# My Responce to Dr. R. Scott Clark



## JOwen

*My Response to Dr. R. Scott Clark*

I have an abiding respect for Dr. Clark, don't get me wrong. But some times you just have to disagree.


----------



## tcalbrecht

JOwen said:


> I have an abiding respect for Dr. Clark, don't get me wrong. But some times you just have to disagree.






> Frame goes on to remind the reader that seminaries are a convention of the church, created to fill in the gap created by churches that are not fulfilling their Biblical mandate of discipleship. He sites “old” Princeton Seminary board member Rev. Gardiner Spring who contends that in his day the parish-trained minister far surpassed the seminary trained scholar. That is quite a statement from both Frame and Spring - two seminarians (p.11).



So seminaries like Westminster and Greenville are really just parachurch institutions, like Navigators or Evangelism Explosion, meant to fill a void left by the church.

Interesting.

Would you say that denominational seminaries like Covenant fall into the same category?


----------



## JOwen

tcalbrecht said:


> So seminaries like Westminster and Greenville are really just parachurch institutions, like Navigators or Evangelism Explosion, meant to fill a void left by the church.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Would you say that denominational seminaries like Covenant fall into the same category?




Not knowing the governing method of that institution, it would be hard for me to say. Seminaries that are _governed _by the Church (make curricula, enforce standards, govern purity, etc), like Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary is probably the exception. There may be others like Covenant. At a minimum this should be the case because the _highest teaching and governing authority_ in Christ's Church is the Church herself not an appointed board. Too often, in my opinion, the Seminary is telling the Church what is important to the ministry and not the other way around. I find no place in the Word that includes the seminary as a part of the ministry of the Church. If it is a convention of man, then it is _para_.


----------



## JOwen

trevorjohnson said:


> Seminaries are just fine as one vehicle to train leaders, but don't knock the other means.



Amen brother.


----------



## Chris

Amen.


----------



## Poimen

Is it just me or does this issue remind you of the 'home schooling vs. traditional schooling' debate?


----------



## Pilgrim

Poimen said:


> Is it just me or does this issue remind you of the 'home schooling vs. traditional schooling' debate?



It's not just you. Many of the arguments used against distance seminary education can and are used against home schooling.


----------



## Pilgrim

trevorjohnson said:


> Point: Dr. Clark mentions twice in his article about having to buy a 1,500 dollar PC in order to do extension classes. He mentions this twice I think. He is over-reaching. What pastor do you know that doesn't already have a PC? Follow the money trail...to the brick and mortar schools.... This accusations doesn't fly with extension schools.




I'm thinking you can get a servicable computer for extension classes, etc. for probably $700-800, but correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Poimen

Pilgrim said:


> It's not just you. Many of the arguments used against distance seminary education can and are used against home schooling.



Right, but it goes both ways doesn't it? The division is caused by an either/or approach instead of a both/and approach. As Dr. Clark mentioned, distance education is valuable but, at least in his view, cannot and should not replace traditional seminary training.


----------



## Chris

I bought a brand-new Dell laptop last year for $725-ish.


----------



## fredtgreco

Pilgrim said:


> I'm thinking you can get a servicable computer for extension classes, etc. for probably $700-800, but correct me if I'm wrong.



You can buy a brand new desktop that runs Vista with a core duo processor for under $500 this week at several stores. I VERY serviceable laptop can be had for under $700 (unless you need all the latest gadgets). And those are all *brand new* machines. You can get a one year old laptop/PC for far less on ebay or the like.

$1500 is a red herring. You can even get a Mac for less than that.


----------



## Kevin

Great article. 

I saw that you cited my good friend (& former pastor) Jack Whytock. I have taken several of the Haddington House "summer school" courses over the years I highly recomend the model of HH. The combination of distence course work along with intense week long "on campus" courses seems to strike a very good balence.


----------



## VictorBravo

fredtgreco said:


> You can buy a brand new desktop that runs Vista with a core duo processor for under $500 this week at several stores. I VERY serviceable laptop can be had for under $700 (unless you need all the latest gadgets). And those are all *brand new* machines. You can get a one year old laptop/PC for far less on ebay or the like.
> 
> $1500 is a red herring. You can even get a Mac for less than that.



Yup. I bought my wife a spare Toshiba laptop two months ago for about $500from Office Depot. Off the shelf with everything you could need. Fast and light. It puts my $1500 dinosaur to shame.


----------



## New wine skin

Great post. I have spent time in WTS Dallas and now am enrolled in the MAR distance program at RTS. It is a top notch school and program. I have no problem getting books via Library loan. I already own a PC and already had small library of books that I would want even if I was not in seminary. Many of the new courses offered at RTS are simulcast, so you can interact real-time with the prof and other students. The quality gap is narrowing btw brick/mortar vs distance programs every year. Technology can be a great blessing! Like it or not Distance ed is here to stay.


----------



## polemic_turtle

Dependin on what you need it to do, doesn't Walmart sell fine PCs for $300+?

I've got at least two computers from a generation or two ago sitting in my closet unused. All they would need is perhaps $120-$150 worth of software/hardware. I wish I knew someone who needed one.

Interesting viewpoint, brother. Lewis.


----------



## Chris

Last year I took an accounting class from UoP online. It was much, much better, in terms of rigor and necessary commitment level, than the other classes I took for my brick/mortar MBA. 

I actually 'went to class' once from Tokyo, in a hotel lobby, and did the last 2 weeks of the class from Bangkok. No issues whatsoever. I finished the class greatly impressed with distance education (as done by UoP, anyway).


----------



## Poimen

trevorjohnson said:


> A question:
> 
> Dr. Clark says that the pastor's main job is preaching.
> 
> Honest question..is this true?
> 
> If he is a minister then he is to "minister". If He is a pastor then he is to pastor. This encompasses a lot more than mere preaching. Baxter's "Reformed Pastor" among others seems to highlight this. He is to "proclaim" and he is to evangelize and tell the good news....but preaching is only 1 aspect and one mode of telling the Gospel.
> 
> I have known several pastors who seem to ONLY preach, usually dry sermons that sometimes turn into Greek lessons, but face to face house calls and close interaction with their flocks are lacking. It seems that a pastor's main job is to minister in all of its forms. If, of course, you have many elders then you can specialize a little more and concentrate - but most folks do not have enough and their priorities might call for more person to person time.
> 
> What is the job of a pastor, anyway? Any further thoughts?



Yes, the main work of a pastor is to preach the word of God (2 Timothy 4:1ff.) though I do not deny that the responsibilities you mentioned above are secondary, important concerns and tasks of a minister (ironically something I learned, at least in part, at WSC!). 

On a related point, it would be difficult to minister to the needs of the flock if one was busy teaching another man (or men) to be pastors. Just a thought.


----------



## fredtgreco

Poimen said:


> Yes, the main work of a pastor is to preach the word of God (2 Timothy 4:1ff.) though I do not deny that the responsibilities you mentioned above are secondary, important concerns and tasks of a minister (ironically something I learned, at least in part, at WSC!).
> 
> On a related point, it would be difficult to minister to the needs of the flock if one was busy teaching another man (or men) to be pastors. Just a thought.



I believe in our world, this is the single biggest argument against distance education. The life of a reformed pastor is very busy - often a solo pastorate, with two (sometimes three!) sermon preparations per week, often with no secretary to help run the office, hospital visits, pastoral calls, meetings, etc. It would be very difficult to teach someone how to be a pastor. Some could be "caught" by accompanying the minister on visits, etc., but it could be very hard.

This is one reason why I think it is wrong to be dogmatic on this subject, either insisting one must attend a seminary (as Dr. Clark insists) or decrying seminaries as the root of all evil (as some of Dr. Clark's critics insist).

I think Jerrold has struck a good balance, and helped the discussion on this.


----------



## JOwen

Poimen said:


> On a related point, it would be difficult to minister to the needs of the flock if one was busy teaching another man (or men) to be pastors. Just a thought.



Take them with you. That's how they learn best. Same thing with pastoral counseling, funerals, weddings, etc. This would eliminate the embarrassing "roll playing" skits found in the back of some text books I've seen.


----------



## Poimen

JOwen said:


> Take them with you. That's how they learn best. Same thing with pastoral counseling, funerals, weddings, etc. This would eliminate the embarrassing "roll playing" skits found in the back of some text books I've seen.



No (substantial) disagreement here. I did this during and after seminary in my internships (500 hours of which were required by WSC in order to graduate under the M.Div program). 

However, as Fred and I have pointed out, it would be very difficult if not impossible for most (many) pastors to be able to do that AND theologically train a man (men) for the ministry.


----------



## JOwen

Poimen said:


> No (substantial) disagreement here. I did this during and after seminary in my internships (500 hours of which were required by WSC in order to graduate under the M.Div program).
> 
> However, as Fred and I have pointed out, it would be very difficult if not impossible for most (many) pastors to be able to do that AND theologically train a man (men) for the ministry.




I agree that most would not have the time. However in the federations I have been a part of, there is never more than a handful of men under care at a time. Perhaps 10% of the (older) ministers would be engaged in this kind of activity. I would not suggest that new or inexperienced ministers train. In the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the student spends a predetermined amount of time with different pastors. One who excels in Greek, one who excels in Church History, etc. This allows a dispersement of responsibility in a Presbytery, and gives the student time in several manse studies. The detraction in this model however lies on the home front. If the student minister has a family, they do not see him as often as they might. 

No perfect system to be sure.


----------



## Poimen

JOwen said:


> No perfect system to be sure.


----------



## Philip A

fredtgreco said:


> $1500 is a red herring. You can even get a Mac for less than that.



Note that Clark specifically mentions in his blog post that the reference to computer costs is out of date:



> Some of the data has changed (e.g., the cost of computers) but the basic argument is unchanged.


----------



## wsw201

One area that I think distance education from Seminaries would be extremely helpful is with the training of RE's and Deacons. On the whole, these offices get short changed.


----------



## JohnV

wsw201 said:


> One area that I think distance education from Seminaries would be extremely helpful is with the training of RE's and Deacons. On the whole, these offices get short changed.



Yes, that's always been kind of confusing for me since I joined a Presbyterian church. The office of elder, whether teaching or ruling, is one office. But ruling elders usually are people with full-time jobs besides being elders, and usually not with any extra education in theology than non-ordained people. 

Not all people are able to receive a formal education in a brick and mortar institutions. Some can't afford it, and some can't for practical reasons. But whether one learns at an institution or in his den, education only teaches you how to learn, giving you the skills and the tools. That doesn't mean that people don't learn anyways, even if they receive neither form of education. And it doesn't always mean that people who do learn formally know how to learn properly even with all the education they have received. 

The problem I see with distance education is with how to judge their credentials. Marks are not the only thing to look at. There are recommendations from teachers and peers, and there are observations of character through personal familiarity. How do you know what you need to know about whether a person is fit for the ministry through one examination, or even two or three?


----------



## JOwen

JohnV said:


> The problem I see with distance education is with how to judge their credentials. Marks are not the only thing to look at. There are recommendations from teachers and peers, and there are observations of character through personal familiarity. How do you know what you need to know about whether a person is fit for the ministry through one examination, or even two or three?



This is a valid criticism, but it cuts both ways. How can a federation at the presbyterial or synodical level discern that after 4 years of acedemic training a man is ready to do the full-bodied work of a pastor? Academic credentials are only half of the equation. Let's not forget the disciplines of love, humility, pastoral care, self abasement, experiential preaching, caring for those that lack assurance, are presumptuous, back-slidden, the sick, the grieving, etc. While the hub of my ministry is the preaching of the gospel, the spokes mentioned above complete the wheel of Christ's ministry in the Church.


----------



## satz

Hi all,

I am young and fairly inexperienced, so I don't want to appear to be shooting off my mouth, but I would like to ask a sincere question. 

I guess I have a hard time understanding where the idea comes that seminary training is considered even a normal prerequisite for being a pastor. I cannot recall anything in the New Testament that resembles the kind of formal seminaries we have today. I am not saying that the concept is wrong, but I don't understand the idea that the 'ideal' training for a pastoral candidate is to go though the seminary route. Someone here mentioned being mentored by a pastor as an alternative training method and it seems to me a perfectly valid one, every bit as valid as going to seminary. Paul told Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus (Tit 1:5) to be the ones appointing and ordaining new ministers and he made no mention of external teaching institutions, so there must be at least the assumption that a pastor can be the one to identify (note that the qualifications for ministers are given to Timothy and Titus in the pastoral epistles), train and ultimately ordain the next generation of ministers. I understand Pastor Greco's comments above that practically speaking pastors today may be pressed for time to do this, but I am interested in just examining the prinicple.

Let me say again I am not saying there is necessarily anything wrong with the seminary route, but I truely do not understand why there seems to be the strain of thought in christianity today where it is considered undesirable to take an alternative route.

Am I missing something here? Any thoughts?


----------



## JOwen

*Pastor's College ala Spurgeon & Lloyd-Jones*

The best model I can think of, in our day would look something like this:

1. Student presents himself before the Consistory to be accepted as a candidate for the ministry.
2. An examination is given to discern the inward and outward calling, and general cognitive ability.
3. Upon consensus, the Consistory makes a recommendation to Classis to examine the man for entrance.
4. Upon acceptance, the man is sent back to his home congregation and begins his studies under the oversight of the ministers of his Classis, his own minister being the lead pastor.
5. One half of the student's 1 year classes are taken via distance ed with all papers and exams submitted to members of Classis for review. He is permitted to take limited part in Consistory meetings and is invited to Elder's meetings as an observer (expected to take notes).
6. One half of students classes would be take in _modular form_ at the denominational seminary (ours is PRTS) in one or two week intensives. (PRTS brings in the best of the best in any given field as it relates to the ministry!)
7. Upon completion of first year, the Classis examines the student (orally) on basic Greek, intro Bible courses, and each other first year disciplines.
8. Upon completion of this exam the student is approved to second year training.
9. Years 2 and 3 progress in the same fashion as year one, only in each successive year he is given approval to "speak an edifying word" to his local congregation (from the NT in year 2, and OT or NT in year 3). Year 3 he is expected to 'preach' to Classis twice. During year 2 he is also given permission to teach catechism, conduct Bible Studies, lead prayer meetings, accompany Elder visits, funerals, weddings, counseling, etc. All with consistory oversight. Material would be generated from his _course material_ so as not to overburden the student. 
10. Year 4 the student faces a final trial at Classis which includes Greek, Hebrew, Old Testament, New Testament, Systematics, general Bible, ethics, and eccesiology. He also preaches a full sermon and is examined extensively on his call to the ministry, piety, and private devotional life.

At the end he would have a 4 year degree with all the bells and whistles, would have hundreds of hours of preaching experience in a local Church, and would have intimate knowledge of Church life from counseling to funerals. 

I would even go so far as to trim the curricula to hold to:

1. Old Testament (knowledge, exegesis, hermeneutics) 
2. New Testament (knowledge, exegesis, hermeneutics) 
3. Languages (4 semesters each)
4. Systematics (the 4 major disciplines)
5. Homiletics 
6. Biblical Theology
7. Pastoral Theology

This follows the Pastor's College model of both Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

This is a really interesting discussion and I appreciate the "both and" balance to the discussion.

I really do have a problem with an unbalanced attack against Seminaries as if they are at the root of the problem. It really takes the pressure and the focus of where the failure is occurring.

