# PCA's Ministerial Glut



## KenPierce

AS some of us have experienced first hand, the problem of too many pastors for churches in the PCA. Yet, there has been little to no talk about how to address the problem. 

We must conclude one of 3 things:

a.) God doesn’t know what he’s doing, because he’s called far more men than we need.

b.) The PCA is about to have a major revival, and explode in number of churches.

c.) We are judging far more men to be called than are actually called.

I vote for c.

Since our seminaries, with one exception, are independent entities, and all of them, without exception, are market driven, they churn out candidates on the principle that more is better. The entrance exam is the ability to sign one’s name on his check.

And, we have all experienced the unfortunate passing of the buck between congregation, presbytery, and seminary.

The seminary says, “It’s the presbytery’s job to credential these men. We just teach.”

The presbytery says, “Well, he’s been through seminary. Who are we to say he’s not called? The local church will determine whether he’s really called or not”

The congregation says, “The presbytery and the seminary signed off on the man, so he must be suitable.”

Nobody is minding the store. And, what is more, it reduces “the call” merely to “inward call,” and we become virtual charismatic/pietists who cannot question a man’s internal call by his utter lack of externally-observable gifts and qualifications.

How many churches have been hurt, split, or even closed because of our lack of diligence?

Here’s a thought to start possible discussion:

Men ought to have proven ministry gifts before attending seminary.

The weight of presbytery’s approval should not be in favor of, “We’ll ordain you, unless you give us reason not to,” but rather, “We need compelling reason. Prove to us that you are called.” That proof, of course, would come out of possessing Christian maturity, Biblical/theological acumen, pastoral heart, and, above all, the ABILITY TO PREACH. Sorry to shout, but how many guys have we passed along who have little to no skill in this area in clear violation of the Biblical mandate.

I know that nobody begins out as Lloyd-Jones, but one can usually discern who is a preacher and who is not, even by very generous estimation. 

I say this with a bit of fear and trembling, because I likely would not have passed these tests when I was ordained. But, that is irrelevant. As I understand it, this is the process similar to that used by Sovereign Grace: gifts are identified by leaders, and leaders encourage those who appear called to ministry, and only men thus approved are sent to their ministerial academy. That seems so much more “right” than the way we do it.

Time to start this conversation, folks.


----------



## BJClark

KenPierce;

I agree with you, I think it should be the Pastors and Elders of the congregation a person attends that should be the one's who send or recommend a person for Seminary...

They know the young man, or at least they should on some level KNOW this person before he goes off to Seminary...

I know there are certain qualifications and examining that takes place for Elders and Deacon's before they are voted into office, so why not the same for future pastors?? Maybe it could be handled in the same way, where people in the congregation, as well as the Elders and Deacons make suggestions as to those they know who may meet certain qualifications, then they could be examined further and the congregation as a whole be praying about it..

is it possible they don't do this because many of them go as young men, who have not learned as many life lessons, as someone say in their late 20's early 30's?


----------



## ReformedChapin

I honestly don't understand the issue? Are yous stating that even those outside the reformed faith shouldn't go to our seminaries? Why not? They can learn so much and even be persuaded by the doctines of Grace. Its up to churches to see who they are hiring after when voting someon as pastor. A simple MDIV degree shouldn't dictate the ability for an individual to lead Gods flock.


----------



## Romans922

BJClark said:


> KenPierce;
> 
> I agree with you, I think it should be the Pastors and Elders of the congregation a person attends that should be the one's who send or recommend a person for Seminary...
> 
> They know the young man, or at least they should on some level KNOW this person before he goes off to Seminary...
> 
> I know there are certain qualifications and examining that takes place for Elders and Deacon's before they are voted into office, so why not the same for future pastors?? Maybe it could be handled in the same way, where people in the congregation, as well as the Elders and Deacons make suggestions as to those they know who may meet certain qualifications, then they could be examined further and the congregation as a whole be praying about it..
> 
> is it possible they don't do this because many of them go as young men, who have not learned as many life lessons, as someone say in their late 20's early 30's?



I believe it is a big assumption that elders/deacons are properly trained before entering their office. In my experience, at least, it seems most elders haven't been trained at all...just elected.



In response to Ken, I think the primary, although not only, place of testing of gifts, examining, etc. is to be done at the Presbytery level. This would necessitate a good deal of influence and training done by the individual church (elders), and should be guided by the Presbytery. I know that the session is the one who approves candidates to the Presbytery level, so there is some weight there. The seminaries seem to be lacking in most cases in reporting each individual's status, progress, etc. to their denomination. I believe the sessions of individual churches aren't properly taking care of their sheep, let alone individuals preparing for Gospel-ministry. And it seems most presbyteries are not truly testing their candidates for ministry. 

On Whether to Vote to Ordain « Building Old School Churches

[This is not necessarily a reflection of my church or presbytery].


----------



## Blueridge Believer




----------



## Kevin

Glut? What Glut?

If there are so many why don't any of them come up here? Churches here can go for years waiting for a man to accept a call.

One elder on a search for a pastor told me the number one response is "my wife would never leave____(the south, her mother, our state, etc) to go all the way to Canada"!

I think what you mean is that the PCA has a glut of wimps with MDiv's. (in my opinion)


----------



## DMcFadden




----------



## wsw201

> The weight of presbytery’s approval should not be in favor of, “We’ll ordain you, unless you give us reason not to,” but rather, “We need compelling reason. Prove to us that you are called.” That proof, of course, would come out of possessing Christian maturity, Biblical/theological acumen, pastoral heart, and, above all, *the ABILITY TO PREACH*. Sorry to shout, but how many guys have we passed along who have little to no skill in this area in clear violation of the Biblical mandate.



Interesting topic. We currently have 2 men under care and have had little to no preaching experience. One of their issues is that they get no feedback from the Presbytery as to there preaching skills and I don't think our Session feels competent to give a solid critique.

Another problem is that churches looking for a pastor really don't want to take a chance on a person straight out of Seminary. They would like a guy with some experience under their belt.



