



> (2) If a "necessary component" that you speak of is interaction with professors, then I have two follow-up questions: First, is it the academic expertise that is at stake? If it is academic knowledge, that can be communicated by distance.



If you've read my critique of DE then you know my response. It's not just academic expertise that is at stake. We (the faculty at WSC) are also ministers called by our churches to serve here. We mentor the students by spending time with them outside of class. We can't do that through a video monitor.

I don't accept your premise that expertise is mere data to be transmitted downline. That's a false view of education. A good prof is not just a talking head. We need to spend time with students helping them to understand what they're reading, learning, and how to apply it to ecclesiastical life. That can't be done online. 



> Secondly, is it spiritual direction/mentorship that's at stake? I do not know how you can argue that this is better received from seminary professors than leaders in the church. I have gained more from meeting with elders and pastors in my church than I did from professors on campus.



See above. I don't accept the dichotomy. I can't speak for other schools but we are both pastors and profs here at WSC.



> If one lives in a city, or even within reasonable distance of one, there are libraries. E.g., I have 2 seminaries and at least 4 university libraries within an hour of me,



That's a big if. Seminary libraries are highly specialized and of uneven quality (see below). They are not readily available for everyone. I guess that someone in Lincoln, NE would have to drive a long way (3 hours minimum) to find an average/mediocre sem library.

Well, when I was in Kansas City (about 3 hours from Lincoln) I lived a mile from a large sem and frankly the library was quite disappointing. The periodical room was well stocked but the stacks were inadequate. I don't recall the reference room or if it had one. 

Further, as a busy pastor, who was committed to reading, I often found that the press of ministerial duties kept me from the library. Some years I didn't get there at all.

Online/digital books are obviously changing the game but there is a gap. Google books only posts books out of copyright (I hope!). There's a gap between the newly digitized books and the older digitized books. 



> (4) Lastly, if one trained by distance education can pass the *same* requirements of presbytery for licensure and ordination (including languages, church history, etc) as those trained on campus, then how is it that the level of ministerial education is going down?



If churches and sems are lowering their standards then the quality of ministerial education will necessarily decline. Yes, candidates want to pass their eccl. trials but that's a bare minimum. One needs to know much more than can be expressed in committee or on the floor of presbytery/classis. 

It doesn't follow that because one passed presbytery/classis exams that one is well prepared. I've seen too many examples to the contrary to think that.

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 PM ----------




> I agree. I think we should encourage our young men to get a formal seminary education. However, the answer is not a seminary education, but a good seminary education. The rise of liberal seminaries contributes to the ignorance of today's ministers under the guise of formal education. How can a man who doesn't even believe in the inerrancy of Scripture be prepared for the ministry?



Amen.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 25, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> I have to confess that I'm wearied by claims or insinuations that the seminary is the only place one can receive a proper education for the ministry, or that the choice is between a seminary and an uneducated ministry.


Ben,

What would be the practical ideal in your view?

AMR


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jan 25, 2011)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Joel,
> 
> This is not an argument in favor of distance ed. It's an argument in favor of funding seminarians properly. Had you been funded properly in a residential setting you would have benefitted more from your preparation.



I see your point. But as far as the point goes, it isn't an argument for one or the other. I think it is a very valuable thing to work a job (I teach at a Christian school) and be studying for seminary at the same time. I only worked 15 hours a week, so I had pretty good funding compared to some. Part of my point is simply that when there is a seminary of decent size, it can be difficult to spend a time doing what I mentioned with professors regardless of the need for employment. There's not enough time to go around.



> If you've read my critique of DE then you know my response. It's not just academic expertise that is at stake. We (the faculty at WSC) are also ministers called by our churches to serve here. We mentor the students by spending time with them outside of class. We can't do that through a video monitor.
> 
> I don't accept your premise that expertise is mere data to be transmitted downline. That's a false view of education. A good prof is not just a talking head. We need to spend time with students helping them to understand what they're reading, learning, and how to apply it to ecclesiastical life. That can't be done online.