1. You cannot blame a seminary for a man getting into debt. Nobody points a gun to his head and makes him attend.

Let's be realistic here. This is not a Communist state where land is provided free of cost and the saintly Professors till the land to feed and clothe themselves and, when done with their daily toil, break away to be scholars. Buildings and grounds cost money. So do books. Seminary professors are hardly in the upper crust of compensation for their scholastic endeavors. Nobody's making a killing off of the varsity football team and TV endorsement deals.

If we wish to blame anyone for the debt of students then blame the Churches that say "Hey go get an education on your dime and if you finish then we might ordain you...." Just don't blame the institution who is providing a service that is desired.

2. Regarding pastoral care issues - again I don't think it's the sole job of a parachurch institution to train a man in how to shepherd a flock. I really like Rev. Lewis model above not for all its particulars but _in the way that the Church is directly involved_. I would back his list up a few steps:

(1) Pastor and session invests time and energy in fathers and families to raise up Godly men.
(2) Children are well educated and their hearts are trained. Young men are encouraged to desire eldership and the ministry if that gift is noticed early on.
(3) Pastor and elders identify the young men who have the acumen and desire for ministry.

and then begin the list above.

In other words, the Church should be organically training and identifiying people. Many of the complaints above are a symptom of the fact that many Presbyterian bodies act more like independents. I hear all the talk about the way Puritan Books described Reformed Elders and I applaud that but then they blame the Seminaries for not modeling eldership. Seminaries shouldn't have to. A young man should instinctively know what a great Elder looks like because he ought to have grown up with one. Shame on the Church, not the Seminary, that many have no clue!

Gents, it's not the job of the Seminary to perform visitations. It's not the job of the Seminary to counsel. I could go on and on. Again, we're projecting our frustration with the failings of the Church and blaming institutions that are supposed to help the Church but can never supplant what the Church alone has the responsibility for.

3. I don't have all the answers but I do hope that we don't go so far down the road of distance education that all we're left with is a University of Phoenix approach to education. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for those that get distance education but I really think there should be a place where a man can go and interact with scholars whose time is devoted to research and intense study. Again, I agree that a "Seminary only" model is deficient but it's something that Churches need to address.

I honestly believe that if Church's would reform the manner in which they identify and participate in the training of men that Seminaries would be very willing partners in that effort. Just don't expect them to be the _Deus ex machina_ that solves the mess that entangles the whole process in most Churches.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Robert Truelove

In my denomination (Covenant Presbyterian Church), we do not require a degree (though many of our pastors have them); rather we seek the recommendation of the sponsoring session as to a man's knowledge and life and that the man pass the required exams.

With the session's recommendation, the candidate submits a written exam to the examination committee. The written exam is broken down into Practical/Life Questions, Doctrine and Creeds, Church History, Church Polity, and View and Knowledge of Scripture. 

This is followed up with a 4 hour oral exam before the examination committee. If the examination committee approves the candidate they will present their recommendation to the presbytery and then the candidate will take a 20-30 minute oral exam before the entire presbytery that generally covers practical, pastoral issues. 

At the end of this process, if the presbytery approves the candidate, he is ordained into the ministry. 

We hold to a strict two office view. We do not make a distinction between "ruling" and "teaching" elders. While there are differing gifts from one man to the next, and in each local church we desire that at least one elder serve in a full time capacity and be supported by the church, we do not see these differences of gifting and service as different kinds of elders. Therefore, the process above is required for all elders in the Covenant Presbyterian Church.



JohnV said:


> The problem I see with distance education is with how to judge their credentials. Marks are not the only thing to look at. There are recommendations from teachers and peers, and there are observations of character through personal familiarity. How do you know what you need to know about whether a person is fit for the ministry through one examination, or even two or three?


----------



## JOwen

SemperFideles said:


> (1) Pastor and session invests time and energy in fathers and families to raise up Godly men.
> (2) Children are well educated and their hearts are trained. Young men are encouraged to desire eldership and the ministry if that gift is noticed early on.
> (3) Pastor and elders identify the young men who have the acumen and desire for ministry.
> 
> and then begin the list above.
> 
> In other words, the Church should be organically training and identifiying people.



Amen to this. Valid point to be sure!



> I honestly believe that if Church's would reform the manner in which they identify and participate in the training of men that Seminaries would be very willing partners in that effort.




I would like to think you are right in this brother. However don't you think that _some_ seminaries are such massive engines, that to change the model would be the removing of many secondary teaching and administrative positions? I would think the hired Ph.D's might have something to say about changing the method.


----------



## JohnV

satz said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I am young and fairly inexperienced, so I don't want to appear to be shooting off my mouth, but I would like to ask a sincere question.
> 
> I guess I have a hard time understanding where the idea comes that seminary training is considered even a normal prerequisite for being a pastor. I cannot recall anything in the New Testament that resembles the kind of formal seminaries we have today. I am not saying that the concept is wrong, but I don't understand the idea that the 'ideal' training for a pastoral candidate is to go though the seminary route. Someone here mentioned being mentored by a pastor as an alternative training method and it seems to me a perfectly valid one, every bit as valid as going to seminary. Paul told Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus (Tit 1:5) to be the ones appointing and ordaining new ministers and he made no mention of external teaching institutions, so there must be at least the assumption that a pastor can be the one to identify (note that the qualifications for ministers are given to Timothy and Titus in the pastoral epistles), train and ultimately ordain the next generation of ministers. I understand Pastor Greco's comments above that practically speaking pastors today may be pressed for time to do this, but I am interested in just examining the prinicple.
> 
> Let me say again I am not saying there is necessarily anything wrong with the seminary route, but I truely do not understand why there seems to be the strain of thought in christianity today where it is considered undesirable to take an alternative route.
> 
> Am I missing something here? Any thoughts?



Mark:

I think that originally this was what the idea of a seminary was. It was the church's particular interest in preparing the next generation of ministers, but doing it economically, and in an organized manner. Seminaries have grown since this original intent to be more on their own, not directly under the churches' oversight. You could even say, I suppose, that oversight in one sense has become oversight in another sense: watching over has gradually turned into forgetting to watch over. I think that's the problem here, not specifically how one learns. After all, which ever way one learns, he is still accountable before the examination committee for his credentials.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JOwen said:


> I would like to think you are right in this brother. However don't you think that _some_ seminaries are such massive engines, that to change the model would be the removing of many secondary teaching and administrative positions? I would think the hired Ph.D's might have something to say about changing the method.



That might be the case for some of the larger ones. I think it's the case, though, that if a Church is really fully involved in the equipping of a man for ministry then it's pretty hard for a Seminary to goon it all up. They would simply be a tool that the Church uses to round out and educate where a particular pastor (or pastors) might not have the specialized expertise for certain skills.

As it is, I think many Seminaries take on additional roles due to pressure from students that aren't getting it from their Churches or from Churches that don't want to train men.


----------



## Ivan

JOwen said:


> This follows the Pastor's College model of both Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones.



Lloyd-Jones had a Pastor's College?


----------



## JOwen

Ivan said:


> Lloyd-Jones had a Pastor's College?



http://www.ltslondon.org/


----------



## Ivan

JOwen said:


> http://www.ltslondon.org/



Ah, yes...my memory...not what it use to be. Thank you.


----------



## satz

JohnV said:


> Mark:
> 
> I think that originally this was what the idea of a seminary was. It was the church's particular interest in preparing the next generation of ministers, but doing it economically, and in an organized manner. Seminaries have grown since this original intent to be more on their own, not directly under the churches' oversight. You could even say, I suppose, that oversight in one sense has become oversight in another sense: watching over has gradually turned into forgetting to watch over. I think that's the problem here, not specifically how one learns. After all, which ever way one learns, he is still accountable before the examination committee for his credentials.



Thanks, John.

I am curious, do you folks think there is any NEED for seminary for a man to go into the ministry? Can a young man be prepared simply by mentoring and studying under his own pastor in his home church? Assume the church situation allows the pastor to send the requisite time and attention.


----------



## JohnV

satz said:


> Thanks, John.
> 
> I am curious, do you folks think there is any NEED for seminary for a man to go into the ministry? Can a young man be prepared simply by mentoring and studying under his own pastor in his home church? Assume the church situation allows the pastor to send the requisite time and attention.



Mark:

I would not ordinarily think that mentoring by one pastor would be enough. It is the church session, the Presbytery, and the denomination that are responsible for doctrine and ultimate accountability. It involves a plurality of elders. 

Notice that I did not say that a collection of PhD's are responsible for these things. They are responsible to do the job that the church assigns to them, to prepare men for the ministry and the pastorate. They don't dictate or form or develop doctrine. That's the church's responsibility. At least that's what I believe. 

You can go overboard either way, I would think. Too many cooks, or not enough cooks. But it is the church, that is the denomination, that is responsible for what is being preached and taught by her ministers.


----------



## satz

John, 

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying about a plurality of elders and logically it makes sense to me. Yet Paul gave Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus (Titus 1:5) the duty to ordain ministers singularly. He did not give it to a group of elders. Any thoughts?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> John,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying about a plurality of elders and logically it makes sense to me. Yet Paul gave Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus (Titus 1:5) the duty to ordain ministers singularly. He did not give it to a group of elders. Any thoughts?



Yes, but Timothy and Titus were not on their own, they were sent from the Church into the mission field for that task. I actually agree with the OPC retaining the office of the Evangelist and distinguishing it from the role of the Pastorate. Evangelists are ordained by the Church and sent into the mission field to Baptize, preach, and administer the sacraments and raise up Churches in an area. Dave Crum in Tijuana, Mexico is sent by the SoCal Presbytery of the OPC and his mission there is not merely to win souls but to build a Church and train men to assume the Eldership and eventually form Churches and Presbyteries in Mexico.

This is a bit off topic though because there is an "ordinary" sense of the need to train people for the ministry of caring for a local flock from which others are sent.


----------



## KMK

fredtgreco said:


> I believe in our world, this is the single biggest argument against distance education. The life of a reformed pastor is very busy - often a solo pastorate, with two (sometimes three!) sermon preparations per week, often with no secretary to help run the office, hospital visits, pastoral calls, meetings, etc. It would be very difficult to teach someone how to be a pastor. Some could be "caught" by accompanying the minister on visits, etc., but it could be very hard.
> 
> This is one reason why I think it is wrong to be dogmatic on this subject, either insisting one must attend a seminary (as Dr. Clark insists) or decrying seminaries as the root of all evil (as some of Dr. Clark's critics insist).
> 
> I think Jerrold has struck a good balance, and helped the discussion on this.



 

And don't forget his most important job! He is the husband of one wife and his children are faithful and orderly! You talk about a time commitment! (Where is the 'burning-the-candle-at-both-ends' emoticon?)


----------



## jaybird0827

JOwen said:


> The best model I can think of, in our day would look something like this:
> 
> 1. Student presents himself before the Consistory to be accepted as a candidate for the ministry.
> 2. An examination is given to discern the inward and outward calling, and general cognitive ability.
> 3. Upon consensus, the Consistory makes a recommendation to Classis to examine the man for entrance.
> 4. Upon acceptance, the man is sent back to his home congregation and begins his studies under the oversight of the ministers of his Classis, his own minister being the lead pastor.
> 5. One half of the student's 1 year classes are taken via distance ed with all papers and exams submitted to members of Classis for review. He is permitted to take limited part in Consistory meetings and is invited to Elder's meetings as an observer (expected to take notes).
> 6. One half of students classes would be take in _modular form_ at the denominational seminary (ours is PRTS) in one or two week intensives. (PRTS brings in the best of the best in any given field as it relates to the ministry!)
> 7. Upon completion of first year, the Classis examines the student (orally) on basic Greek, intro Bible courses, and each other first year disciplines.
> 8. Upon completion of this exam the student is approved to second year training.
> 9. Years 2 and 3 progress in the same fashion as year one, only in each successive year he is given approval to "speak an edifying word" to his local congregation (from the NT in year 2, and OT or NT in year 3). Year 3 he is expected to 'preach' to Classis twice. During year 2 he is also given permission to teach catechism, conduct Bible Studies, lead prayer meetings, accompany Elder visits, funerals, weddings, counseling, etc. All with consistory oversight. Material would be generated from his _course material_ so as not to overburden the student.
> 10. Year 4 the student faces a final trial at Classis which includes Greek, Hebrew, Old Testament, New Testament, Systematics, general Bible, ethics, and eccesiology. He also preaches a full sermon and is examined extensively on his call to the ministry, piety, and private devotional life.
> 
> At the end he would have a 4 year degree with all the bells and whistles, would have hundreds of hours of preaching experience in a local Church, and would have intimate knowledge of Church life from counseling to funerals.
> 
> I would even go so far as to trim the curricula to hold to:
> 
> 1. Old Testament (knowledge, exegesis, hermeneutics)
> 2. New Testament (knowledge, exegesis, hermeneutics)
> 3. Languages (4 semesters each)
> 4. Systematics (the 4 major disciplines)
> 5. Homiletics
> 6. Biblical Theology
> 7. Pastoral Theology
> 
> This follows the Pastor's College model of both Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones.


 
 Yes!!!! And could we add -

Before step 1: Session or Consistory identify and encourage young men growing up in the church who show potential for the ministry.

 more


----------



## tcalbrecht

satz said:


> John,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying about a plurality of elders and logically it makes sense to me. Yet Paul gave Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus (Titus 1:5) *the duty to ordain ministers singularly*. He did not give it to a group of elders. Any thoughts?



Not seeing this thought in the texts. Can you be more specific? I know the OPC and to a lesser degree the PCA makes a distinction between elders and ministers. Both denominations have the role of evangelist which has a view to raising up churches and congregation elders. However, ministers (pastor-teachers) are qualified and ordained by a presbytery (1 Tim. 4:14).


----------



## JOwen

jaybird0827 said:


> Yes!!!! And could we add -
> 
> Before step 1: Session or Consistory identify and encourage young men growing up in the church who show potential for the ministry.
> 
> more



Yes indeed. On my blog, I have updated my musings with a prefatory note reflecting this important step. Thanks!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Reponses and a Question*

I haven't read Jerrold's blog post. I'm sorry, I can't. I'm only responding to what I've seen on the PB discussion.

1. Does anyone else see the irony in a post objecting to the necessity of a brick and mortar seminary education being misspelled? To the best of my knowledge the British and American spelling is "response."

2. I see there has been clucking about the the fact that Clark doesn't seem to know that the cost of computers has come down. If one reads the HB entry where I re-posted the essay on the necessity of seminary education one will find that I made a caveat to that effect. I wrote the "necessity" essay about 10 years ago or so. Still, a laptop can run $1500 without much difficulty.

3. As to whether this is like the home school v traditional school debate, that's interesting because we home school! I recognize that primary education was done at home or at least privately for centuries. The modern idea that primary/secondary (sem being post-secondary) education must be conducted in a factory is quite novel and has proven to be not entirely successful. There is a rather large difference between home schooling and distance ed: home schooling is still a face to face tutorial whereas distance ed is not. 

4. The proposal that we should go back to the 19th century American model of full-time ministers training candidates for ministry, seems to ignore several facts. First, it's been tried and abandoned. It was abandoned because it didn't work. The fact of intellectual specialization has been in evidence since the 13th century - it's not a wholly modern phenomenon. The speed of specialization has increased with the development of communication technology (printing, telephone, computers etc). The amount of information that must be learned and processed is considerably greater now than it was in the 19th century. The movement away from the Log College to Princeton was a natural development that followed a pattern that is evident in the early medieval and high medieval periods. We had catechetical schools in the early church organized around a single teacher (still face to face education mind you!). Those schools became associated with cathedrals (sort of an ecclesiastical county seat). Those cathedral schools were larger but not specialized. One "prof" taught both the arts (trivium) and theology. The need for specialization helped create the universities in Oxford and Paris with distinct theology and arts faculties. There was already too much for one person to teach by the 12th century. That process has only continued.