> I believe it is a big assumption that elders/deacons are properly trained before entering their office. In my experience, at least, it seems most elders haven't been trained at all...just elected.



BINGO!!! Some even have to be talked into it.


----------



## A5pointer

The original question presupposes that there is in fact a "call" from God extended only to those who He sees as fit and needed. Is it fair to ask if that is a correct concrete presupposition?


----------



## BJClark

> If there are so many why don't any of them come up here? Churches here can go for years waiting for a man to accept a call.
> 
> One elder on a search for a pastor told me the number one response is "my wife would never leave____(the south, her mother, our state, etc) to go all the way to Canada"!
> 
> I think what you mean is that the PCA has a glut of wimps with MDiv's. (in my opinion)



How sad, but if that IS the response they are getting, would they really want those men leading their churches anyway...


----------



## Kevin

You are right, of course. But it is a more than a bit annoying to hear.


----------



## JBaldwin

KenPierce said:


> AS some of us have experienced first hand, the problem of too many pastors for churches in the PCA. Yet, there has been little to no talk about how to address the problem.
> 
> We must conclude one of 3 things:
> 
> a.) God doesn’t know what he’s doing, because he’s called far more men than we need.
> 
> b.) The PCA is about to have a major revival, and explode in number of churches.
> 
> c.) We are judging far more men to be called than are actually called.
> 
> I vote for c.
> 
> Since our seminaries, with one exception, are independent entities, and all of them, without exception, are market driven, they churn out candidates on the principle that more is better. The entrance exam is the ability to sign one’s name on his check.
> 
> And, we have all experienced the unfortunate passing of the buck between congregation, presbytery, and seminary.
> 
> The seminary says, “It’s the presbytery’s job to credential these men. We just teach.”
> 
> The presbytery says, “Well, he’s been through seminary. Who are we to say he’s not called? The local church will determine whether he’s really called or not”
> 
> The congregation says, “The presbytery and the seminary signed off on the man, so he must be suitable.”
> 
> Nobody is minding the store. And, what is more, it reduces “the call” merely to “inward call,” and we become virtual charismatic/pietists who cannot question a man’s internal call by his utter lack of externally-observable gifts and qualifications.
> 
> How many churches have been hurt, split, or even closed because of our lack of diligence?
> 
> Here’s a thought to start possible discussion:
> 
> Men ought to have proven ministry gifts before attending seminary.
> 
> The weight of presbytery’s approval should not be in favor of, “We’ll ordain you, unless you give us reason not to,” but rather, “We need compelling reason. Prove to us that you are called.” That proof, of course, would come out of possessing Christian maturity, Biblical/theological acumen, pastoral heart, and, above all, the ABILITY TO PREACH. Sorry to shout, but how many guys have we passed along who have little to no skill in this area in clear violation of the Biblical mandate.
> 
> I know that nobody begins out as Lloyd-Jones, but one can usually discern who is a preacher and who is not, even by very generous estimation.
> 
> I say this with a bit of fear and trembling, because I likely would not have passed these tests when I was ordained. But, that is irrelevant. As I understand it, this is the process similar to that used by Sovereign Grace: gifts are identified by leaders, and leaders encourage those who appear called to ministry, and only men thus approved are sent to their ministerial academy. That seems so much more “right” than the way we do it.
> 
> Time to start this conversation, folks.




As a PCA church member observing from the pew, you have voiced what I have been thinking for a long time.


----------



## KenPierce

*Wow*

Where to begin?

First, let me state categorically I do think that non-Reformed men going to Reformed seminaries is a *good* thing. I am talking about the incredible surplus of men within the PCA.

To Andrew: The presbytery is the primary credentialing agency, to be sure, but ministry happens in the local church, and it is very hard for the presbytery to see the candidate in action, day to day.

Interesting that there are vacancies in the ARP in Canada --Wish'd I had known that back in the day. When I was surveying my options, I wanted to circulate my information in the ARP, and met with much official resistance. They did not appear to want PCA candidates swimming in their waters, even though I love the historic Reformedness of the ARP's. So, that axe may cut both ways.

The sad fact is: there are a lot of men out there who are untested and who cannot preach. Those facts cannot be explained away. It is our own lack of diligence with these men that we aren't more straightforward. It harms our churches, and harms these men and their families, many of whom create massive debt for themselves in seminary (its own problem), move their families long distances, etc., with no confirmation of the call. THere has to be a way to prevent that from happening, and I believe it begins with trial of gifts in the local church.


----------



## KenPierce

A5pointer said:


> The original question presupposes that there is in fact a "call" from God extended only to those who He sees as fit and needed. Is it fair to ask if that is a correct concrete presupposition?



Bruce,

I guess I need to follow up. Are you saying there is no "Call" to ministry, or that what we sometimes term a call is really a desire, as in "Not many of you should desire to teach, brothers..." or "He who desires the office of elder..." that is to be judged based on godliness and giftedness.

If so, how is that not simply semantics? A call is nothing other than internal desire confirmed by godliness and giftedness.

The fact remains the same: more men are being furnished than are needed. Why?


----------



## A5pointer

KenPierce said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original question presupposes that there is in fact a "call" from God extended only to those who He sees as fit and needed. Is it fair to ask if that is a correct concrete presupposition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> I guess I need to follow up. Are you saying there is no "Call" to ministry, or that what we sometimes term a call is really a desire, as in "Not many of you should desire to teach, brothers..." or "He who desires the office of elder..." that is to be judged based on godliness and giftedness.
> 
> If so, how is that not simply semantics? A call is nothing other than internal desire confirmed by godliness and giftedness.
> 
> The fact remains the same: more men are being furnished than are needed. Why?
Click to expand...


Hi Ken, 
Sorry, don't quite know how to re-ask my question. Maybe someone else who gets what I am brining up can help. This statement in blue makes the same preupposition I am questioning. Yes I am questioning the assumption that God does exercise a unique call to individual men to the pastoral vocation. A call that some rightly percieve while others do not.