I'm certainly not denigrating the value of time spent with professors in conversation over the issues. But as I said, I've had far more questions answered through the distance program than I did on campus. There were simply too many people wanting questions answered all the time to really spend a lot of time in that. I hear that WSC may be different in that regard, and if so, I'm grateful that God has enabled that to be so there. But I imagine that is the exception rather than the norm, and probably has at least something to do with overall size. And I believe that my professors online have helped to understand issues and to apply them to ecclesiastical life.



> See above. I don't accept the dichotomy. I can't speak for other schools but we are both pastors and profs here at WSC.



I'm not supposing a dichotomy. Many professors at Reformed seminaries are/were pastors, which is as it should be, in my opinion. My point is simply that if you are saying distance education is not ok because it doesn't allow for interaction with knowledgeable men about spiritual development, application of Scripture to ministry, and so on, then I just don't follow that this can't happen through distance education with church oversight. I'm certainly not questioning that having a pastor-scholar in seminary isn't one way to do it. It's one valid way. But if one gets the exact same lectures, reads the same books, writes the same papers (and on campus, TAs only ever read my papers, while online, I only have professors grade them, ironically), participates in important discussions, *and* puts those things into practice with the oversight and mentoring of a pastor, how is that training necessarily inadequate? Certainly it could be, but certainly as well one can come out of the best on-campus seminary experience and not truly be equipped to be a pastor.



> That's a big if. Seminary libraries are highly specialized and of uneven quality (see below). They are not readily available for everyone. I guess that someone in Lincoln, NE would have to drive a long way (3 hours minimum) to find an average/mediocre sem library. Well, when I was in Kansas City (about 3 hours from Lincoln) I lived a mile from a large sem and frankly the library was quite disappointing. The periodical room was well stocked but the stacks were inadequate. I don't recall the reference room or if it had one.



That's true, I suppose, but even then, inter-library loan, while slower, can certainly get the job done if necessary.

Further, as a busy pastor, who was committed to reading, I often found that the press of ministerial duties kept me from the library. Some years I didn't get there at all.

Online/digital books are obviously changing the game but there is a gap. Google books only posts books out of copyright (I hope!). There's a gap between the newly digitized books and the older digitized books. 



> If churches and sems are lowering their standards then the quality of ministerial education will necessarily decline. Yes, candidates want to pass their eccl. trials but that's a bare minimum. One needs to know much more than can be expressed in committee or on the floor of presbytery/classis.



You're assuming that presbyteries are lowering their standards. I'm sure that this is the case in some places. But if in a presbytery with high standards one with a distance degree (and experience) passes the same tests and has the same knowledge and call to ministry, I'm not sure how we say that he is unfit for ministry.



> It doesn't follow that because one passed presbytery/classis exams that one is well prepared. I've seen too many examples to the contrary to think that.



And many of those that passed but were not truly prepared came from on-campus programs. I've known many who passed exams that weren't truly prepared, and they all went to respected Reformed seminaries. I've known some who passed exams, seem to truly be prepared, and received their education by distance primarily. That seems to suggest to me that both are viable alternatives, but that there are a variety of other factors that determine whether one is truly prepared or not, rather than a litmus test of brick-and-mortar versus distance.

Anyhow, I'm guessing we won't come to agree on this on the PB. But I genuinely do appreciate your thoughts, as well as the fact that as a seminary prof you take the time to interact with some of us here. While I chose to finally go the distance route, I respect the work that you do as WSC nonetheless.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 25, 2011)

It seems to me that we have gotten to a point where we are going around in circles on this Thread. I started it and unless we can cover some new ground on this issue I suggest we end it here.
I appreciate all the input on the issue,it has generated much thought and good content from different points of view. If you wish to make a few closing remarks yet unspoken please do so,otherwise I desire a peaceful end to our discussion. May we pray about the issue before the Head of us all and pray the wisest Prayer we can. Lord not our will but Your will be done. Amen 

Thanks & GOD Bless You All, In Christ Stephen Cox


----------



## rpeters (Jan 26, 2011)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Stephen,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Can you be specific about your problems or concerns and what type of involvement have you had. Are you going to this years Gospel Coalition?