Today, it is not possible for even the most brilliant minister to tend his flock, study for his sermon, and keep up at a professional level (let's assume he has a PhD and is expert in a given field) with one field let alone four to seven depending on how one divides things. It's not even possible for a full-time scholar who doesn't have the daily demands of telephone calls, pastoral calls, hospital visits, small groups studies, crises, sermons, catechism lessons, and planning and session/consistory meetings (as our full-time pastor does) to keep up with more than one field. I teach in three distinct fields and I despair of doing a good job in each. Two of them are closely related (church history and historical theology) but just keeping up with developments and literature in the one theological locus I teach (the doctrine of God, not to mention the other loci of theology) is overwhelming! 

So, I take it that one would have to argue that it's really not necessary to have specialists/experts teaching in each dept (exegesis, systematics, history, and practica), that a general knowledge of these things is sufficient.

In that case, one has embraced an apparently pious but anti-intellectual approach to training ministers. At the end of the day, that anti-intellectualism will show itself to be impious.

We're training MINISTERS of the gospel here. We have a spiritual and moral duty to see to it that our ministers have the best education possible. They have the highest calling and the toughest job on the planet. They must be highly trained because they will be pressed on every side (I know!) and pulled in every direction. They will be called to render unexpected judgments in hospital rooms. They must be able to draw on serious (and prayerful) training received at the hands of ministers with highly specialized training. Ministers call upon that training every day in a hundred ways. Now more than ever it is evident that we cannot allow the training of our ministers to slip one iota.

Appeals to the apostolic era are non-starters. Unless you can raise men from the dead, shake off serpents, or heal the lame, unless you were at the feet of the Savior for 3 years and unless you had a tongue of fire on your head, you should go to seminary.

To the claim (in another post) that we should be reading mostly 400 year old books (which, as a teacher of history it is my calling to read and teach at WSC!) I ask, is that what John Owen did? Did he actually spend most of his time reading 400 year old books or was he one of the most well-read and intelligent theologians fluent in contemporary Roman and Socinian, and Amyraldian, and rationalist theology in Europe or the British Isles? Clearly it was the latter. The point is that we ought to read Owen yes, but we ought to do in our age what Owen did in his and I'm quite sure he would be thoroughly versed in all the aberrant ideologies and theologies of our day as he was in his own day.

Finally, my question is why doesn't the analogy with lawyers and doctors work? What is there about the vocation of the ministry that demands LESS training than the vocation to the law or the vocation to medicine? Why should ministers have a less rigorous education (or none at all?)

Are you anti-brick and mortar sem proponents willing to trust your legal and medical well-being to home-grown doctors and lawyers and if not, why not? If pastors who have been trained solely by other pastors then why not lawyers and physicians trained solely by other lawyers and physicians? Why not? Because as I've argued for years, no lawyer who actually knew anything about the law would dare attempt to train other lawyers in place of law school! No physician would attempt to replace med school. There's no way that a single person or even a private co-op could replace the work done in med school. 

A seminary is quite like med and law school. It is an extended internship/apprenticeship, arts education, and technical education in one. This combination cannot be replicated away from school. The alternatives all sacrifice one or more elements. 

rsc


----------



## JOwen

R. Scott Clark said:


> 1. Does anyone else see the irony in a post objecting to the necessity of a brick and mortar seminary education being misspelled? To the best of my knowledge the British and American spelling is "response."



Keep reading...



> Appeals to the apostolic era are non-starters. Unless you can raise men from the dead, shake off serpents, or heal the lame, unless you were at the feet of the Savior for 3 years and unless you had a tongue of fire on your head, you should go to semimary.



Does anyone else find it ironic that a Ph.D who works at a seminary would spell it 'semimary'? Come on Dr. Clark, keep the chip shots on the golf course. Irony indeed. 

Secondly, how scholarly is it brother to render critique without investigation? Where did I ever say that _I objected to the necessity of a brick and mortar seminary education_? Please read my blog or leave speculation on what I might have said alone.


----------



## Kevin

Is anyone familiar with the MT3 (Mobile theological teaching team) model that World Witness uses?

This is a system developed to send qualified professors to various seminaries to teach the same course at several locations in turn. Thus Dr Whytock could teach Church History first at Haddington House on PEI, then teach the same (or an appropriate version thereof) course in Kenya, Pakistan, Hungary, Turkey, etc. any place we have a Mission seminary.

He would be followed in turn by others teaching in their own field. Thus a local man under care of his local church/pastor or a missionary/evangelist would be doing "distence studies" and at the same time serving locally.

At the same timne much of the expence of a full faculty seminary is avoided.

This not only suitable to the mission field but works well here in North America as well with Haddington House being the "proving ground" for many of these courses. 

BTW courses are a combination of both models with students doing much of the work before the prof arives and then having all classes within 6 or 7 days.


----------



## larryjf

On Dr. Clark's updated blog post he sums up by saying...



> So, which of the elements are we prepared to sacrifice as we educate our pastors? Knowledge of the Biblical languages? Knowledge of archaeology? Knowledge of church history (please say "no!"), knowledge of systematic theology? Time with experienced pastor-scholars who help to shape future ministers in and out of the classroom?



I didn't realize distance ed meant neglecting these subjects.

i think that utilizing discussion boards, chat rooms, video conferencing, and mentoring can increase the community aspect of distance ed. I am not sure exactly would be the deficiency in a pastor who had online training as opposed to brick and mortar. It's a little to general to simply say that it lacks "community" or "face-to-face contact." I have a hard time believing that simply being in the presence of somebody can somehow impute some special grace for the ministry.

As far as the medical or legal profession...i would not equate the two. I would not want my doctor to have learned via online, but my lawyer i would have no problem with. What a student of theology would have as an advantage to the M.D. student is a church. There is no reason that i can think of why a seminary student could not utilize his church for the hands-on aspects that must be learned. The M.D. student simply does not have this utility.


----------



## JOwen

R. Scott Clark said:


> 4. The proposal that we should go back to the 19th century American model of full-time ministers training candidates for ministry, seems to ignore several facts. First, it's been tried and abandoned. It was abandoned because it didn't work.



Really? Says who? Seems the Free Church Continuing, Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Associated Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Netherlands Reformed Churches have not been told it does not work.



> The movement away from the Log College to Princeton was a natural development that followed a pattern that is evident in the early medieval and high medieval periods. We had catechetical schools in the early church organized around a single teacher (still face to face education mind you!). Those schools became associated with cathedrals (sort of an ecclesiastical county seat). Those cathedral schools were larger but not specialized. One "prof" taught both the arts (trivium) and theology. The need for specialization helped create the universities in Oxford and Paris with distinct theology and arts faculties. There was already too much for one person to teach by the 12th century. That process has only continued.



Scott, if you will notice, the method I propose is not a strict distance model. It is a mixture of the two with the greater emphasis on the local Church/Consistory/Clasiss. It is the same model as Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones, The Free Church Continuing, and other federations. If that makes me anti intellectual then you are redefining the term. And the move from the Log College to the Princeton model had as much to to with the European enlightenment University method as anything else. 



> Today, it is not possible for even the most brilliant minister to tend his flock, study for his sermon, and keep up at a professional level (let's assume he has a PhD and is expert in a given field) with one field let alone four to seven depending on how one divides things. It's not even possible for a full-time scholar who doesn't have the daily demands of telephone calls, pastoral calls, hospital visits, small groups studies, crises, sermons, catechism lessons, and planning and session/consistory meetings (as our full-time pastor does) to keep up with more than one field. I teach in three distinct fields and I despair of doing a good job in each. Two of them are closely related (church history and historical theology) but just keeping up with developments and literature in the one theological locus I teach (the doctrine of God, not to mention the other loci of theology) is overwhelming!



Look, no where in the Scriptures does it say that we are to bring in hired guns who are experts in a field to train men for the ministry. I say you are making it way more complicated than it needs to be. Not only is it possible to do this in house properly, it IS being done, and has been done for hundreds of years. Break out of your North American mindset and see that in other places a variety of different methods are being used to the same end. 

John Frame said in _A Proposal for a New Seminary_. Journal of Pastoral Practice.” p.10,

In the early days of American Protestantism, the training of ministerial candidates was carried out by pastors of churches. A young man feeling a call of God to the ministry would associate himself with a church pastor, receive training from him, participate in the work of the parish, and perhaps even live in the minister’s home. I’m not sure why, but eventually this system was felt to be inadequate".​
Frame goes on to remind the reader that seminaries are a _convention_ of the church, created to fill in the gap created by churches that are not fulfilling their Biblical mandate of discipleship. He sites old Princeton Seminary board member Rev. Gardiner Spring who contends that in his day the parish-trained minister _far surpassed the seminary trained scholar_. That is quite a statement from both Frame and Spring - two seminarians (p.11).




> So, I take it that one would have to argue that it's really not necessary to have specialists/experts teaching in each dept (exegesis, systematics, history, and practica), that a general knowledge of these things is sufficient.



And why can't you have this within the parish church model is my question? My mentor was trained by the late Rev. Donald Beaton, ever heard of him? John Murray had and said he was one of the greatest systematic theologians he knew. The Free Presbyterians also had me who excelled in Church History, Logic, and the languages. So tell me again why one has to go away for this?



> In that case, one has embraced an apparently pious but anti-intellectual approach to training ministers. At the end of the day, that anti-intellectualism will show itself to be impious.



Rubbish. There are are countless ministers trained this way who are not in any way shape or form anti-intellectual. They know Greek and Hebrew, love systematics and biblical theology etc, but they were trained _in house_. William Jay, Jonathan Edwards, and Lloyd-Jones are but a few who fail your grid I'm afraid. 



> We're training MINISTERS of the gospel here. We have a spiritual and moral duty to see to it that our ministers have the best education possible. They have the highest calling and the toughest job on the planet. They must be highly trained because they will be pressed on every side (I know!) and pulled in every direction. They will be called to render unexpected judgments in hospital rooms. They must be able to draw on serious (and prayerful) training received at the hands of ministers with highly specialized training. Ministers call upon that training every day in a hundred ways. Now more than ever it is evident that we cannot allow the training of our ministers to slip one iota.



Are you training minsters? “Seminaries not only frequently refuse to do the work of the church; they also tend to undo it, by making scholars not shepherds" says Frame. "Over the years, however, it has become less and less possible for a man to be an outstanding pastor and an outstanding scholar; thus seminaries, forced to choose, have inevitably picked the latter”. Quite an admission! Are the great bastions of the Church training scholars or shepherds? No, the two are not mutually exclusive, but there is a distinction. 



> Are you anti-brick and mortar sem proponents willing to trust your legal and medical well-being to home-grown doctors and lawyers and if not, why not? If pastors who have been trained solely by other pastors then why not lawyers and physicians trained solely by other lawyers and physicians? Why not? Because as I've argued for years, no lawyer who actually knew anything about the law would dare attempt to train other lawyers in place of law school! No physician would attempt to replace med school. There's no way that a single person or even a private co-op could replace the work done in med school.



Who's anti brick and mortar Scott? I don't see any posting on this board that are anti- brick and mortar. I've done both. I'm DOING both in pursuing a M.Th at PRTS! All we are saying is there are other ways of doing it, and the _status quo_ has flaws than need to be remedied. I think my proposal here, is a good place to begin. Your stance on this, as has been pointed out by Trevor, is overtly academic. And is it any wonder considering you are an academic? No. But listen to the possibilities for improvement brother. There is more than one way to do this. I'm a perfect example. My federation is a *PRTS federation* yet my home/distance/parish training received _unanimous_ support at 4 Colloquium Doctum's including a Synodical examination. I'm not all that, but it _is proof _that it can and does work. now I pastor a healthy, growing Free Reformed Church.

I have a great appreciation for your writings brother, but you have a blind spot (like we all do). I think an open mind and heart can bring more unanimity on this subject than we think.


----------



## larryjf

Something that really troubles me regarding Dr. Clark's blog



> I see that someone is starting an(other?) online seminary. *It has the intriguing name of Wittenberg Reformed Theological Seminary.* To the best of my knowledge, "as of today," (as folk say during congressional hearings) Wittenberg was a staunchly Lutheran town (the official name is Lutherstadt Wittenberg) and school. *Invoking Wittenberg as the qualifier of "Reformed" is a little like a Lutheran starting Geneva Lutheran Seminary or Dort Lutheran Seminary. Incongruous is a word that comes to mind.* Now I love my Lutheran cousins (even though they regard us a "crafty" sacramentarians - Formula of Concord Art. 7) and I've defended the proposition that the Reformed and the Lutherans have a common doctrine of justification. Nevertheless, there are significant differences (e.g., Christology and and the resistibility of grace). *I see that WRTS is oriented around Reformed standards and they don't include the Book of Concord* (in which case the adjective Wittenberg might make more sense) *so one has to wonder about the intellectual capital behind an enterprise that proposes to train pastors but doesn't seem to know what Wittenberg was.* Now, of course, Wittenberg is a tourist town. They aren't invoking "tourist" as a metaphor for theological education are they?).



First, it is troubling to me that when he has a problem with a particular entity like WRTS he does not contact them directly to vent his concerns, but instead opts for public ridicule. The implication that he makes simply based on the name of the school...that there is no intellectual capital is also very troubling to me. Especially seeing such folks as Dr. Sam Logan and others involved with it. You would think that he would have at least contacted the school to ask why they chose that name.

Here is the WRTS site.


----------



## Ivan

larryjf said:


> Here is the WRTS site.



Thanks for the link, Larry. Keep us informed as things develop.


----------



## larryjf

Ivan said:


> Thanks for the link, Larry. Keep us informed as things develop.



Will do. WRTS is still very much in its infancy. Currently we are working very hard on getting the M.Div. program developed.


----------



## JOwen

larryjf said:


> Will do. WRTS is still very much in its infancy. Currently we are working very hard on getting the M.Div. program developed.



What other programs will be offered?


----------



## larryjf

JOwen said:


> What other programs will be offered?



After we get some more faculty on board and the M.Div. set up we will most likely have the head of the individual departments create their own programs for Board approval.

I am thinking that the next programs to be set up would be Theology, Biblical Studies, and Ministry. But that is not official.


----------



## JohnV

Of course, we have to our advantage the fact that there is a great and accessible combination of the two: The PuritanBoard. By now its an institution, isn't it?


----------



## JOwen

JohnV said:


> Of course, we have to our advantage the fact that there is a great and accessible combination of the two: The PuritanBoard. By now its an institution, isn't it?



lol, I think it is brother!


----------



## Kevin

JohnV said:


> Of course, we have to our advantage the fact that there is a great and accessible combination of the two: The PuritanBoard. By now its an institution, isn't it?



It is brother! Just send me your $400.00 graduation fee and your ThD will be in the mail! 

The board read over all of your posts and decided it was the equiv. of a disertation.


----------



## JOwen

Kevin said:


> It is brother! Just send me your $400.00 graduation fee and your ThD will be in the mail!
> 
> The board read over all of your posts and decided it was the equiv. of a disertation.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Fair enough.

I knew if I misspelled anything I would get it in the neck! (and rightly so).