----------



## moral necessity

I fear that we will soon get off the page of what "giftedness" actually means, with regard to being able to preach. Jonathan Edwards would not be chosen to minister in most churches today, for he read his sermons word for word in a monotone voice, and rearely looked at the crowd. Neither would Paul, who's "bodily presence was weak and his speech was of no account." (II Cor. 10:10). And yet, Edwards was powerful because God chose to use him; and the same goes with Paul. Paul was glad that he was weak in the area of preaching (unlike Apollos), for he "did not want their faith to rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (I Cor. 2:5). When hearers desire to hear truth instead of someone who is a "good speaker", they will gladly listen to Balaam's donkey. He was one who truly had the gift of preaching!

Blessings!


----------



## KenPierce

A5pointer said:


> Yes I am questioning the assumption that God does exercise a unique call to individual men to the pastoral vocation. A call that some rightly percieve while others do not.



What's the other alternative? People just go into ministry because they want to? If so, from where does the desire come?


----------



## KenPierce

moral necessity said:


> I fear that we will soon get off the page of what "giftedness" actually means, with regard to being able to preach. Jonathan Edwards would not be chosen to minister in most churches today, for he read his sermons word for word in a monotone voice, and rearely looked at the crowd. Neither would Paul, who's "bodily presence was weak and his speech was of no account." (II Cor. 10:10). And yet, Edwards was powerful because God chose to use him; and the same goes with Paul. Paul was glad that he was weak in the area of preaching (unlike Apollos), for he "did not want their faith to rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (I Cor. 2:5). When hearers desire to hear truth instead of someone who is a "good speaker", they will gladly listen to Balaam's donkey. He was one who truly had the gift of preaching!
> 
> Blessings!



Actually, that old saw about Edwards is as false as the "fact" that "A Mighty Fortress" was a drinking song. Both are bunk. Perry Miller, a mid-twentieth century Edwards biographer invented that story.

Please don't misunderstand me. This is why we have presbyteries and not Ken Pierce individually saying who is, and who is not, a preacher. Presbyteries can rightly and prayerfully discern if a man has a preaching gift or not, if there are rough talents can be honed, or whether completely lacking. This is quite separate from any rhetorical giftedness, I assure you. But, what presbyteries often do is criticize the sermon, and then pass the candidate.

But, if you honestly survey the poor state of Reformed preaching today, it doesn't take long to figure out that some men simply cannot preach, even by the most generous of estimations. That is, they cannot take the plain message of the Scripture and plainly proclaim it to their people. And, what I am saying is that it is the Presbytery's God-given job to judge a man's call, not with human wisdom, but with Spirit-given discernment.


----------



## py3ak

Rev. Pierce, thank you for your useful post. While I can't speak to conditions within the PCA, I have noticed that there seems to be a substantial reluctance to say to someone, "You are not gifted for the ministry." Of course when someone has devoted several years of their life and tens of thousands of dollars to pursuing that goal, it is a crushing thing to be told. 

I was speaking with my brother recently, who's been pursuing theological education for 13 years. This past year he listened to Albert Martin's series on _A Call to the Ministry_ and realized that he ought not pursue the ministry. He told me that he wishes someone had explained these things to him years ago. Obviously, there is growth and development, and sometimes people we thought had no promise work out well. But is expensive upheaval the only way to test someone's desire?

Again, thank you for bringing up an important point.

To Charles, I wouldn't overemphasize Paul's lack of speaking ability. After all, the pagans thought that _he_ was Mercury in human form.


----------



## wsw201

moral necessity said:


> I fear that we will soon get off the page of what "giftedness" actually means, with regard to being able to preach. Jonathan Edwards would not be chosen to minister in most churches today, for he read his sermons word for word in a monotone voice, and rearely looked at the crowd. Neither would Paul, who's "bodily presence was weak and his speech was of no account." (II Cor. 10:10). And yet, Edwards was powerful because God chose to use him; and the same goes with Paul. Paul was glad that he was weak in the area of preaching (unlike Apollos), for he "did not want their faith to rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (I Cor. 2:5). When hearers desire to hear truth instead of someone who is a "good speaker", they will gladly listen to Balaam's donkey. He was one who truly had the gift of preaching!
> 
> Blessings!



Hopefully we're not talking about good speakers but good preachers. There is a difference. There are a lot of men who can stand in the pulpit and can keep the congregation awake, but there are really very few who can rightly handle the Word of God exegetically. Unfortunately, In my humble opinion, there are a number of men who think that the only way that they can serve the church is by being a preacher when their gifts are more suited to being a Ruling Elder or Deacon.


----------



## JonathanHunt

This is a hugely interesting thread. Of course, as a Baptist, I believe in independency and in the local church as the only God-given entity that should be responsible for training men, recognising and encouraging gifts, and 'laying on of hands'.

THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT FOR DEBATE, it will derail the thread, which is very good.

However...

1. Local churches recognising men and testing their gifts BEFORE seminary is vital. Anything other is foolish.

2. The quote about wimps with MDivs deserves immortality. Speaking personally, I would go anywhere humanly possible that would call me to preach. Fortunately the church that suffers my ramblings is only two miles away, but a call to the ministry is a call. It does not depend on personal preferences...

3. Surely it must be time for all these 'glut' of men (what are they doing right now, anyway? secular jobs? How do they feel about that?) to go and minister out of bounds. Or the mission field. Or ANYWHERE for that matter - our western world is decaying by the second, and only the Gospel can answer the needs of men.


----------



## ReformationArt

Interestingly enough the opposite is currently the case in the OPC. There have been calls from our denominational committee to encourage the local churches to more seriously consider their young men to see if they might be called to the ministry. We are even starting a Timothy Conference this year for high school boys who are exhibiting gifts and a possible inward call at a younger age.