----------



## Micah Everett (Jan 26, 2011)

I never thought I would find myself writing a post in which I agree (mostly) with Dr. Clark, but then again I don't post very often anyway, and after making the Baptist to Presbyterian "switch" perhaps I no longer find myself on the opposite side of as many of his arguments as I once did.

I have "sort of" seen both sides of this educational question. I am a music professor at a small state university, where I teach no online courses (although the pressure from the administration to offer such courses increases every year). While I have never taken an online course in my major field, last month I completed, after 20 months of part-time study, one of PRTS's 18-credit graduate certificates through distance learning. So, I have some first-hand experience with both forms of delivery and study.

I am very grateful for the opportunity I had with PRTS. For someone like me who wants to know the Scriptures better, to teach them better, and to offer a better defense of the faith to those that do not believe (of which there are many in my workplace), but is not seeking to enter the ministry, such programs are ideal. Lord willing, I will take more such courses in the future if time and finances permit, and if the Lord does not call me to full-time ministry.

That said, over the years I have increasingly noticed at work that some of the most important teaching moments that I have with my students happen at times that are informal or unplanned. Granted, as an applied music teacher I spend much more time with students individually than do professors in perhaps most other fields, but nevertheless for many students the "light bulb" moments happen when perhaps a student has stopped by my office just to chat or to have coffee, or as we are backstage before a performing engagement, or when they or I discover some new recording or piece of music and want to share it. I am, of course, always available to answer my students' questions via email or even text message, but often it is not until we are in the midst of one of these "unplanned teaching moments" that the student even knows what question to ask! This cannot be replicated in a distance learning situation, at least not efficiently.

Again, I have nothing but praise for the distance learning experience that I have had, but while Dr. Beeke was always willing to answer my questions via email, on one occasion spoke to me on the phone for a half-hour or so about a certain matter, and even published one of my papers in the _PRJ_, the distance learning environment does not allow for the type of "community of learning" which I outlined in the previous paragraph. This, I think, is vital for a thorough education, and while I am glad that many seminaries offer distance opportunities for individuals like me, and perhaps even for continuing education for pastors already ministering in the field, I do think ultimately it has to be found wanting compared to on-site study. If our Lord ever calls me to full-time ministry, you can expect to see me on-campus at one of our fine Reformed seminaries.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 27, 2011)

Micah Everett said:


> Again, I have nothing but praise for the distance learning experience that I have had, but while Dr. Beeke was always willing to answer my questions via email, on one occasion spoke to me on the phone for a half-hour or so about a certain matter, and even published one of my papers in the PRJ, the distance learning environment does not allow for the type of "community of learning" which I outlined in the previous paragraph. This, I think, is vital for a thorough education, and while I am glad that many seminaries offer distance opportunities for individuals like me, and perhaps even for continuing education for pastors already ministering in the field, I do think ultimately it has to be found wanting compared to on-site study. If our Lord ever calls me to full-time ministry, you can expect to see me on-campus at one of our fine Reformed seminaries.


 Great Post Micah! This is good and new, in that you have and do both, so you can speak to the issue with pratical expierence. 
We all I think basically agree that, face to face is better and a must in Pastoral Training. Interacting with a Pastor/Professor is great or even a Pastor/Teacher is needful and very beneficial. On site study as well is better, on this I agree as well as most who have commented. The sticking point has been the Seminary being "The Only Place" where this of which you have spoken of can be done to the highest degree. And that the local Church even if it has a Theologiacl School for training men, can't provide the training required for the Pastoral Ministry based on the points made by Professor Clark. Thank you for the fresh insights Brother.


----------