Jerrold, as I said in my post, I wasn't responding to your blog. I haven't read it yet. I was only responding to the posts on the list (and to a long-running argument on this board and on other discussion lists that dates back at least 10 years).

rsc



JOwen said:


> Keep reading...
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else find it ironic that a Ph.D who works at a seminary would spell it 'semimary'? Come on Dr. Clark, keep the chip shots on the golf course. Irony indeed.
> 
> Secondly, how scholarly is it brother to render critique without investigation? Where did I ever say that _I objected to the necessity of a brick and mortar seminary education_? Please read my blog or leave speculation on what I might have said alone.


----------



## Robin

Much has been said...


Isn't the important point being missed though?

Would you have surgery done by an MD that got his training from DL?

It's one thing to gain an English degree via home schooling...it IS another to attempt mastery of a vital skill/subject like neurosurgery.

The soul of man is the second most precious thing in creation next to the Holy Gospel.

 

Robin


----------



## R. Scott Clark

trevorjohnson said:


> Dr. Scott;
> 
> What do you think of RTS's distance program?



I'm not crazy about it but it's not an MDiv program, which makes it a little more palatable.



> The people who take classes there are certainly not "anti-intellectual". There are specialized instructors teaching through distance means and an assigned mentor.



My concern about anti-intellectualism is that DE invariably means that things that would have been taught face to face and learned face to face won't be.

Part of the problem is that I'm trying to address several things at once.

1) The no-seminary is necessary argument;

2) The "no-specialized training" is necessary argument;

3) The DE argument;

I've tried to signal when I'm addressing each of these, but perhaps I failed.



> If RTS had not had the strategic foresight to engineer this program I would have had to spend my 4 years in the army and then spend 4 more years sitting behind a desk in seminary and would still be preparing to serve overseas.



I still think it would have been best for you to be "behind a desk" before hitting the field. 

Practicality is an American trait, one which makes my argument counter-intuitive to most Americans. More than most cultures we need to be made to sit down and learn. We more than most cultures, because of the profound weakness of our primary and secondary ed systems need a more rigorous not less rigorous sem system



> Sitting in a class does not always guarantee a lot more face time with a professor.



True, but the potential is there. I can't communicate everything I need to by email. There's eye contact, tone of voice, casual conversation, lunch, talks in the office and in the hall. Those contacts are invaluable. They're irreplaceable. 



> No one is saying ivory tower schools don't have their place. But practicality in getting people to the field or keeping them on the field can help the process of education without taking people off the field or hindering their progress to the field.



"Ivory Tower"? I think I like brick and mortar better! At WSC we require 700 field hours as a pre-requisite for graduation and many MDiv students graduate with far more hours. Many of our MDiv students (2nd and 3rd year) are in the pulpit virtually every Sabbath. That's not ivory tower education. Some of our students, as appropriate, even serve on sessions and some are engaged in full-time ministry when they come. Several of our students go on missions trips, at their own expense. We have very few "ivory tower" students.



> Plus, there are millions of Asian Christians and African Christians that could never sit in a WSC class due to location and money. Free online resources like Covenant or distance courses like RTS goes a long way in educating the Third World for future practical hands on ministry.



The solution is for us to build institutions for them. It's being done. I've been involved in the training of faculty for the NKST in Nigeria and elsewhere. On analogy with church planting. They need local, indigenous schools and faculties to do the work there that we do here. We bring students here from overseas who have support by donors and many times those graduates go back to teach and establish institutions overseas. For example, one of our grads, Lito Carag, just became President of FEBIAS Bible Institute in the Philippines. Another of our grads, Lloyd Kim oversees theological education all across the Far East. 



> Too, are you telling me that the apostolic era has nothing to do with how we should teach people?



No, but this response suggests the profound weakness of DE!

If you were here, you would have been able to see my face, hear my tone of voice, and ask for a clarification immediately. 

I'm saying that, unless you have true Apostolic power, then you need a sem education to be a pastor.
-


> Too, the analogy between ministers and doctors does not entirely work: Doctors and Dentists must practice hands on type of practices, the very things that often seminaries make it impossible to practice.



Can you elaborate on this? Why EXACTLY does the analogy fail? Physicians study and have internships/apprenticeships. It is a combination of classroom and practical experience that culminates in an MD and entrance into some sort of practice. Med students are exposed to a variety of types of medicine before they specialize. Most pastors are General Practitioners, but on that analogy, I don't see why it doesn't work. You assume that seminaries don't offer hands-on training. That's a false assumption.



> Too, where is it that young pastors get most of their preaching and counseling training................at their home church.



I address this in the original article on the blog/WSC Site.



> The ministry IS important, but it is NOT brain surgery. An old dusty tome works as well as a new shiny piece of equipment if you feed your mind with it - and good books work in a variety of settings.



This is anti-intellectual. This is exactly the attitude that concerns me. You are saying, if I understand you, that "mediocre is good enough." NO! It isn't. It IS brain surgery. Pastoral counseling is just as difficult as brain surgery and I don't get to quit and go home after 12 hours. My cases go on for weeks and months and call for repeated surgeries -- sometimes for years.

It's comments like these that make me think that some folk neither understand theological education nor pastoral ministry.

I'm saying what I do BECAUSE I am a pastor. Because I deal with the tough cases. I would very much like to be in an ivory tower, but providence won't allow it!



> many pastors only do as much Greek as neccessary and most do not go deeply whether they are at a brick and mortar school or not.



I keep saying this and I'll say it again, that's not true of our students, at least as far as I can see and even if it is, the status quo is no argument for mediocrity. We need to continue to work at getting students an excellent start so they can really READ God's Word for themselves and not rely on Bibleworks or what have you.



> Probably one of my biggest points of objection to you Dr. Scott is that in all your posting you focus only on the intellectual aspects of the ministry - as if more intense and longer training on-site can make a great minister.



Then, Trevor, you haven't been paying attention or I haven't been clear. I've been arguing for face to face education PRECISELY BECAUSE EDUCATION IS MORE THAN INFORMATION TRANSMISSION.

It is a process of personal and spiritual formation. The church is the primary locus for Spiritual formation, the school has a role. We're called as ministers to serve here, to shepherd students, to mold and form them into ministers. That's a spiritual process. We meed to pray with students. We talk with them. We worship with them. That can't be done by distance.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Larry, 

Fair enough. I did talk to one of your board members, but I didn't talk to you. I should have done. I apologize.

So, why Wittenberg? Do any of my historical questions/objections make any sense?

My main concern is about the whole theory (and practice) of DE for ministers. 

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Jerrold,

Do the men who tutor future ministers in the FCC FCS have the same level of expertise as practicing scholars?

How can a man do all the things a faithful pastor is meant to do and keep up with secondary and primary lit in his field? I am a part-time pastor now and a full-time scholar, but when I was a full-time pastor there were years when I didn't get to a seminary library more than once or twice. I don't think that's unusual. 


> makes me anti intellectual then you are redefining the term. And the move from the Log College to the Princeton model had as much to to with the European enlightenment University method as anything else.



Do you disagree about the Old Side? They were very much in favor of university/academic training for their pastors. Even the LC men favored the College of NJ when it was founded. It was regarded as a great improvement. The relations between the two are complicated, but the LC was an anomaly not a pattern.



> Look, no where in the Scriptures does it say that we are to bring in hired guns who are experts in a field to train men for the ministry. I say you are making it way more complicated than it needs to be.



Jerrold, why is that everyone who ISN'T doing my job 12 hours a day knows how to do it better than I? 

How in the world would you know that it's not that complicated? Can you hear the exasperation?

Why am I not right in regarding your argument as fundamentally anti-intellectual?



> John Frame



At the risk of ad hom argumentation, are you sure this is where you want to go? Do know the context of this argument and where it would lead?

Are you prepared to follow JM elsewhere? If not, why here?



> In the early days of American Protestantism, the training of ministerial candidates was carried out by pastors of churches. A young man feeling a call of God to the ministry would associate himself with a church pastor, receive training from him, participate in the work of the parish, and perhaps even live in the minister’s home. I’m not sure why, but eventually this system was felt to be inadequate". Frame goes on to remind the reader that seminaries are a _convention_ of the church, created to fill in the gap created by churches that are not fulfilling their Biblical mandate of discipleship. He sites old Princeton Seminary board member Rev. Gardiner Spring who contends that in his day the parish-trained minister _far surpassed the seminary trained scholar_. That is quite a statement from both Frame and Spring - two seminarians (p.11).



It's odd how often John bases much of his arguments on history which professes not to understand. 

Call me an ivory tower guy, but unless one has really looked into this stuff and sorted through it carefully, one ought not to be making these sorts of arguments. 

There's nothing about the current model as practiced by WSC that precludes heavy involvement by the local church. Indeed our system REQUIRES that.

As to Mr Murray, he did have a little seminary training didn't he? 

As to men trained without seminary, they test the rule. Most sem students aren't the doctor or Edwards (who had an extensive univ education).

I'm not opposed to revising the status quo, but I am opposed to lowering standards -- which is what John's proposal and DE would do.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Larry,

You're willing to be represented in court by someone who whose legal education was entirely online?

Really?

rsc



larryjf said:


> On Dr. Clark's updated blog post he sums up by saying...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize distance ed meant neglecting these subjects.
> 
> i think that utilizing discussion boards, chat rooms, video conferencing, and mentoring can increase the community aspect of distance ed. I am not sure exactly would be the deficiency in a pastor who had online training as opposed to brick and mortar. It's a little to general to simply say that it lacks "community" or "face-to-face contact." I have a hard time believing that simply being in the presence of somebody can somehow impute some special grace for the ministry.
> 
> As far as the medical or legal profession...i would not equate the two. I would not want my doctor to have learned via online, but my lawyer i would have no problem with. What a student of theology would have as an advantage to the M.D. student is a church. There is no reason that i can think of why a seminary student could not utilize his church for the hands-on aspects that must be learned. The M.D. student simply does not have this utility.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good post above Dr. Clark.

Gents: I do wish that it was not up to Dr. Clark to defend against all the ills that are quite outside of Seminaries to fix.

I do believe there is great value to a resident school where you have to sit and learn. We have extensive Professional Military Education (PME) within the American military. Military Officers are actually some of the best educated professionals in terms of continuous education and the $$ to make it happen. I've been in the Marine Corps for about 17 years and I am _just now_ at an educational and experience level where the Marine Corps will entrust me with the _souls_ of over one thousand Marines and Sailors if I'm ever slated for command.

If you want to find a profession that would have the greatest argument for doing over learning than the military would be the easiest to argue in that regard. The very opposite is true.

I received my non-resident degree from Command and Staff College in 2000 and then attended the resident course in 2003. For my non-resident degree, I even had the opportunity to benefit from a new program at the time where seminars are held at various bases to allow students to interact with a seminar leader and pace you through the text. I actually teach PME now to young officers on a weekly basis. Promotions are not affected based on whether or not you attend the resident program or the non-resident program.

Do you know what I tell every Officer that I teach? Attend the resident programs if you ever get a chance. Why? The quality of the education is night and day. To spend hours interacting and debating with your peers as well as senior officers and a scholar in each seminar is one of the best learning experiences of my life. It's one thing to read 100 pages on the Law of War. It's another to have the legal counsel to the Secretary of Defense come talk to you about it in a lecture and then go into seminar and talk that out. It's one thing to read about terrorism and Islam, it's another to actually interact with Saudi, Egyptian, Indonesian, and UAE Officers and debate them face to face about Islam and its support of terrorism. There is simply no comparison.

I'm not completely against DE and there are dumb and ill prepared people that attend B&M institutions. I just think that the ability to interact and learn at the feet of another is priceless. I believe to interact with scholars in the field is priceless. I don't think that Dr. Clark should really have to defend this. If people don't want to avail themselves of this then it's up to the Church to decide whether or not to ordain a person or not who hasn't had the opportunity to have this full benefit.

I simply reject that this environment is ivory tower when you have the regular influx of people "from the field." Certainly there are the young and inexperienced who come into Seminary with no practical experience and can only get a certain degree of experience even with 800 hours of "field time." What a session or Presbytery decides to do with the inexperience, though, is up to them. 

I've already said this earlier but it is not the fault of a Seminary if this man is immediately ordained. It's the fault of the Church or Presbytery that allows the man to be a Pastor. I liken some new Pastors to young Lieutenants - full of the right information and confident of their abilites but lacking nuance in how they lead and terribly naive about people. The institution who trains can educate well but don't blame them if the organization that he is sent to doesn't provide a venue in which he can mature. Either way, I wouldn't want a young pastor out "doing" without supervision because he might have the right information but lack some prudence in how to always apply it. Again, not the fault of the Seminary.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

By the way, re: the American frontier

This is a strange argument for some to make. Many attribute the _decline_ of American Presbyterianism to "cutting corners" and partnering with Baptists to get ministers to the front lines of the new frontier as quickly as possible.

Given the luny theology that came out of the American frontier (Mormonism, Campbellites, etc) do we really want to argue that we ought to go _back_ to that idea?

When I think of Pastors getting people out the door quickly and giving them "what they really need", I honestly think of Calvary Chapel Bible College.


----------



## larryjf

R. Scott Clark said:


> Larry,
> 
> Fair enough. I did talk to one of your board members, but I didn't talk to you. I should have done. I apologize.
> 
> So, why Wittenberg? Do any of my historical questions/objections make any sense?
> 
> My main concern is about the whole theory (and practice) of DE for ministers.
> 
> rsc



The name Wittenberg was thought of by another Board member. The idea is that it is where the Reformation started. And since our motto is "always reforming" it seemed to fit quite nicely.

I actually appreciate some of the concerns that you laid out in your article. But you took such an abrasive and demeaning attitude that it did not seem to come from the right spirit.


----------



## larryjf

R. Scott Clark said:


> Larry,
> 
> You're willing to be represented in court by someone who whose legal education was entirely online?
> 
> Really?
> 
> rsc



Yes. I choose an attorney based on what he knows and his success rate. You might say that i judge him by his fruit.

I don't see the point of trying to compare fields that are really quite different.

Further, i think that your comment...


> Pastoral counseling is just as difficult as brain surgery


shows a great deal of unfamiliarity with the field of brain surgery.

Do you think that M.Div. students at your seminary really go through as much training as an M.D.??
An M.D. takes four years to earn before you even get to the residency part.


----------



## fredtgreco

R. Scott Clark said:


> Larry,
> 
> You're willing to be represented in court by someone who whose legal education was entirely online?
> 
> Really?
> 
> rsc



I would guess though that Larry would be like almost every other person who asks one question only when thinking about a potential litigator: what law firm (i.e. practical place) did he train and work at.

Anyone who picks a lawyer based on law school is a fool. 90% of what a lawyer needs to know - and with a litigator, it is more like 98% (and I know this from more than a decade of experience, work on half-billion dollar deals, personal friendship with one of America's greatest litigators who is in the Lawyer Hall of Fame, and a degree from a top 5 law school). Law school is a weeding out phase for firms to decide who to spend money training.

To entrust oneself to a lawyer based on law school is a sure way to get creamed. The businessmen know it, the bar knows it, and the judges know it. Take a look in you local community and see who the judges are. The vast majority of them will be from 2nd or 3rd tier local law schools (not prime law schools).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Fred,

I'm going to interact with your post not to dispute it but to point some things out because it is compatible with my previous post.

I found this part interesting:


fredtgreco said:


> Anyone who picks a lawyer based on law school is a fool. 90% of what a lawyer needs to know - and with a litigator, it is more like 98% (and I know this from more than a decade of experience, work on half-billion dollar deals, personal friendship with one of America's greatest litigators who is in the Lawyer Hall of Fame, and a degree from a top 5 law school). Law school is a weeding out phase for firms to decide who to spend money training.



Don't you think this model should be, in some respects, the way ministers are developed?