As for people passing the buck with regards to giftedness, I completely agree. I had a friend in seminary, who most felt was not called. Several even spoke to him to express this to him. He is a fine Christian man, husband, father, however, lacked the ability to be an expositor (according to the judgment of those close to him). After completing his M.Div he tried for several years to receive a call, to no avail. Now, after 7 years of struggle, he has come to the realization that he is not called. in my opinion the seminary is partly to blame because they allowed him to continue his studies and awarded his degree, with the thought that it is the church's job to ultimately discern calling.

I agree that it is ultimately the Presbytery's responsibility, as the Presbytery examines the man for office and ordains him. However, Reformed seminaries should also take more care to examine men in their programs of study. An M.Div is not just an academic degree, but is pursued with the view toward the ministry of the word and sacraments, which is why most Reformed seminaries don't admit women into the pastoral M.Div program.

No matter what the situation, glut or famine, all who are involved in the process need to take responsibility for their part in the training and their understanding of the particular man's giftedness, especially presbyters. One of our elder statesmen in our Presbytery reminds us each time a candidate is to be examined that "this is the most important thing we do as a Presbytery!"


----------



## Stephen

I have to agree with Kevin, this is annoying. I know Kevin personally and we cannot get ministers to come to Canada. There are many churches without ministers. Yes, perhaps we need to do a better job of training, but I am encouraged by the young men I see in pastorates. I think of men like Scott Clark, Michael Horton, Rick Phillips, Philip Ryken, and others who are young outstanding ministers. Someone mentioned that young men of 20 and 30 are entering seminary without life experience. The average age of a seminarian is 30 and I knew many guys that were older. I agree that you need life experience, but many entering ministry today are coming out of a career. In order to get into most Reformed seminaries you have to be recommended by your home parish and have references. The local parish should be testing those gifts before sending a young man off to seminary. I have heard people say before that the PCA does not have enough churches for all the men coming out of seminary, but I think of the OPC that has more vacant pulpits then ministers. There are smaller Reformed groups that have such a need for ministers, such as the Free Church of Scotland.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

There's a reply on the HB


----------



## moral necessity

Brother Pierce,

Blessings to you and thank you for your reply. I think I agree with what you said, in that "Presbyteries can rightly and prayerfully discern if a man has a preaching gift or not, if there are rough talents can be honed, or whether completely lacking. This is quite separate from any rhetorical giftedness, I assure you. But, what presbyteries often do is criticize the sermon, and then pass the candidate." I just wonder if pastor search committes don't put too much stock in "talent" to speak, rather than in spiritual giftedness to preach, for they are two different things. It truly is sad that, like you say, the sermons are criticized but the cadidate is passed.

You then say, "But, if you honestly survey the poor state of Reformed preaching today, it doesn't take long to figure out that some men simply cannot preach, even by the most generous of estimations. That is, they cannot take the plain message of the Scripture and plainly proclaim it to their people. And, what I am saying is that it is the Presbytery's God-given job to judge a man's call, not with human wisdom, but with Spirit-given discernment." I agree. I guess I was equating preaching ability with speaking ability. I often hear of the used synonomously. People hear a preacher who is not flamboyant and energetic, and not working to keep their attention focused on him with stories and power point technology, and they say that he is a bad preacher, even though he exegeted the text well and presented nourishment for the flock that week. I agree, the ability to proclaim the truth of the scripture is what preaching is about. And, it is necessary for believers to give affirmation to the call of one who has an ability and a desire to do such.

My main point behind the Edwards reference, was to note that preachers have different styles, and that substance is to be valued in place of it. Though I cannot deny your statement regarding the history of his ministry style, I'd like to see your reference for the story of such being "bunk." All I find in my reading are the opposite, like the quotes below.

“Although Edwards had none of the dramatic gestures of a Whitefield or a Tennent and was said to preach as though he were staring at the bell-rope in the back of the meetinghouse, he could be remarkably compelling. An admirer described his delivery as ‘easy, natural and very solemn. He had not a strong, loud voice; but appeared with such gravity and solemnity, and spake with such distinctness, clearness and precision; his words were so full of ideas, set in such a plain and striking light, that few speakers have been so able to demand the attention of an audience as he.’ Through sheer intensity he generated emotion. ‘His words often discovered a great degree of inward fervor, without much noise or external emotion, and fell with great weight on the minds of his hearers. He made but little motion of his head or hands in his desk, but spake so as to discover the motion of his own heart, which tended in the most natural and effectual manner to move and affect others.’ The combination of controlled but transparent emotion, heartfelt sincerity both in admonition and compassion, inexorable logic, and biblical themes could draw people into sensing the reality of ideas long familiar.”

- George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (Yale: 2003) p. 220

"Though it wasn't done at the time, and Stoddard had publically frowned on it, Edwards in his early years of his ministry preached from a manuscript. He wanted to be sure he said precisely what he meant to say, for he had no patience with slovenly ramblings. So he stitched together his pages of used shopping lists, making tiny books that he held in his left hand. (One, the size of a wallet, may be viewed at Princeton.) He used few gestures, and spoke in a low voice, with 'great distinctness in pronounciation'." - Elisabeth D. Dodds, Marriage to a Difficult Man, pp.70,71.

Blessings!


----------



## Pergamum

Too many pastors in one geographic location means (D). That the the churches should selecting and sending these men out to parts of the world that are not as blessed.

Praise God for a plethora of servants! Let us scatter them across the face of the earth (before God does the scattering through other means)....


----------



## Narnian

As someone who went to seminary and dropped out because I ultimately felt I did not have a clear call to the ministry I can see Ken Pierce's point. I have a thirst for knowledge but not a pastor's heart. When they did some psychological testing I came out at 99% Bohemian - probably not a good fit for most churches 

However Pergamum's point about missions and Stephen's point about unfilled pulpits in Canada may provide the answer - maybe they are called to the ministry, just not in the US, and they need to ask God to clarify not just what they are called to but where as well.