Leaving aside how the analogy has been used elsewhere, it does seem that other professions take much greater care in how they train their men to handle really important things.

I'm trying to navigate among all the different things I'm reading on this thread but one thing that has always bugged me is that there isn't a very serious effort to train and mature spiritual leaders. They're more like lawyers fresh out of law school that:


> To entrust oneself to a lawyer based on law school is a sure way to get creamed. The businessmen know it, the bar knows it, and the judges know it.



But the Churches don't seem to get it with their Pastors. They think: "The man is educated and ready..." but are they investing the time and energy into the man that a law firm would? Hardly.

A larger point would be that neither law firms nor hospitals _ignore_ whether a man has completed a degree where he had time to learn his craft but they don't stop there.

I still sense that Dr. Clark is the fall guy for the fact that Churches don't take the "rest of the leadership development" as seriously as they ought. This is why Ligonier and Dr. MacArthur have Pastor's conferences - because the majority of Christendom in leaving Pastors to develop on their own.


----------



## JohnV

Kevin said:


> It is brother! Just send me your $400.00 graduation fee and your ThD will be in the mail!
> 
> The board read over all of your posts and decided it was the equiv. of a disertation.



Does that mean that I am now a post-graduate?


----------



## fredtgreco

Rich,

I'm happy to interact with you here. My position is (and has been) that there is no perfect or "necessary" method. I don't think Dr. Clark or any seminary should be the "fall guy" for anyone or any church. I think that in large part, failures in the pastorate need to fall squarely on churches, sessions and Presbyteries. 

I'm also not arguing against seminary education. I think it is helpful to most, essential for some. We do indeed have impractical men with little experience running around trying to "minister" to widows by fire-hosing the lastest biblico-theologico-everythotherkindof-o trends in seminaries. But we also have men trying to minister by "just loving Jesus" who fall prey to all the latest theological poison because that kind of study "just wasn't important or practical for ministry."

What I have objected to is Dr. Clark's heavy-handed, Procrustean insistence that every would-be minister must attend a brick and mortar seminary. 

My point was not that lawyers are brought along by law firms, but that they are _made_ by law firms. Give me the bright former paralegal who did correspondence and night school (they exist!) at a 3rd rate school while working for Kirkland & Ellis over the 26 year old Harvard graduate any day! And so say nearly every business.

Yet it is nearly impossible to become a TE without the vaunted union card. Don't get me wrong, I loved much of RTS Jackson. I have friends there (students and faculty) for life. I was given opportunities to minister. There are men there extremely bright and pious. I recommend it still.

But if you will permit me to speak as a fool, why should it be possible for a 24 or 25 year old young man, with no officer experience, no practical responsibility experience (preaching a few times or "interning" doesnt count) who just spent 3-4 years in a seminary to be qualified to be a pastor, when I, who was a ruling elder for nearly a decade, Chairman of my Presbytery's examining committee, Chairman of the PCA's GA Nominating Committee, secretary of the PCA's GA Theological Examining Committee, commissioner to GA 5+ times, with 20 years of Greek, 25 of Latin, instructor in a foreign seminary/college, and who assisted (both ecclesiologically and legally) multiple congregations in leaving apostate denominations for the PCA, am not?

According to Dr. Clark, unless I go to seminary, and obtain what the 24 year old has, I am unfit - I am a mail order brain surgeon! I would rather let a distance ed brain surgeon operate on my family than many of 1 year out seminary graduates operate on their hearts pastorally.

Not everyone can be sufficient for the ministry by distance ed. I agree with that premise. But not everyone _needs_ brick and mortar seminary education. Many are helped by it, but others are _harmed_ by it.




SemperFideles said:


> Fred,
> 
> I'm going to interact with your post not to dispute it but to point some things out because it is compatible with my previous post.
> 
> I found this part interesting:
> 
> 
> Don't you think this model should be, in some respects, the way ministers are developed?
> 
> Leaving aside how the analogy has been used elsewhere, it does seem that other professions take much greater care in how they train their men to handle really important things.
> 
> I'm trying to navigate among all the different things I'm reading on this thread but one thing that has always bugged me is that there isn't a very serious effort to train and mature spiritual leaders. They're more like lawyers fresh out of law school that:
> 
> 
> But the Churches don't seem to get it with their Pastors. They think: "The man is educated and ready..." but are they investing the time and energy into the man that a law firm would? Hardly.
> 
> A larger point would be that neither law firms nor hospitals _ignore_ whether a man has completed a degree where he had time to learn his craft but they don't stop there.
> 
> I still sense that Dr. Clark is the fall guy for the fact that Churches don't take the "rest of the leadership development" as seriously as they ought. This is why Ligonier and Dr. MacArthur have Pastor's conferences - because the majority of Christendom in leaving Pastors to develop on their own.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good post Fred.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Fred,

Where do law firms interview prospective employees?

Which law firms hire either self-educated or distance ed trained lawyers?

rsc



fredtgreco said:


> I would guess though that Larry would be like almost every other person who asks one question only when thinking about a potential litigator: what law firm (i.e. practical place) did he train and work at.
> 
> Anyone who picks a lawyer based on law school is a fool. 90% of what a lawyer needs to know - and with a litigator, it is more like 98% (and I know this from more than a decade of experience, work on half-billion dollar deals, personal friendship with one of America's greatest litigators who is in the Lawyer Hall of Fame, and a degree from a top 5 law school). Law school is a weeding out phase for firms to decide who to spend money training.
> 
> To entrust oneself to a lawyer based on law school is a sure way to get creamed. The businessmen know it, the bar knows it, and the judges know it. Take a look in you local community and see who the judges are. The vast majority of them will be from 2nd or 3rd tier local law schools (not prime law schools).


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Larry,

No, MDiv students are, by and large, not as well trained as they should be. They could use another year or two in school. It depends upon how well trained they are when they come, whether they were catechized well in a confessional church or whether they had a good undergraduate education and how motivated they are and how much time they actually have to study while they are here. 

We've had physicians and lawyers go through our curriculum and they have said that it is as strenuous as anything they did in law school or med school. 

We have faculty with law degrees and we have a current student with a law degree (and several years experience in the law). I make the comparison advisedly.

rsc



larryjf said:


> Yes. I choose an attorney based on what he knows and his success rate. You might say that i judge him by his fruit.
> 
> I don't see the point of trying to compare fields that are really quite different.
> 
> Further, i think that your comment...
> 
> shows a great deal of unfamiliarity with the field of brain surgery.
> 
> Do you think that M.Div. students at your seminary really go through as much training as an M.D.??
> An M.D. takes four years to earn before you even get to the residency part.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Trevor, 

I've been a pastor for 20 years. If you paid attention to my analogy I didn't compare it to parsing Greek but to pastoral counseling.

Trevor, I don't know how old you are, but I've spent a lot of time in nursing homes, preaching on the street, and in homeless shelters and making hospital visits. This is what I'm talking about. 

It's this stuff that requires the intense training. 

As to preaching, well, that's at the heart of what the minister is called to do. He must do other things but at the end of the day, we confess that is through the preaching of the Gospel that God the Spirit has ordained to call his elect to faith. Anything that gets in the way of the centrality of preaching must be moved out of the way.

rsc



trevorjohnson said:


> Dr. Clark:
> 
> I am glad your program has so many practical aspects to it. Yes, your school sounds like a very good school and I am sure you contribute to this.
> 
> 
> Most of the heat I think from this board is not over trying to do away with BM schools, there IS a need for them...but the responses on this thread may be due to the tactless way you wrote your blog.
> 
> 
> Most would not dispute that seminary done residentially is the best way, barring all other factors. We are in no way wanting to do away with BM schools. We just are glad that there are others means to account for life factors that prevent an easy education.
> 
> Those other factors are very important. It would be nice to go 10 years to seminary, not worry about money, know that you will have a long life to minister overseas after you are done, have unlimited time and resources, ignore one's own flock or opportunities among people groups who don't even have a Word of Scripture written down, etc.
> 
> But having a practical means of attaining an education while ministering on the field, where there will not be any such institution for quite a while (and some that have been built nearby have been burned down in the past) shows the need for theological education by extension.
> 
> Again, it was missionaries who came up, championed and promoted this idea and the institutionalized folks that opposed it. Apperently some still opose the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Again I say that the ministry is not brain surgery. It is easy to call someone an "Anti-intellectual" as you have called me. But, one can gain a great deal from discussing tomes with their immediate ministry context, rather than a stranger at a university. Given other factors, theological edcuation by extension makes sense and may be the most effective means of training folks who are geographically located in far places or have other pressing committments.
> 
> 
> Again, you barely addressed the largest part of the ministry, which is character rather than the ability to parse Greek. Character and care of the flock can best be learned in context of a local church. It would be nice to have everything and be close to one's home church and still go to Westminster for example, but for most folks something has to give and be sacrificed and I think that in many cases extension education ought to be promoted and not ridiculed like you have done so quite insultingly on your blog.
> 
> 
> 
> The brain surgery analogy: The work of pastors is very much a work of moral issues and the tender care of the soul that springs from character rather than pure technical skill. People at a funeral wouldn't want to hear Greek. A couple who has lost their child would not want to hear what Vos would say.
> 
> Perhaps you cannot appreciate this because you live largely in a world of academia and are concerned to promote academia. But most people do not. They minister to folks who deal with "hurt soul issues" rather than apologetical issues.
> 
> 
> Ministry is more of who you are than what you know. Do not stretch my words...knowledge is important, but you completely ignored this point in your last post. Any schol deals with the person's mind and the person's soul.
> 
> And, again, this is nurtured best under one's local church who knows you best and can guide you most personally. That man may go to seminary to learn the biblical languages, where biblical languages ARE taught best, but seminaries are often inferior to one's local church context to nurture the "bedside manner" of the physician called Pastor/elder/misionary. So, your analogy, again, does not entirely work, and I hope you will listen to this "anti-intellectual" for once and admit this truth.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Okay, Larry, I understand your point about tone.

I apologize for that too.

I've seen a lot of damage done by do-it-yourself schools. We get students who are damaged and hurt by well-meaning but misguided evangelicals who set up poorly conceived schools. Then we have to try to clean up the mess they make. I've also spent a lot of time in ecclesiastical assemblies undoing the damage done by do-it-yourself schools. 

Yes, there was a little sting in my comment but, For what it's worth it was fueled by practical experience and pastoral concern for the churches.

rsc



larryjf said:


> The name Wittenberg was thought of by another Board member. The idea is that it is where the Reformation started. And since our motto is "always reforming" it seemed to fit quite nicely.
> 
> I actually appreciate some of the concerns that you laid out in your article. But you took such an abrasive and demeaning attitude that it did not seem to come from the right spirit.


----------



## CDM

fredtgreco said:


> Rich,
> 
> [. . .]
> 
> *But if you will permit me to speak as a fool, why should it be possible for a 24 or 25 year old young man, with no officer experience, no practical responsibility experience (preaching a few times or "interning" doesnt count) who just spent 3-4 years in a seminary to be qualified to be a pastor*, when I, who was a ruling elder for nearly a decade, Chairman of my Presbytery's examining committee, Chairman of the PCA's GA Nominating Committee, secretary of the PCA's GA Theological Examining Committee, commissioner to GA 5+ times, with 20 years of Greek, 25 of Latin, instructor in a foreign seminary/college, and who assisted (both ecclesiologically and legally) multiple congregations in leaving apostate denominations for the PCA, am not?
> 
> According to Dr. Clark, unless I go to seminary, and obtain what the 24 year old has, I am unfit - I am a mail order brain surgeon! I would rather let a distance ed brain surgeon operate on my family than many of 1 year out seminary graduates operate on their hearts pastorally.
> 
> Not everyone can be sufficient for the ministry by distance ed. I agree with that premise. But not everyone _needs_ brick and mortar seminary education. Many are helped by it, but others are _harmed_ by it.



   

Imagine the 24 year old with the freshly acquired M.Div. moderating a Session with the ruling elders being twice his senior, with 10 times the ministerial and pastoral care experience?  

Speaking as a seminarian, under care of Presbytery, this should not be the case. 

This may be somewhat off point but what about these married men with families that go to seminary all day long while the wife works to pay his way? A candidate for the gospel ministry ought to be working and ministering in the world while he undergoes his seminary training. These perpetual students you find in some seminaries have the maturity and experience level of a child. 

One thing I know is a must: the student ought to be mentored personally buy a faithful, proven minister of the Word. There is no better mentor than one's own pastor who keeps him on the straight and narrow. DE and BM students can complete their training with little or nothing in the way of spiritual oversight. Believe me, if I wanted to I can continue taking my classes with maybe a sentence or two exchanged between me and my professors. 

It is the _church's_ responsibility to disciple and train upcoming ministers.


----------



## larryjf

R. Scott Clark said:


> Okay, Larry, I understand your point about tone.
> 
> I apologize for that too.
> 
> I've seen a lot of damage done by do-it-yourself schools. We get students who are damaged and hurt by well-meaning but misguided evangelicals who set up poorly conceived schools. Then we have to try to clean up the mess they make. I've also spent a lot of time in ecclesiastical assemblies undoing the damage done by do-it-yourself schools.
> 
> Yes, there was a little sting in my comment but, For what it's worth it was fueled by practical experience and pastoral concern for the churches.
> 
> rsc



I can appreciate that, and i certainly forgive you.

I would appreciate your input once we have a program actually developed. I think that some serious criticism can help us make the school as good as it can be. And i appreciate that your criticism comes from a zeal for the Church. You may even be surprised how much of the community aspect we are able to incorporate into a distance ed. program...but that is still being developed.


----------



## larryjf

mangum said:


> One thing I know is a must: the student ought to be mentored personally buy a faithful, proven minister of the Word. There is no better mentor than one's own pastor who keeps him on the straight and narrow. DE and BM students can complete their training with little or nothing in the way of spiritual oversight. Believe me, if I wanted to I can continue taking my classes with maybe a sentence or two exchanged between me and my professors.



One thing that WRTS has decided to incorporate into its program is a solid mentoring program.


----------



## Kevin

Well said, Fred! 

Rich, your example of the military falls down at this point; officers are employees who are paid to study. 

My brother in law just got his MBA at the Naval graduate school in California. If I wanted to get my MBA at a local University I would have to do it around my full time job i.e. at night and pay out of pocket. This does not leave much time for peer interaction and one-on-one chats with profs. Of course his experience would be better. His classes would be during the day after resting all night, mine would be at night after working all day. He would have his evenings to study and still have weekends for his family...etc you get the point.

For us to advise men to follow the USMC example would mean that some denomination would have to hire the candidate and pay him to study. If some church were doing that now we would not be having this conversation.

We have a saying in politics that I think applies here; Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good!


----------



## fredtgreco

R. Scott Clark said:


> Fred,
> 
> Where do law firms interview prospective employees?
> 
> Which law firms hire either self-educated or distance ed trained lawyers?
> 
> rsc



Law firms acknowledge that law school is about getting a union card. Most firms (of the highest caliber) interview in three places: (1) top tier law schools, (2) a few select local law schools that are 2nd or 3rd tier but where the reputation of a mentor(s) is known by lawyers in the firm, and (3) most successfully of all - over the phone with lateral hires at other firms after the lawyer has been trained.

For the first year, few lawyers are given any responsibility, being treated as if they know almost nothing about the practice of law - because they don't.

In the interview process, if a firm hears you have experienced much law work and know your way around a deal or court - like paralegal work in a big firm - that is worth much more than grade point average or the name on your diploma.

We're not talking about every case here.

Standard seminary education is not bad, but you continue to insist it is a _sine qua non_. I guess that is why you did not answer my question above.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Fred,

I'm not deliberately ducking your question. I missed it. Can you re-state it? I'm being blitzed with questions and then there is real life outside of the PB.

Did I miss your answer counselor?

Which firms hire DE-trained or self-trained or non-traditionally trained lawyers? 

I guess that all the lawyers I know went to law school, wrote the papers, did the internship etc. 

By invoking the union card metaphor are you suggesting that law school is pro forma, that students don't actually learn anything in torts or con law? My law-school friends, students, and former students, seem to tell a different story.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Kevin,

The RCUS does pay the tuition of its sem students. Frankly, I think all the denominations ought to do that. As it happens, they create freelance students and try to tidy up after the process. 

rsc



Kevin said:


> Well said, Fred!
> 
> Rich, your example of the military falls down at this point; officers are employees who are paid to study.
> 
> My brother in law just got his MBA at the Naval graduate school in California. If I wanted to get my MBA at a local University I would have to do it around my full time job i.e. at night and pay out of pocket. This does not leave much time for peer interaction and one-on-one chats with profs. Of course his experience would be better. His classes would be during the day after resting all night, mine would be at night after working all day. He would have his evenings to study and still have weekends for his family...etc you get the point.
> 
> For us to advise men to follow the USMC example would mean that some denomination would have to hire the candidate and pay him to study. If some church were doing that now we would not be having this conversation.
> 
> We have a saying in politics that I think applies here; Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Chris,

I don't think we graduate many 24 year olds - certainly not in the MDiv and directly into Sr Pastor or solo pastor positions.

Most of our younger grads become associate/assistant pastors or, even more likely, serve lengthy internships.

In my case, I was 26 when I began pastoring in Kansas City and spent the first two years with a Sr Pastor (who was 63 when I began). 

I did have to sit across the table from older men. That was a challenge. There are trade-offs. As a young man I had a lot of energy and enthusiasm. On the whole I think it was a good combination. I had an experienced Council/Session (in the RCUS, Council = Consistory/Session). 

The RCUS has a requirement of an extended internship. I'm not sure the OP and PCA require the same but it is often what happens. The URC isn't very structured about many things but some of our grads have taken internships or become associate pastors. 

The internship requirement is a very good idea, but that said, I do recall Paul saying something about not despising Timothy's youth.

rsc




mangum said:


> Imagine the 24 year old with the freshly acquired M.Div. moderating a Session with the ruling elders being twice his senior, with 10 times the ministerial and pastoral care experience?
> 
> Speaking as a seminarian, under care of Presbytery, this should not be the case.
> 
> This may be somewhat off point but what about these married men with families that go to seminary all day long while the wife works to pay his way? A candidate for the gospel ministry ought to be working and ministering in the world while he undergoes his seminary training. These perpetual students you find in some seminaries have the maturity and experience level of a child.
> 
> One thing I know is a must: the student ought to be mentored personally buy a faithful, proven minister of the Word. There is no better mentor than one's own pastor who keeps him on the straight and narrow. DE and BM students can complete their training with little or nothing in the way of spiritual oversight. Believe me, if I wanted to I can continue taking my classes with maybe a sentence or two exchanged between me and my professors.
> 
> It is the _church's_ responsibility to disciple and train upcoming ministers.


----------



## Robert Truelove

The biblical teaching is that a man must be able to teach and convince the gainsayer. The insistence on Seminary or any 1 particular method over another for raising men up to the office of elder is simply not biblical. A man should be apt to teach and should be able to demonstrate that before his presbytery. I known men with doctorates who are utter morons and men with no formal education who are brilliant and vice-versa. 

If Presbyteries are so ignorant they cannot adequately assess the ability and understanding of a man (apart from a piece of paper), then perhaps we Presbyterians are all out to lunch?



fredtgreco said:


> Rich,
> 
> I'm happy to interact with you here. My position is (and has been) that there is no perfect or "necessary" method. I don't think Dr. Clark or any seminary should be the "fall guy" for anyone or any church. I think that in large part, failures in the pastorate need to fall squarely on churches, sessions and Presbyteries.
> 
> I'm also not arguing against seminary education. I think it is helpful to most, essential for some. We do indeed have impractical men with little experience running around trying to "minister" to widows by fire-hosing the lastest biblico-theologico-everythotherkindof-o trends in seminaries. But we also have men trying to minister by "just loving Jesus" who fall prey to all the latest theological poison because that kind of study "just wasn't important or practical for ministry."
> 
> What I have objected to is Dr. Clark's heavy-handed, Procrustean insistence that every would-be minister must attend a brick and mortar seminary.


----------



## tcalbrecht

R. Scott Clark said:


> Chris,
> The internship requirement is a very good idea, but that said, I do recall Paul saying something about not despising Timothy's youth.
> 
> rsc



But then again Timothy was not seminary trained. He had a rather extensive "internship" with Paul prior to assuming a "pastorate". 

Of course he didn't have to go somewhere and learn Greek and Hebrew.


----------



## VictorBravo

R. Scott Clark said:


> Fred,
> 
> 
> Which firms hire DE-trained or self-trained or non-traditionally trained lawyers?



I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I had to laugh a little about this.

Probably no big-name law firm would hire such a lawyer, but that doesn't mean much to those who go through non-traditional training. They already know they won't get hired by big firms.

On the other hand, one of the most successful attorneys I've ever met, both financially and ethically, went through self study and mentoring that was allowed in Montana. He is now considered one of the "Deans" of law practice in that state.


----------



## wsw201

I remember reading this before and thought it might give some biblical background into why Seminary training. It's an article by Joe Pipa of GPTS. You can find it here: Seminary Education


----------



## JOwen

R. Scott Clark said:


> Jerrold,
> 
> Do the men who tutor future ministers in the FCC FCS have the same level of expertise as practicing scholars?



This is a non-starter. Do the practicing scholars have the same level of expertise as the minister in _real ministry_? You are assuming that the practicing scholars are the _litmus test_, not the Church. In the ministry of the Church of Christ, I find no where the office of "practicing scholar". Pastors and teachers are the highest _offices_, period. If you were asking me if the tutor/ministers who train the students are qualified to do so, then the answer is yes. If this were not the case then the Synodical licensing is a wink-wink, nudge, nudge, titular body. "Well we will go through the motions and license and ordain, but your real sending has already come from the _practicing scholars_ of the Seminary". Do you not see how arrogant that sounds, not to mention unbiblical? If a Church is equipped to license, it is also equipped to teach. This is what makes Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary distinct; it is training pastors _by_ pastors.



> How can a man do all the things a faithful pastor is meant to do and keep up with secondary and primary lit in his field?


By being a lifelong student. Read, read, read. Also by networking with other ministers who have _specific interests_ in _certain fields_ and relying on each other at the Classical level. The minds of the many out preform the mind of the one almost every time. This is why Paul went of Jerusalem, to meet with the Apostles and Elders- to gain their collective mind. 
[/QUOTE]



> Do you disagree about the Old Side? They were very much in favor of university/academic training for their pastors. Even the LC men favored the College of NJ when it was founded. It was regarded as a great improvement. The relations between the two are complicated, but the LC was an anomaly not a pattern.



I'm saying that the Academy vs. the Seminary, and the Seminary's triumph in America, had as much to do with European Enlightenment Rationalism as anything else. 



> Jerrold, why is that everyone who ISN'T doing my job 12 hours a day knows how to do it better than I?



That's a bit unfair Scott. You are a top scholar in my opinion, and one of my favorites to boot. But don't insist that your higher level of achievement somehow makes you (and your peers) the standard by which all others are to be measured by in training men for the pastorate. I'll look to the Word for that plumb line, thanks. All along I have been insisting, not a one or the other, but a both and. You seem to discredit any other method because of the potential for abuse. Look, there has been a 'land grab' by the seminary over the years that now dominates the Church's thinking with no real questioning of its legitimacy. I'm advocating a self-correcting inspection of how things are done in training our students and to have an openness to methodology. That's all. 



> How in the world would you know that it's not that complicated? Can you hear the exasperation?



First, because I'm not an idiot (despite my spelling!). Second, we have created a lot of 'hamburger helper' in the Seminary that is not _essential_ to the ministry! What we need is a paring down of the system not a theological bureaucratic upturn. London Theological Seminary has a great model and I advocate something like it.



> Why am I not right in regarding your argument as fundamentally anti-intellectual?



Because the system I am advocating is not anti-intellectual. Here is the model I was trained under. Tell me what is anti intellectual about it? Keep in mind is is 164 years old.



> REGULATIONS FOR THE RECEPTION
> AND TRAINING OF STUDENTS
> FOR THE MINISTRY​
> II. Preliminary Courses.
> 
> 1. The Training of the Ministry Committee shall make full enquiry into the state of the student’s education and shall decide as to whether he shall take the University Arts Course or the General Arts Course.
> 
> 2. In the event of the student not possessing the necessary qualifications for entry to these Courses, the Training of the Ministry Committee shall prescribe a preliminary course so that the student can obtain these qualifications.
> 
> III. University Arts Course
> 
> 1. Course of Study.
> 
> Students shall be required to attend graduation classes in at least seven subjects during their three years’ university course. In advising a student that he is to take the University Arts Course, the Training of the Ministry Committee shall indicate the subjects which the student shall consider with his University Director of Studies. The subjects which a student is to take must be submitted to the Training of the Ministry Committee for approval immediately after the student has discussed them with his University Director of Studies.
> 
> 2. Class Certificates
> 
> On completing their university course, students shall present to the Training of the Ministry Committee class certificates setting forth that they have attended the classes regularly and passed the call and degree examinations. Failing the receipt of such certificates, the Training of the Ministry Committee shall report to the Synod, who shall decide whether further attendance at the University is necessary.
> 
> 3. Presbytery Examinations
> University Students shall be examines once a year by their Presbyteries on religious subject as follows:
> 
> First Year
> 
> Scripture	The Four Gospels.
> Larger Catechism	Questions 1-29.
> Shorter Catechism	Questions 1-52.
> Books	Dr. Bonar’s Life of MacCheyne;Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.
> 
> Second Year
> 
> Scripture	Acts to Galatians.
> Larger Catechism	Questions 30-61.
> Shorter Catechism	Questions 53-107.
> Books Edward’s Life of David Brainerd; Bunyan’s Holy War.
> 
> Third Year
> Scripture	Ephesians to Revelation.
> Larger Catechism	Questions 62-90.
> Shorter Catechism	Questions 1-107.
> Books	Autobiography of Dr. J. G. Paton;Guthrie’s Christian’s Great Interest.
> 
> IV. General Arts Course
> 
> Rhetoric and English
> Moral Philosophy and Logic
> New Testament Greek
> Scottish History
> Biology
> Hebrew
> 
> V. Divinity Course
> 
> I. Theological Course
> The Theological Course shall extend through three sessions of at least five months each.
> 
> The following subjects and such other subjects as the Synod may from time to time determine, shall be included in the course, and divided among the three Tutors as follows:—
> 
> (1) Hebrew; Old Testament Criticism; Church History; Pastoral Theology; Bible Instruction.
> 
> (2) Greek; New Testament Criticism; Catechetics; Church Law; Bible Instruction.
> 
> (3) Systematic Theology; Apologetics; Bible Instruction.
> 
> 2. Entrance Examination
> 
> Before admission to the Theological Classes, students shall be required to pass the board of Examiners’ entrance examination in Scripture, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Greek and Hebrew. The prescribed work shall be as follows:—
> 
> Scripture	Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew and Ephesians.
> Larger Catechism	Questions 1 to 90.
> Shorter Catechism	Questions 1 to 107.
> Greek	Grammar. The elements of New Testament Greek. Wenham. Greek text of Gospel according to Mark, Chaps. 1 to 8.
> Hebrew	Davidson’s Grammar, Chaps. 1 to 26 Hebrew text of the Book of Ruth.
> 
> The Board of Examiners shall communicate the results of this examination to the Training of the Ministry Committee, who shall certify the Tutors in respect of all students eligible for admission to the Theological Classes. Should any student fail to pass the entrance examination, the Training of the Ministry Committee shall report his case to the Synod and, unless in very exceptional circumstances, he shall not be permitted to enter the Theological Classes.
> 
> 3. Exit Examinations
> 
> There shall be an exit examination at the end of each session. Papers will be set on the work covered in the theological classes during the session. The Board of Examiners shall communicate the results of these examinations to the Training of the Ministry Committee, who in turn shall report to the Synod.
> 
> 4. Presbytery Examinations.
> 
> Divinity Students shall be examined by their Presbyteries on the following subjects during their theological course:
> 
> First Year
> 
> Scripture	Genesis to Ruth.
> Confession of Faith	Chapters 1-13.
> Larger Catechism	Questions 91-121.
> Shorter Catechism	Questions 1-52, with proof texts. ††
> Books	Bunyan’s Grace Abounding. Spurgeon’s Lectures to my Students (First series).
> 
> Second Year
> 
> Scripture	I Samuel to Psalms.
> Confession of Faith	Chapters 14-33.
> Larger Catechism	Questions 122-160.
> Shorter Catechism Questions 53-107, with proof texts.
> Books	Edwards on Religious Affections; Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students (Second series).
> 
> Third Year
> 
> Scripture	Proverbs to Malachi.
> Confession of Faith	Chapters 1-33, with Shaw on the confession.
> Larger Catechism	Questions 161-196.
> Shorter Catechism	Questions 1-107, with Fisher’s Catechism.
> Books	Baxter’s Reformed Pastor; Samuel Rutherford’s Letters.
> 
> 5. Presbytery Sermon
> 
> Divinity Students shall be required to preach a popular sermon, without manuscript, before their Presbytery at least once during their theological course, the date and place of meeting and also the prescribed text to be intimated to them by the Clerk of Presbytery at least two weeks beforehand.
> 
> Licence
> 
> (1) No student shall be taken on trials for licence until (a) he produces a certificate from the Training of the Ministry Committee showing that he has passed his exit examinations; (b) the clerk of the Presbytery to whom he has applied has notified the other Presbyteries of the Church; and (c) leave has been granted by the Synod to proceed with his licence trials.
> 
> (2) The following exercises shall be prescribed by Presbyteries as trials for licence:—
> (a) An exercise on some stated controversial subject.
> (b) A popular sermon on a given text.
> (c) An exegetical exercise on some prescribed portion of the Hebrew Old Testament.
> (d) An exegetical exercise on some prescribed portion of the Greek New Testament.
> Questions shall also be put to test the student’s knowledge of the Scriptures, Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms.
> (3) When a student has undergone all his trials to the satisfaction of a Presbytery, he shall be asked to answer the questions appointed to be put to students at their licensing, and to sign the formula. He shall then be licensed by the Moderator, in the name of the Presbytery, to preach the gospel, and the Clerk shall supply him with an extract of his licence.
> If, on the other hand, a student does not satisfy his Presbytery, he shall not be granted licence, but in such a case the Presbytery shall instruct the student as to his right of appeal to the Synod.
> 
> 1. The Board of Examiners
> (1) The Board of Examiners shall consist of the three theological tutors and three additional members appointed by the Synod.
> (2) It shall be the duty of the Board of Examiners to conduct the entrance and exit examinations of divinity students. In this connection, they shall appoint one examiner for each subject, and shall arrange the time at, and the conditions under which, these examinations will take place, due notice being given to the students concerned.



Tell me, where is the anti-intellectualism in this? Keep in mind that on top of this I have a degree in IT, and A B.Th (houns). You seem to be arguing that any approach that is not your approach is anti-intellectual. I'll let you see the flawed reasoning in it. 