----------



## Kevin

KenPierce said:


> Where to begin?
> 
> First, let me state categorically I do think that non-Reformed men going to Reformed seminaries is a *good* thing. I am talking about the incredible surplus of men within the PCA.
> 
> To Andrew: The presbytery is the primary credentialing agency, to be sure, but ministry happens in the local church, and it is very hard for the presbytery to see the candidate in action, day to day.
> 
> Interesting that there are vacancies in the ARP in Canada --Wish'd I had known that back in the day. When I was surveying my options, I wanted to circulate my information in the ARP, and met with much official resistance. They did not appear to want PCA candidates swimming in their waters, even though I love the historic Reformedness of the ARP's. So, that axe may cut both ways.
> 
> The sad fact is: there are a lot of men out there who are untested and who cannot preach. Those facts cannot be explained away. It is our own lack of diligence with these men that we aren't more straightforward. It harms our churches, and harms these men and their families, many of whom create massive debt for themselves in seminary (its own problem), move their families long distances, etc., with no confirmation of the call. THere has to be a way to prevent that from happening, and I believe it begins with trial of gifts in the local church.



Sorry I was not clear. I was refering to vacant PCA pulpits here. As far as the ARP accepting PCA men, that is an other issue. I have heard some stories to that effect. My (personal) view is that the ARP is like a small town,everyone knows each other. So if someone comes in from the big city & tries to tell you the "right" way to do everything you have a tendancy to be suspicious of the next brash young buck from the big city that shows up.


----------



## BJClark

I am very blessed with the pastor God called to our church, He can teach the bible, and many days you don't want him to stop..You just want him to keep going..and others have said the same thing...he's not a gifted speaker per se' but he can sure teach..


----------



## CDM

Kevin said:


> Glut? What Glut?
> 
> If there are so many why don't any of them come up here? Churches here can go for years waiting for a man to accept a call.
> 
> One elder on a search for a pastor told me the number one response is "my wife would never leave____(the south, her mother, our state, etc) to go all the way to Canada"!
> 
> *I think what you mean is that the PCA has a glut of wimps with MDiv's*. (in my opinion)



 This needs to be added to the quote database.


----------



## greenbaggins

As a PCA minister working out of bounds, I think I sympathize most with the statement of Pergamum. Send them out into the other denominations. The CRC classis I work with is grateful for this. In fact, some of them are saying, "What couldn't we do with 500 PCA men in our pulpits to reverse the trend of liberalism in the CRC?" I was the first in our Presbytery to work out of bounds. But there are now two, and soon to be three. There are loads of country churches in the Midwest who would love a pastor to death, and actually pay a very livable salary (the cost of living is often minuscule in country settings), but cannot get any pastors interested because the best and the brightest all want to go to the city. Sad.


----------



## Romans922

greenbaggins said:


> As a PCA minister working out of bounds, I think I sympathize most with the statement of Pergamum. Send them out into the other denominations. The CRC classis I work with is grateful for this. In fact, some of them are saying, "What couldn't we do with 500 PCA men in our pulpits to reverse the trend of liberalism in the CRC?" I was the first in our Presbytery to work out of bounds. But there are now two, and soon to be three. There are loads of country churches in the Midwest who would love a pastor to death, and actually pay a very livable salary (the cost of living is often minuscule in country settings), but cannot get any pastors interested because the best and the brightest all want to go to the city. Sad.



Um, I'm game Lane (HA!). I'm graduating seminary in May, seeking a call, my wife and I want to go North, and I don't necessarily want to be in a city. Any help Lane?


----------



## greenbaggins

I'll work on that one for you, Andrew. I will especially research churches in my area. ;-)


----------



## Kevin

OK, I know that you OSP guys will not like this economic analogy but...

Supply (of seminary grads) only exceeds demand AT THE CURRENT PRICE.

I have been a deacon long enough to have heard from several men that they should be paid more because of their EDUCATION. Sorry (& no offence intended) but NO ONE is paid based on how long they have been in school. Your dentist does not make 200k a year because he went to school for 7 years but because people want his services. 

If you are looking for a church that can pay you the salary that you "deserve" because of your education, then you will likely still be looking next year. Rather, find a church that needs YOU and grow it till it can pay more.

In other words, cut the price (first year salary expectations for seminary grads) and the market will clear the surplus!


----------



## ReformationArt

Kevin said:


> OK, I know that you OSP guys will not like this economic analogy but...
> 
> Supply (of seminary grads) only exceeds demand AT THE CURRENT PRICE.
> 
> I have been a deacon long enough to have heard from several men that they should be paid more because of their EDUCATION. Sorry (& no offence intended) but NO ONE is paid based on how long they have been in school. Your dentist does not make 200k a year because he went to school for 7 years but because people want his services.
> 
> If you are looking for a church that can pay you the salary that you "deserve" because of your education, then you will likely still be looking next year. Rather, find a church that needs YOU and grow it till it can pay more.
> 
> In other words, cut the price (first year salary expectations for seminary grads) and the market will clear the surplus!



Kevin, although I don't disagree with your point entirely I have a couple of notes to add:

1. The church does need to be concerned with the wellbeing of her pastor. In most calls today, the phrase " to free you of worldly care" is normally included. However, most pastors are not so freed from worldly care by their salaries. I know many pastors who either work second jobs, or their wives work full time so they can afford to live. In addition, the church wants men who have gone through 7-8 years of schooling (4 years of college and 3-4 years of seminary), and so many of these men will have 7-8 years of debt! I have a good deal of student loans, and not as much as many men I know. I do know men who have labored in churches for 20+ years, and have never been able to afford their own home, or put any money away for retirement. I admire these men greatly for their selflessness and sacrifice! However, that is shameful for the church (in my opinion).

2. It is not up to the man to grow the church. The Lord builds His body! We do everything we can to be an instrument of the Holy Spirit, but it is the Lord who brings the growth. Just because a church doesn't grow numerically, does not mean there is something wrong with the man, the message he preaches, or the methods he uses.