> At the risk of ad hom argumentation, are you sure this is where you want to go? Do know the context of this argument and where it would lead?
> 
> Are you prepared to follow JM elsewhere? If not, why here?



No, just here. The reason he is safe here is because he has nothing to gain by arguing as he does. In fact he stands to lose _much_, which makes his argument that much more intriguing.



> There's nothing about the current model as practiced by WSC that precludes heavy involvement by the local church. Indeed our system REQUIRES that.



Good to hear.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Jerrold,

In the interests of time, I would like to focus on one question of principle rather than the particulars of your proposal.

We've been round this pole more than a few times and I don't expect to convince you, but I hope that you will at least appreciate how it seems to me that your approach is a subtle sort of anti-intellectualism. 

I think there is a difference between real, professional scholarship and that of the amateur variety. Frankly, most pastors are amateurs and they who have attended real seminaries know it. They see what real scholarship looks like and they know that isn't what they do. 

Real scholarship involves the reading of primary and secondary texts. It involves the critical appreciation of both. This is part of what separates professional scholars from amateurs. The latter only know what they read from the professionals and, to a larger degree, must rely on the judgment of professionals. For example, I'm working on Olevianus' Pauline Commentaries. Hardly anyone knows anything about them. Certainly pastors don't and aren't in a position to do. My students know what I tell them. Even if they could read Latin (a few of them can) they aren't equipped to put into proper context what they're reading. That's what I do and have been doing full-time since 1993. 

That's okay, they're not meant to be full-time vocational scholars and the profs aren't meant to be full-time vocational pastors (though our faculty are part-time pastors; we all preach, we all visit hospitals, we all serve our congregtions; we all do counseling etc so we are not remote from the life of the church as some (not you) like to insinuate.

It seems to me that you're saying that we really don't need scholars (as I've defined them) to teach our students. You seem to be saying that it's okay for well-read pastors (of which there are relatively few, it seems to me) teach other, younger, pastors. In my view, that is a form of anti-intellectualism, because though it professes to value learning, it only values it as a credential ("union card" to use Fred's term) or insofar as it is immediately practical to the life of the church. 

As to the nature of seminaries, I don't have time to sketch the whole history of education, but I take issue with your characterization. A university education was the norm from the 12-13th centuries. Calvin's lack of theological training was an anomaly and not entirely helpful. There may have been some benefits (some have argued) but arguably the Reformed after him and to clean up a bit because of his lack of training in some questions. There are things he didn't anticipate. His humanism (which some have over-emphasized) did help him leave us with a sound hermeneutic which makes his commentaries still remarkably useful (!) but you'll notice that the Reformed did not quote him slavishly and even took issue with him not long after his death. Luther's education was more typical. 

To those who've complained about the time it takes, well, since the 13th century anyway, it's always taken a certain number of years to earn a BA and then a BD or an Masters. These processes developed out of the practice of the church before the Reformation and were revised but not fundamentally rejected by the Protestants. 

We're our primary education as strong as Calvin's and our university training as strong as his (in classical education) we might be able to shorten things a bit, but even in the 16th century, when there was rather less to read, they still took their time. 

One of Calvin's great aims was to establish an Academy. He finally achieved it late in life. By the early 17th century, all the Reformed were university educated (with at least a BA, which in England matured to a Master of Ars) and many took a BD as well. 

Thus, the idea that a university educated ministry (a sem faculty is, historically considered) a university faculty in exile that has morphed in the 20th century into a tertium quid, is a product of the Enlightenment is something I don't understand at all.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

tcalbrecht said:


> But then again Timothy was not seminary trained. He had a rather extensive "internship" with Paul prior to assuming a "pastorate".
> 
> Of course he didn't have to go somewhere and learn Greek and Hebrew.



Tom,

I know you're kidding, but this is exactly why I say what I do about the normativity of the apostolic model. 

Presumably, Timothy had access to apostolic gifts or was in the company of the apostles and had recourse to resources that we do not now. I take it that there were prophets and others who had Spirit-inspired gifts and abilities that do not exist now.

We are cessastionists aren't we? If so, doesn't that speak to the necessity of seminary education?

rsc


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

There is good things to say on both sides.

Normally, Dr. Clark, I think it is a good thing that doctors don't hire "self-taught" doctors. Same with lawyers.

However, we should be open to the fact that people like Dr. Blalock should be smart enough to run as fast he he can to get Vivien Thomas in the surgery room with him. (If you are unsure about what I mean - watch this: http://www.hbo.com/films/stlm/ )

Sometimes, the Lord raises up people that are not only gifted, but even more gifted in their self-training, than many or most who are seminary trained.

There are, for example, more intellectually astute brothers AND sisters here on the Puritanboard, then most pastors that reside in the South Florida area (and that is speaking from experience in interacting with them on important issues).

That doesn't mean we should throw out seminaries, or that "home-schooled" pastors is necessarily a bad thing given the right situation in both.

If you asked me who I'd want operating on my newborn, I'd say Thomas any day of the week.

If you asked me who I'd want to sit under while they preach in the pulpit, I'd simply say a well-trained AND ministerially groomed minister.

I went to a brick and mortar bible college and seminary, and in my case (only speaking from experience) my training at Whitefield trumped RTS by light years. 

Reason I say that is because by the time I got to seminary, I already had 4 years of languages under my belt, had gone through, not only Greek, but 3 more years of advanced Greek, Greek Exegesis, critical text work, etc., (to use this as an example) and found that once I go to seminary, most people there were just starting Machen, and would end up with 1/4th of what I had already learned 4 years previously. So I was not impressed with RTS's Language study for MINISTERS. The same, in this kind of area would go for things practically like the Law, the RPW, Historical Theology, and a host of other things like the WCF. Can you imagine going through seminary and never even HEARING about the Westminster Confession but in passing? That's was RTS Orlando. So think about this - the number of graduates from that school when I graduated who had no previous experience in any kind of ministry of Bible education, went into the ministry without learning Greek Exegesis, or any kind of scholarly "academia". They learned what I learned the first 3 years of a Bible degree in college. And to me, that's scary, and today, that's normal.

I'm not trying to undermine seminary education. I'm for it in more ways than one. I'm just not 100% committed to saying that Vivien Thomas is not well prepared because he did not go to Medical School.


----------



## tcalbrecht

R. Scott Clark said:


> Tom,
> 
> I know you're kidding, but this is exactly why I say what I do about the normativity of the apostolic model.
> 
> Presumably, Timothy had access to apostolic gifts or was in the company of the apostles and had recourse to resources that we do not now. I take it that there were prophets and others who had Spirit-inspired gifts and abilities that do not exist now.
> 
> We are cessastionists aren't we? If so, doesn't that speak to the necessity of seminary education?
> 
> rsc



Well, yes and no.

What evidence do we have that Timothy was the beneficiary of any particular, identifiable apostolic gifts for his training in the gospel ministry? In fact, is it not true that ministers were trained for centuries in essentially the same way as Timothy?


----------



## Davidius

tcalbrecht said:


> Well, yes and no.
> 
> What evidence do we have that Timothy was the beneficiary of any particular, identifiable apostolic gifts for his training in the gospel ministry? In fact, is it not true that ministers were trained for centuries in essentially the same way as Timothy?



Not trying to just jump in, but Dr. Clark may be referring to this:

[bible] 1 Tim 4:14-15[/bible]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kevin said:


> Well said, Fred!
> 
> Rich, your example of the military falls down at this point; officers are employees who are paid to study.
> 
> My brother in law just got his MBA at the Naval graduate school in California. If I wanted to get my MBA at a local University I would have to do it around my full time job i.e. at night and pay out of pocket. This does not leave much time for peer interaction and one-on-one chats with profs. Of course his experience would be better. His classes would be during the day after resting all night, mine would be at night after working all day. He would have his evenings to study and still have weekends for his family...etc you get the point.
> 
> For us to advise men to follow the USMC example would mean that some denomination would have to hire the candidate and pay him to study. If some church were doing that now we would not be having this conversation.
> 
> We have a saying in politics that I think applies here; Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good!


It's not a political saying, it's pretty universal. My _point_ is that things could be this way. I acknowledge that Churches don't have the same resources but if they're committed to a man's education from the time of his identification through his ordination then it need not be "every man for himself".

Incidentally, it's called the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. I received my Masters in EE from there in 1996 and met my wife at the Church I attended there. Monterey is _beautiful_. The military has paid for my Bachelor's degrees and two Masters Degrees. It costs them a lot to educate their Officers but they do so because they value equipping them for a hard task. 

Some seem to miss the point of the amount of energy the military puts into weeding out people they don't want leading their people. The analogy should be even stronger in the Church. At best, I could be responsible for the physical deaths of Marines under my command due to my incompetence. How much more dangerous is the spiritual damage caused by incompetent ministers...


R. Scott Clark said:


> Kevin,
> 
> The RCUS does pay the tuition of its sem students. Frankly, I think all the denominations ought to do that. As it happens, they create freelance students and try to tidy up after the process.
> 
> rsc



Imagine that. What a novel concept.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

tcalbrecht said:


> Well, yes and no.
> 
> What evidence do we have that Timothy was the beneficiary of any particular, identifiable apostolic gifts for his training in the gospel ministry? In fact, is it not true that ministers were trained for centuries in essentially the same way as Timothy?



Tom,

There were catechetical schools by 200. There was a formal educational process very early in the history of the church and there were formal rabbinical schools well before that as a sort of precedent. There was an educational process for ministers. It was not as elaborate as it became, but there were certainly formal educational structures. As Christian theology became more elaborate (Origen's was pretty elaborate!) and as the church faced increasingly complex internal and external challenges, the educational process developed gradually.

I think a lot of folk accept the old German liberal notion that the early church (and the Apostolic church) was sort of amorphous and was only gradually made formal by the rise of the Roman episcopal system. That's not true. 

As I suggested earlier, there were cathedral schools in the early medieval period and those grew organically into universities in Paris and Oxford and by the mid 14th century universities were popping up across Europe as academic specialization kicked into high gear.

As to Timothy, I was thinking of the passage David cited. I take it that the charismata were widespread throughout the apostolic church and that such ceased with the close of the canon.

rsc


----------



## tcalbrecht

R. Scott Clark said:


> Tom,
> 
> There were catechetical schools by 200. There was a formal educational process very early in the history of the church and there were formal rabbinical schools well before that as a sort of precedent. There was an educational process for ministers. It was not as elaborate as it became, but there were certainly formal educational structures. As Christian theology became more elaborate (Origen's was pretty elaborate!) and as the church faced increasingly complex internal and external challenges, the educational process developed gradually.



Dr. Clark,

As I understand it, the early catechetical schools were not a particular training ground for ministers of the gospel, but were for inquirers into the Christian faith. Granted, there may have been a great deal of instruction in these schools, but not necessarily with an eye towards producing priests or bishops. In the very early church the model for instruction of ministers (elders) seems to have been via the same approach used by Paul with Timothy, or Jesus with the twelve. Elder-candidates learned at the feet of other elders in the context of the local church.

Even rabbinical schools, if we can somehow appropriate that model to the early church, was not a place where a bevy of instructors took turns stuffing theology into the heads of students. The rabbinical schools were generally run by a single rabbi whose singular views were taught. Thus the School of Shammai or School of Hillel.



R. Scott Clark said:


> I think a lot of folk accept the old German liberal notion that the early church (and the Apostolic church) was sort of amorphous and was only gradually made formal by the rise of the Roman episcopal system. That's not true.
> 
> As I suggested earlier, there were cathedral schools in the early medieval period and those grew organically into universities in Paris and Oxford and by the mid 14th century universities were popping up across Europe as academic specialization kicked into high gear.



But the gradual introduction of formalism does not necessitate the evolution to the university system of the late medieval era. How was Origen or Augustine or most of the early church fathers trained for the gospel ministry? Augustine was largely self-taught prior to being made a priest. And that seemed to have continued until being made bishop of Hippo.

We also have the tradition of Irenaeus learning at the feet of Polycarp who supposedly was trained by the apostle John. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> As to Timothy, I was thinking of the passage David cited. I take it that the charismata were widespread throughout the apostolic church and that such ceased with the close of the canon.
> 
> rsc



As I read the verse it is not clear that a particular extraordinary apostolic gift might be in view in the passage, or how that gift had an extraordinary role in Timothy's continued preparation for the office of pastor/teacher. Certainly not every occurrence of _charismata_ is meant to refer to an extraordinary gift (cf. 1 Peter 4:10). And certainly the gift of pastor/teacher was an ordinary one, meant to stay with the Church for her edification, purity, and growth.

While there seems to have been an extraordinary confirmation of that gift by a prophetic word, that prophecy and gift was also confirmed by the (ordinary) ordination by the presbytery.


----------



## ReadBavinck

Jerrold,

My experience at Westminster Seminary California (WSC) has been very different from your experiences elsewhere and the training you describe, especially in the two categories below. I am sorry you have had such poor experiences, they sound somewhat like my undergrad, which makes me all the more grateful for the blessing I receive here.

You say:


> Fallacy #2: Brick and mortar schools offer personal interaction with the professor.



I appreciate your point about being busy, there is certainly some truth to that. I've read thousands of pages since being in seminary and written quite a few myself. Our first born was born in October right around mid-terms. I'm going to school full-time. I intern at my church. I am self-employed. And on top of all this, my undisciplined nature has to be beaten in to submission so I'm not scrambling at the last minute on everything.

Yet in spite of all this, which I'm happy to do, I enjoy the very real interactions with my professors _and their families_ all the time. Drs. Clark, VanDrunen, Baugh, Jones, Estelle, and Kim have all spent long periods of time with me patiently helping me to think through issues that are often muddled in my mind--sometimes related to class, sometimes not. Dr. Estelle, often reminds us that his church (the OPC) has called him to teach at our seminary, and thus it is part of his ministry to be available and helpful. It's not uncommon to see him in a game of Ultimate Frisbee after class. In addition, this mentoring happens at school, in church, at parties, even in the student's homes!

And this is just the professors. Those in the administration (Brian Mills, Dick Cummings, and others) have also been very helpful and available to me in a number of different areas.

There is something you haven't mentioned which is important. It is not only my interaction with professors that is valuable to me, but I also learn a great deal from seeing my peers and professors interact and work together. And even the way the professors work with one another. This is no small thing. For example, at WSC we have something we call the Warfield seminar. There, faculty members present drafts or revisions of papers/projects they are working on. Then there is an opportunity for students and faculty member to ask questions and critique the presenter. Besides the opportunity to learn from the presenter, one also can learn a great deal from _the way_ professors critique and learn from one another. This sort of thing also happens in many informal ways.



> Fallacy #3: Brick and mortar schools offer a peer to peer atmosphere where students can sharpen each other.



In my case this is far from fallacious. I can’t emphasize how much certain brothers of mine (and sisters) have been helpful to me. These friends encourage me, teach me, humble me and help me learn how to learn. From fellowship on the Lord’s Day, to time spent after class, to late-night study sessions, to the pub after finals, this dull blade is slowly, but surely sharpened, by the caring and patient of people, whose different backgrounds and perspectives open my eyes in fascinating ways. I’m not talking about a sort of general people-group but particular names and faces, each with his/her own particularities—my friends.


----------



## fredtgreco

Whatever else this discussion has engendered, I find it supremely ironic that the following have been explicitly argued:

1. It is not only possible, but ordinary that seminary scholars are also great pastors.

2. It is not only unlikely, but nearly impossible that pastors can be great scholars as well.

Is it something in the water? Or the magic in the building?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

This seems mainly right to me, but it seems odd to think that the laity were catechized, i.e., formally instructed, but that ministers were not?