----------



## KenPierce

moral necessity said:


> People hear a preacher who is not flamboyant and energetic, and not working to keep their attention focused on him with stories and power point technology, and they say that he is a bad preacher, even though he exegeted the text well and presented nourishment for the flock that week. I agree, the ability to proclaim the truth of the scripture is what preaching is about. And, it is necessary for believers to give affirmation to the call of one who has an ability and a desire to do such.
> 
> My main point behind the Edwards reference, was to note that preachers have different styles, and that substance is to be valued in place of it. Though I cannot deny your statement regarding the history of his ministry style, I'd like to see your reference for the story of such being "bunk." All I find in my reading are the opposite, like the quotes below.
> 
> “Although Edwards had none of the dramatic gestures of a Whitefield or a Tennent and was said to preach as though he were staring at the bell-rope in the back of the meetinghouse, he could be remarkably compelling. An admirer described his delivery as ‘easy, natural and very solemn. He had not a strong, loud voice; but appeared with such gravity and solemnity, and spake with such distinctness, clearness and precision; his words were so full of ideas, set in such a plain and striking light, that few speakers have been so able to demand the attention of an audience as he.’ Through sheer intensity he generated emotion. ‘His words often discovered a great degree of inward fervor, without much noise or external emotion, and fell with great weight on the minds of his hearers. He made but little motion of his head or hands in his desk, but spake so as to discover the motion of his own heart, which tended in the most natural and effectual manner to move and affect others.’ The combination of controlled but transparent emotion, heartfelt sincerity both in admonition and compassion, inexorable logic, and biblical themes could draw people into sensing the reality of ideas long familiar.”
> 
> - George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (Yale: 2003) p. 220
> 
> "Though it wasn't done at the time, and Stoddard had publically frowned on it, Edwards in his early years of his ministry preached from a manuscript. He wanted to be sure he said precisely what he meant to say, for he had no patience with slovenly ramblings. So he stitched together his pages of used shopping lists, making tiny books that he held in his left hand. (One, the size of a wallet, may be viewed at Princeton.) He used few gestures, and spoke in a low voice, with 'great distinctness in pronounciation'." - Elisabeth D. Dodds, Marriage to a Difficult Man, pp.70,71.
> 
> Blessings!



I think our problem is, mainly, we agree, but are talking past one another. I would agree with you on the preference of many for the "show", anthropocentric preaching, and technological gimmick. Yet, I think men like Piper, and others in his train, show that plain Puritan preaching can still command the faithful remnant.

As to Edwards, I think Marsden proves my point rather than refutes it. It is hardly the popular image of Edwards squinting to read a manuscript held close to his nose in a barely audible mumble --the portrait painted by Perry Miller.

But, if your point is mainly that style is not the major considerationin making a great preacher, you will find absolutely no argument from me. I know men who are loud and dynamic who are great preachers; I know men who are soft-spoken who are great preachers; I know a few men with rhetorical polish who are great preachers, though they are few in number.


----------



## BJClark

greenbaggins;



> There are loads of country churches in the Midwest who would love a pastor to death, and actually pay a very livable salary (the cost of living is often minuscule in country settings), but cannot get any pastors interested because the best and the brightest all want to go to the city. Sad.



I honestly don't understand why one would want to live in the city...other than they might think that is the only place evil hearts dwell...

Okay, gentlemen, how many here are in Seminary now?? Maybe you can get something started here, to at least contact some churches and say "Hey, we have some young reformed men in need of a pulpit..and we understand you have a vacant pulpit, can we send a few of them up your way to preach at least temporarily so as to meet the needs of both?"

If God is calling them to preach, does it really matter where they preach??

Just because they 'want' to be in the city, doesn't mean God 'want's' them in the city..


----------



## KenPierce

The best cure for wanting to live in the city is, In my humble opinion, living in the city.

We moved from the country to the city, and greatly miss the bucolic splendor of the Blue Ridge.

But, it is nice not to have to drive 45 minutes to Target, too! 

The point is an important one: YOu go where you are called, even if its Timbuktu. Wanting to live somewhere doesn't really enter into the equation. Jonah had a strong aversion to NIneveh, thought he could serve God in Tarshish.

We see how God thinks about such things!


----------



## moral necessity

Brother Pierce,

No disagreement here either. As a side note, I haven't read of such a severe description of Edwards before, as you describe Miller as painting, and had no similar view of Edwards myself. 

Good thread! What do you think of option (D) mentioned above? Guess you answered the question before I could even ask it...what talent!


----------



## BJClark

KenPierce;




> The point is an important one: YOu go where you are called, even if its Timbuktu. Wanting to live somewhere doesn't really enter into the equation. Jonah had a strong aversion to NIneveh, thought he could serve God in Tarshish.



This is my understanding too..which is why it doesn't make sense for one to turn down a preaching job, just because they want to go some where else...

I live close to a fairly large city and try my best to avoid going there..it's too crowded, the traffic is horrific, it's a mess and it's easy to get turned around on all the new roads they are building..and I really hate that the 'city' is moving in on us..the funny thing is, my kids, through they like going to the city to shop occassionally at certain stores, they wouldn't want to live there...


----------



## ChristopherPaul

R. Scott Clark said:


> There's a reply on the HB



I concur with Dr. Clark that a greater emphasis on Church Planting should be considered.

In a discussion with one of the officers at my church regarding planting more churches the conclusion was we (i.e. the OPC) simply lack enough Teaching Elders. 

Personally I think no church should have more than one primary service (i.e. do away with 9:00 and 11:00 services) and target a manageable ratio of communicant members to overseeing elders (such as 30 members to one elder or similar). When it appears the numbers will begin to exceed this ratio plan to either appoint more elders (if any are called thereunto) or plan a church plant.

Take these congregations within the PCA that are established and have multiple clone services and spread them out into the world. Lets not create a Babel where all nations are to come to us, but appoint elders in every city and thus go out to all the nations.

Small congregations where the entire flock can partake at one table is not a bad concept. If there are a surplus of teaching elders than there must be a lack of church plants or an unwillingness within some congregations to go out to all the nations.


----------



## tcalbrecht

I posted this thought on the Warfield list:



> I might add that the glut of PCA TEs might also be due in part to the notion of the various sub-classes of pastors in the PCA (senior/associate/assistant). The fact is there seems to be a vast number of “pastors” without regular pastoral duties. The existence of these sub-classes perhaps encourages men to entertain entering the “pastoral ministry” when what they really want to be is some sort of pastoral adjunct.


----------



## DavidGGraves

ReformationArt said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I know that you OSP guys will not like this economic analogy but...
> 
> Supply (of seminary grads) only exceeds demand AT THE CURRENT PRICE.
> 
> I have been a deacon long enough to have heard from several men that they should be paid more because of their EDUCATION. Sorry (& no offence intended) but NO ONE is paid based on how long they have been in school. Your dentist does not make 200k a year because he went to school for 7 years but because people want his services.
> 
> If you are looking for a church that can pay you the salary that you "deserve" because of your education, then you will likely still be looking next year. Rather, find a church that needs YOU and grow it till it can pay more.
> 
> In other words, cut the price (first year salary expectations for seminary grads) and the market will clear the surplus!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, although I don't disagree with your point entirely I have a couple of notes to add:
> 
> 1. The church does need to be concerned with the wellbeing of her pastor. In most calls today, the phrase " to free you of worldly care" is normally included. However, most pastors are not so freed from worldly care by their salaries. I know many pastors who either work second jobs, or their wives work full time so they can afford to live. In addition, the church wants men who have gone through 7-8 years of schooling (4 years of college and 3-4 years of seminary), and so many of these men will have 7-8 years of debt! I have a good deal of student loans, and not as much as many men I know. I do know men who have labored in churches for 20+ years, and have never been able to afford their own home, or put any money away for retirement. I admire these men greatly for their selflessness and sacrifice! However, that is shameful for the church (in my opinion).
> 
> 2. It is not up to the man to grow the church. The Lord builds His body! We do everything we can to be an instrument of the Holy Spirit, but it is the Lord who brings the growth. Just because a church doesn't grow numerically, does not mean there is something wrong with the man, the message he preaches, or the methods he uses.
Click to expand...

Thank you Reformationart for your post. For someone who has been seeking a call, with no geographical limits to the search. I found those statements about going for less money okay providing there was the ability to live. I know one young man who came to seminary with $30K school debt for undergrad and after 7 years of school loans for his MDiv and PhD his debt load has to be over $100K so I think that the cost of the education must needs be brought into the equation. 

By God's grace I made it through seminary and my PhD without any debt, but that is the exception to the rule. So instead of giving debt laden men who desire to serve the Lord and shepherd his flock a guilt trip perhaps the whole seminary tuition should be reexamined. 

I know of only one church during my 7 years at TEDS that paid for those whom they recognized as called from their congregation to go to seminary. The bulk have had to either take out massive school loans or work multiple jobs on top of church responsibilities, family responsibilities...so perchance there is more than a simple A, B, or C to this. Last years graduating class from TEDS placed fewer than 10% in churches within 6 months *after* graduation.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I posted the following to the BB Warfield discussion group after reading a post by Dr. Sean Lucas...

Sean (and group)... I don't doubt the accuracy of the statistical information presented here by Sean. However, I can't help but lament the reality of what these stats represent, which is nothing short of an apparent "career" understanding of the ministry by many pastors in our day. 

I was first challenged to think about the issue of the professionalization of the Christian ministry when I read Piper's "Brothers, We Are Not Professionals" some years ago. Then, while I was deployed I took that opportunity to read David Wells' masterful series starting with "No Place For Truth." In that book Wells (among other things) discusses how the professionalization of the ministry has led pastors to viewing it as a career, with certain positions being the requisite "check the block" jobs on their way to up the ministerial career ladder. 

Your point 6 - and to some extent your 2nd point - I think reflects this understanding amongst ministers. I remember, while I was at Moody and working with TEDS students how we would joke about the path to becoming a senior pastor. It pains and agrivates me that many associate/assistant pastors REALLY want to be a senior pastor and yet they take this "entry" position instead. This results in speedy turn over (they leave as soon as they get enough experience under their belt) and the sheep are ultimately harmed. 

This, I think explains the glut: like in any corporation there are continually open "entry level" positions because those who are in those positions leave or move up, but as you move higher up the ladder the competition for those jobs becomes greater due to their relatively small number of openings. (Note how the corporate illustration fits so smoothly? I think this is sadly indicative of what is happening in the church.) 

Oh, how I wish that folks would be content to go to some church and minister faithfully there until they die. There are too many wannabe celebrity pastors. Churches need someone who will live and die with them.

I am in agreement with the many brothers who have commended church planting. Those who REALLY want to be senior pastors should be discouraged from taking on associate/assistant positions and should instead cut their teeth by planting a church. 

When it comes to church planting I speak as one who was first an EFCA guy than an SBC man and finally PCA... I am repeatedly SHOCKED by how much money it takes to plant a PCA church compared to what it costs to start up a church in these other denominations. I think that more churches would be able to be planted if a few things happened: 

1. Quit targeting the "pretty people." That is, in the words of one of my SBC profs, "The PCA is a yuppie denomination." The questionable accuracy of his words aside, I think he has an incontrovertible point: our churches are mostly fairly well-off white people. We plant churches in expensive places and this costs a lot. 

2. Divert MNA funds from administrative costs so that more can actually get to the field.

3. Lastly, and most significantly, PCA ministers should be more willing to accept a lower standard of living. How is it that a PCA man needs to raise $300k for 3 years of church planting support (this number includes start up operational costs for the church), when I know (and used to support) church planters in other denominations for over $100k less for the same period to cover the same types of things?? 