I don't want to read back into the 3rd century a highly developed pattern of ministerial education, but simply to say that what became the university developed organically out of earlier forms in response to various internal and external stimuli.

Yes, a lot of the instruction probably was personal (face to face!), in tutorials. Undergraduate and graduate instruction is still done this way in some places (as opposed to classroom settings).

Just because there were tutorials doesn't mean there wasn't some structure and genuine learning.

I don't think I suggested that the rabbinical schools were equal to modern day seminaries. I'm only providing more evidence of a pattern of the existence of formal education in various settings.

Formalism is a pejorative. 

Formal (structured) education is not necessarily formalism.

As to Augustine being "self-taught," I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? If you mean that he was self-taught in theology, I would concede that, but as I've said about Calvin and others, they test the rule. There aren't many like Augustine in the history of the church. We surely don't want to make him the pattern!

As to Timothy, I guess we must disagree about the degree to which the apostolic church is discontinuous with the post-apostolic church. No doubt God used what we think of as ordinary (which is ambiguous since it means both "ordained" and "not supernatural") means in Timothy's life, but he was instructed by a fellow who had been to the Third Heaven! 

Thus, I'm calling for caution in appealing to apostolic patterns generally. We can learn general principles, but to say that because Peter did X, therefore we should or can do it seems problematic.


----------



## wsw201

I find it ironic that the following have not been explicitly argued:

1. There are more RE's and Deacons in Christ's Church than TE's.

2. RE's and Deacons can and do have just as much impact on Christ's Church as TE's.

3. RE's and Deacons on the whole are the most poorly trained officers in Christ's Church.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Fred,

Are you being fair here?

I haven't claimed that the WSC faculty are great pastors (though I'm sure some of them are!) but only, in response to the complaint that academics are in an "ivory tower," that we are actively involved in the life of the church and that we come to our academic work with an acute sense of the pastoral needs of the local congregation and broader church.

In my experience, few pastors are "great" scholars. I don't think, however, that many practicing scholars are "great" scholars either. I certainly don't think of myself in such categories. I was distinguishing between professional and amateur (which I didn't use pejoratively).

I sense that this discussion has probably (once again) run it's course -- at least for me.

Cheers,

rsc




fredtgreco said:


> Whatever else this discussion has engendered, I find it supremely ironic that the following have been explicitly argued:
> 
> 1. It is not only possible, but ordinary that seminary scholars are also great pastors.
> 
> 2. It is not only unlikely, but nearly impossible that pastors can be great scholars as well.
> 
> Is it something in the water? Or the magic in the building?


----------



## JJF

I can only agree with Christopher. Humble theology is existentially ignited in the company of all the people that Christopher mentioned, at least at WSC. I have had the privilege of hearing several lectures (conversations) with Dr. Horton at a beautiful vineyard in Escondido--they weren't just "academic." He even bought a bottle of wine for us to share. You can't do that by distance, not yet anyway. There are very few ivory tower types at WSC, which is a breath of fresh air. Nevertheless, they're very fine scholars. 

Not only is there a serious academic ambience here, but we are shepherded by our pastors in our individual churches. I interact with non-seminarians every Lord's day, and I see professors do the same. This combination of atmospheres, both church and academy, all in one place, cannot be achieved by distance. At least for me, correspondence through email and telephone seems artificial. Haven't you ever been on the phone or behind a keyboard and wondered--if only I could see him/her?

Now, I'm not going into the pastorate, but I believe that being around this enviroment will make me a better academic. Such an educational experience, is, to put in another graduate's words "enobling and rare."


----------



## Catechist

I hope to go to seminary once my children are grown and after I retire. I only hope that a few of my children will join me DV.


----------



## cih1355

Poimen said:


> Is it just me or does this issue remind you of the 'home schooling vs. traditional schooling' debate?



Home schooling is not the same as distance education. In home schooling, the student has face-to-face interaction with the teacher because the teacher is in the home. There is no face-to-face interaction between the teacher and the student in distance learning.


----------



## Poimen

cih1355 said:


> Home schooling is not the same as distance education. In home schooling, the student has face-to-face interaction with the teacher because the teacher is in the home. There is no face-to-face interaction between the teacher and the student in distance learning.



Curt:

Perhaps I was somewhat cryptic in my statement: what I meant was that _the debate_ regarding the different types of seminaries reminded me of the _the debate_ regarding the different types of schooling. In other words, let us not be hasty to say either/or...


----------



## Dwimble

Forgive me for resurrecting this thread after it has been dead for a month, but I just read the entire thing (and the associated articles) and found it quite interesting. What I have found most interesting is some of the generally broad-brush statements that have been made about the difference between brick-and-mortar and distance-based seminaries. The differences in schools can be so vast that making such general statements about one side or the other can border on the nonsensical, and certainly can fall into the classical "straw man" category.

For one thing, it should be evident to any reasonably committed and mature Christian that the general state of ministers (and churches) in America is so bad that it could be considered an automatic indictment against the vast majority of seminaries, bible colleges, Christian schools, and so on...whether brick & mortar, distance, or whatever. I wouldn't be too quick to use such a monolithic term as "distance-based seminaries" and express so much concern over the relative quality of ministers being turned out by them when every year you can see the hordes of walking dead and Shambling Mounds staggering out of brick and mortar schools all over the nation (and world) fully prepared to make their future congregations twice the sons of Satan that they are.

If you wish to start comparing specific schools, well that's one thing. Or if you wish to detail a specific brick-and-mortar model and contrast that to a specific distance model, well that may be valid as well. But to use terms like "brick-and-mortar" and "distance" in such broad ways is completely irresponsible when your goal is to suggest that one is clearly better than the other. Which brick-and-mortar would that be? One with five teachers or fifty? One with high tuitions or low? How about a sprawling campus or one small building? Are you referring to one that has been accredited by the State or who rejects State accreditation? Are "world-renowned" scholars a necessity or merely properly trained teachers? And what about "distance-based?" Does that include schools with classes via Internet conferencing? How about classes online? What about schools with strict mentor and proctor requirements? Must schools have classes on video? Cassette? MP3? Is it sufficient if they are only in text form? How many teachers is necessary? How much personal contact is required between professors, students, etc before it is acceptable?

Just from my own experience the differences are too vast to make such broad comparisons. Here's one small example...my experience with a Hermeneutics course. I took Hermeneutics at a brick-and-mortar seminary years ago and am currently taking it again from a distance-based seminary now. The level of quality and difficulty between them is outrageous. The brick-and-mortar seminary's course was a ridiculous joke by comparison. It consisted of class lectures and a 300 or so page book with regular, "normal" sized print for a hardback book. The grade was based on answering about 150 study questions. Now, contrast that with my current distance-based course. It consists of 15+ hours of recorded lectures by Greg Bahnsen; about half a million words of reading in books by Fairbairn, Berkhof, Terry, and others; 262 questions over the lectures and reading; five quizzes; a 10-page-minimum exegetical paper; and a proctor administered final of 21 essay questions. I am also required to discuss the course with a mentor, and I have access to professors at the school whenever necessary. So, which one is better...the brick and mortar course or the distance course? The answer is certainly obvious.

I'm sure the same comparisons could be made between courses and schools all over, with either one or the other coming out on top in each case, having nothing whatsoever to do with brick-and-mortar or distance...because those categories are simply too ridiculously broad to compare in any responsible manner.


----------



## JOwen

I think both Dr. Clark and myself would be referring to well respected institutions under each model. Your points are correct, but I think they go without saying.

KIND REGARDS,


----------



## kceaster

*Three or four observations...*

First, I think we all need to remember God's sovereignty in these matters. God builds the man. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. We are epistles written. That means to me that God will sort all of this out. Does that mean that each man is the same? No. Does it mean that one who goes to seminary to study has infallible training and the one who spends his whole life in individual study and gains an online degree is lacking because he hasn't done the same kind of training? I can't really say how that could be. Jesus wrote both books, so to speak. 

To be sure, there may be more efficiency, economy, and quality in one over the other. But in the vast scheme of things, who is to judge? When I have seen men in their examinations, I don't recall any questions related to what professor X said about theology point Y during the student's third year. There weren't any better answers given because student 1 got a better grade in a brick and mortar seminary than student 2 got in a distance program. The answers were evaluated on their own merit, not with some arbitrary grade.

Is it optimal for a brick and mortar education? I think most people would answer yes. But optimal is not available to all. Forcing optimal on all would be akin to Nathaniel's comment about Jesus coming from Nazareth. Perhaps we should all be born in Geneva? (Nothing against Calvin, whatsoever, but hey, he was French.)

But the issue from Dr. Clark's side is that a man is lacking even though he's in the exact place that God put him. There's a reason why exceptions for education are written into the books of church order of the denominations. Each should be evaluated according to the grace God has given. If God does not give me the grace to go to Westminster, CA, why should someone look askance in my direction? We know that this happens, that a man is judged because of where he went to school. That shouldn't happen, In my humble opinion, unless the institution has a penchant for ruining men with the poison of heresy, but even then, he should be given the rope to hang himself or be exonerated by his witness. But a man shouldn't be judged lacking before he is examined, especially just because he didn't go brick and mortar.

Secondly, we are working under a paradigm that doesn't exactly have a great deal of history behind it. For one, we can't say that American public education hasn't had a profound effect on seminaries. We use the same kind of testing and grading that secular education uses. Only time will tell if this will give such an "infallible" witness to a man's readiness both theologically and practically. By and large, brick and mortar seminaries look alot like the world in regards to testing and measurement. On the flip side, a mentor program for distance education has more interpersonal measurement, In my humble opinion.

Thirdly, anti-intellectualism should not be mentioned in relation to DE. The DE student at Reformed seminaries deals with the same intellectual issues as the brick and mortar student. They both share the same doctrinal frontier. Both face the implications and intracacies of various beliefs and systems. The difference is in discipline. The DE student has the discipline to order himself to complete the work more independently than the brick and mortar student. He has to be more resourceful in some ways. But the brick and mortar student brings his own discipline to bear on the task that does not resemble the DE student's. But each must use the same brain functions. So, I don't really see how DE is less intellectual than brick and mortar.

Fourthly, and lastly, I think we'd all agree that the key to a good theological education is an ingredient that only God can supply. We can formulize all we want, but if a man is not called and equipped, the education question is moot. The reason I bring this up is because I think we set too high a standard for young men. We want them to come in straight out of college, before they have a family, before they've really lived a good deal of life, so that we can mold them into what we want them to be. That may work for the Marines, because being soldierly is a young man's game. But we're requiring elder characteristics out of men who are not long enough in tooth. Exceptions abound, and that's just what they should be, exceptions. Owens, Calvin, M'Cheyne, these were men who were elders before they were elders. But that needs to be looked into because I think that, far too often, instead of discouraging a young man because he believes himself to be called, we push him into it and require things of him that he's not yet ready to perform. I realize that this goes back to my sovereignty point and that I can't have it both ways. But we need to be thoughtful and have protocols in place so that we avoid pitfalls such as these. If we required a minimum age limit in our BCO's, and only granted exceptions on particular cases, perhaps we would help our cause by seeing that a man is more mature before placing him in front of his flock. I believed I was called as a teenager, too. But God has providentially made sure that I won't be foisted on His sheep before I'm ready. And I have no problem waiting another 10 or 20 years until, by His grace, He is finished with my training.

Anyhow,   

In Christ,

KC


----------



## R. Scott Clark

One brief comment on one Kevin's points:

The exception clauses that exist in church orders have their roots mainly in persecution. 

Please remember that our forefathers went to great expense and suffered considerable hardship to earn their university degrees and to get theological training after their BA when necessary. 

The exception clauses were intended to cover situations that arose as a result of persecution (there were times when it was simply impossible for a man to get the training he needed) or to cover those times when, in the providence of God, it was impossible to find a man with the proper training. Such was the case in the early days of the German Reformed Church in the US (later the RCUS). They called on a local school teacher to serve as pastor. He didn't have a great deal of theological training, however, and it showed in some instances. 

These exceptions were just that, exceptions intended to serve the church in exceptional circumstances.

In modern times the exception clause has sometimes become vehicle for mischief. The URC order omits any exception clause, though there is talk of adding one.

rsc

rsc


----------



## larryjf

The debate seems to mirror the KJVO debate in some ways.

One can say that the Bible declares its preservation, but we can't say that it declares how or in what manuscripts it is preserved.

One can say that the Bible declares pastors should be trained, but we can't say that it declares how or in what way to be trained. We can get the content of training from Scripture but not in exactly what setting training should take place in.

The pro-KJVO debates also tend to be anachronistic in nature, and i see the same tendency in the anti-distance argument. Our age is like no other in terms of computer access and i think that the Church should use it to its advantage instead of trying to stifle it.

In 20 years this will all probably be moot as many more programs will most likely be offered online in a plethora of disciplines.


----------



## kceaster

*Dr. Clark,*

I'll not dispute the historicity of your claims. I have no doubt that you speak the truth. However, I'll simply point out something you know well, that it isn't for persecution's sake that the OPC makes the exception now. FoG XXI.3 says, "It is highly reproachful to religion and dangerous to the church to entrust the preaching of the gospel to weak and ignorant men. The presbytery shall therefore license a candidate only if he has received a bachelor of arts degree, or its academic equivalent, from a college or university of reputable academic standing, and has completed an adequate course of study lasting at least one year and a half in a theological seminary." And the exception from XXI.6 reads, "That the most effectual measures may be taken to guard against the admission of unqualified men into the sacred office, no exception shall be made of any of the educational or other requirements for licensure outlined above unless the presbytery, after reporting the whole matter to the general assembly and weighing such advice as it may offer, shall judge, by a three-fourths vote of the members present, that the exception is warranted by the manifest qualifications of the candidate for the holy office of the gospel ministry."

The reason that the OPC grants exceptions (and the URC if they choose to amend their book) is because they realize that they cannot keep a man from the gospel ministry unless, by the Scriptures, the collective judgment of the assembly is that the man does not exhibit the "manifest qualifications...for the holy office of the gospel ministry."

It has been my experience that the OPC has not used this mischievously, and I don't believe you were claiming that they do. But no church can claim infallibly that they have not, at some time or another, allowed men to be licensed to preach the gospel who were not qualified. And some of these men were invariably taught by giants of the faith at highly respected brick and mortar seminaries.

Brick and mortar neither qualifies nor disqualifies any man for the gospel ministry. The same is true of any educational venue.

In Christ,

KC



R. Scott Clark said:


> One brief comment on one Kevin's points:
> 
> The exception clauses that exist in church orders have their roots mainly in persecution.
> 
> Please remember that our forefathers went to great expense and suffered considerable hardship to earn their university degrees and to get theological training after their BA when necessary.
> 
> The exception clauses were intended to cover situations that arose as a result of persecution (there were times when it was simply impossible for a man to get the training he needed) or to cover those times when, in the providence of God, it was impossible to find a man with the proper training. Such was the case in the early days of the German Reformed Church in the US (later the RCUS). They called on a local school teacher to serve as pastor. He didn't have a great deal of theological training, however, and it showed in some instances.
> 
> These exceptions were just that, exceptions intended to serve the church in exceptional circumstances.
> 
> In modern times the exception clause has sometimes become vehicle for mischief. The URC order omits any exception clause, though there is talk of adding one.
> 
> rsc
> 
> rsc


----------