A final way we can solve this glut would be to encouarge more folks to become military chaplains. The changing climate is such that the liberals are all dying out or vacating the service and evangelicals are finding their way higher and higher into the ranks. I am now in my second chapel and I work with another Reformed chaplain... we are able to teach the doctrines of grace (last week I preached from Eph 2:1-10) and people are responding. We can potentially change the institution if we flood it with good Reformed chaplains.


----------



## SRoper

BJClark said:


> greenbaggins;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are loads of country churches in the Midwest who would love a pastor to death, and actually pay a very livable salary (the cost of living is often minuscule in country settings), but cannot get any pastors interested because the best and the brightest all want to go to the city. Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't understand why one would want to live in the city...other than they might think that is the only place evil hearts dwell...
Click to expand...


Well, men like Tim Keller argue that as the city goes so goes the culture (see, for example his message at the 2006 Desiring God seminar). They argue that the strategy of the early church was to go to the cities and the surrounding pagan (which means "country-dweller") countryside would follow suit. I think this is largely a reaction against the practice of planting churches in the exurbs and ignoring the city.


----------



## Pilgrim

SRoper said:


> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are loads of country churches in the Midwest who would love a pastor to death, and actually pay a very livable salary (the cost of living is often minuscule in country settings), but cannot get any pastors interested because the best and the brightest all want to go to the city. Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't understand why one would want to live in the city...other than they might think that is the only place evil hearts dwell...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, men like Tim Keller argue that as the city goes so goes the culture (see, for example his message at the 2006 Desiring God seminar). They argue that the strategy of the early church was to go to the cities and the surrounding pagan (which means "country-dweller") countryside would follow suit. I think this is largely a reaction against the practice of planting churches in the exurbs and ignoring the city.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the yuppie thing again.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Thinking out loud -- I’m wondering if it is also possible that the simple existence of a denominational seminary in any way contributes to the glut. The expectation is on production, even over production, to meet the expenses of running a seminary.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Pilgrim said:


> Yeah, the yuppie thing again.



What do you mean?


----------



## Pilgrim

Barnpreacher said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the yuppie thing again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...


I was referring to what Ben wrote in post #44



> 1. Quit targeting the "pretty people." That is, in the words of one of my SBC profs, "The PCA is a yuppie denomination." The questionable accuracy of his words aside, I think he has an incontrovertible point: our churches are mostly fairly well-off white people. We plant churches in expensive places and this costs a lot.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Pilgrim said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the yuppie thing again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to what Ben wrote in post #44
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Quit targeting the "pretty people." That is, in the words of one of my SBC profs, "The PCA is a yuppie denomination." The questionable accuracy of his words aside, I think he has an incontrovertible point: our churches are mostly fairly well-off white people. We plant churches in expensive places and this costs a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm certainly not familiar enough with the PCA to get in on this conversation. However, I am familiar enough with Tim Keller's ministry to say that I don't believe he promotes a yuppie mentality. Just because he believes more churches should be planted in the city does not mean that he's talking about having churches full of "well-off white people".


----------



## Pilgrim

Barnpreacher said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to what Ben wrote in post #44
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Quit targeting the "pretty people." That is, in the words of one of my SBC profs, "The PCA is a yuppie denomination." The questionable accuracy of his words aside, I think he has an incontrovertible point: our churches are mostly fairly well-off white people. We plant churches in expensive places and this costs a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not familiar enough with the PCA to get in on this conversation. However, I am familiar enough with Tim Keller's ministry to say that I don't believe he promotes a yuppie mentality. Just because he believes more churches should be planted in the city does not mean that he's talking about having churches full of "well-off white people".
Click to expand...


I'm not that familiar with Keller at all (and am only just beginning to get some first hand knowledge of the PCA as well) but nevertheless most of our churches do tend to be at least middle to upper middle class and white. My understanding is that many of those focused on urban ministry are trying to break that mold. But of course the SBC is overwhelmingly white as well, although maybe to a lesser degree. And a lot of their larger congregations are "yuppie" churches too, so this is by no means isolated to the PCA.


----------



## greenbaggins

I have nothing against planting city churches. We should be planting city churches. And I agree that there have been way too many yuppie church plants in the suburbs. But city churches focus exclusively on the city. I remember hearing a sermon where the entire point was to get people to come to the city. To put it mildly, this rubbed me the wrong way. Every place needs a church that will be faithful. The pioneers/rancher/farmers who *feed* the city-dwellers need a church too. In my two churches that I serve, each church is about 125 years old, and each church has had about 40 pastors. Why? Because most pastors used these churches as "stepping stones." The result? No one was there long enough to get a real ministry going. Hey, a pastor doesn't really earn the trust of the congregation until the 5 year mark is up, and most of them never stayed that long. They all want bigger and better churches (read, _more money_). Come to the country, folks. Shepherd these people. They feed you.


----------



## KenPierce

Kudos to Lane.

There are a lot of joys to pastoring a country church --sometimes only realized after one departs to the city church. One noticeable thing is that country people make you part of the family, and are often embarrassingly generous. They have an inherent understanding of what it means to be the family of God.

The PCA does tend to target the rich, young, educated and pretty, and to do so intentionally. I see this getting worse, not better. The current push among the avant-garde in our denomination is to be, well, avant-garde. Read By Faith, for instance. I am all in favor of the arts, etc., but the arts aren't our focus, folks. 

Being part of the "great cultural conversation" isn't our goal. Being ambassadors for Christ, and fools for Christ's sake, and the offscouring and refuse of the world, aliens and strangers --that's our goal.

What are we lacking? Gospel appeals. Preaching the Law and Hell. Fiery preaching. No, we want polite conversations on topics of religious, and increasingly, cultural, interest.

The sad thing? The "old-time" are precisely the type of preachers who are preaching where the spiritual life is: Piper being the prime example. We are running from the very things that will give us life.

Many of our efforts even to do mercy-type ministry smack of noblesse oblige.

How do we beat this attitude? This is a question we are asking ourselves in our rich, white, city (but with suburban commuters) church. I believe we really want to beat it --at least most of us do. May God show us how.


----------

