# Covenant Seminary & St. Louis



## Silas22 (Aug 15, 2017)

Hey friends, I am looking into Covenant Seminary in St. Louis and have some questions for current students or alumni. I applied 2 weeks ago and Lord willing will be starting in the spring. My family is looking into campus housing, and the 3 bedroom apartments run 950 a month and the 2 rooms are 850. I plan on working full time while attending, but I'm not quite sure I can afford the rent! Do any of you know of any employers who hire students from the seminary? What are some good employment opportunities whilst going to school? Also, should I consider living off campus?

Any help would be great! Thanks.


----------



## Edward (Aug 15, 2017)

I'd price housing in Clinton, Mississippi.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> I'd price housing in Clinton, Mississippi.



When I lived there years ago it was cheap. For all of the financial problems with RTS, they were very cheap on housing. Granted, I was single then, so there's that. The local neighborhoods ranged from middle class to "the streets," but even then it wasn't too bad and that was only on the Jackson part of Clinton Blvd.


----------



## Silas22 (Aug 16, 2017)

Guys, I'm looking at Covenant in St. Louis not RTS Jackson.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 16, 2017)

I think Edward was making a too subtle point about the choice of Covenant which is viewed by some as the source of progressive troubles in the PCA. Folks, offer advice to the OP. Charles, you might contact Wayne Sparkman at the PCA Historical Center. He may have some advice as to your needs.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 16, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think Edward was making a too subtle point about the choice of Covenant which is viewed by some as the source of progressive troubles in the PCA. Folks, offer advice to the OP. Charles, you might contact Wayne Sparkman at the PCA Historical Center. He may have some advice as to your needs.



Plus, why go to Covenant if you are a Baptist when there are Baptist options that are more reliably conservative and cheaper as well, especially for a Southern Baptist student? CTS is a source of progressive troubles along with Federal Visionist (and related issues) troubles.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 17, 2017)

I am a baptist and I took some classes at Covenant. Best place in St Louis to go, even for a baptist. West St. Louis is more expensive. But Covenant is next to both hwy 64-40 and 270 and so easy to travel. You can get housing in Fenton, 20 minutes away, where things are cheaper. My sending church is 15 minutes to the east of Covenant (a Calvinistic baptist church).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 17, 2017)

I got my MDiv at Covenant. As far as employment, Starbucks and Bank of America were good for hours and benefits. I worked at a place called Sunshine Ministries; they work with the homeless and those in rehab. I would change some things about the way they do things there but it was great ministry experience. Got to do some counseling with folks; also ended up preaching there at the chapel service a few times a month.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Silas22 (Aug 17, 2017)

Thanks friends, I was beginning to think nobody was going to address my op; But I guess I should clarify some things regarding my signature and profile.

I am a Southern Baptist looking to become Presbyterian, and I believe getting plugged into Covenant and the many PCA churches located around St. Louis may be the best option for me. There a very few PCA churches here in Arkansas, and I have been in contact with most of them.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 17, 2017)

Friend, you would be wise to consider OPC (Maplewood, I think) in the St. Louis area. I'd put the selection of a church before worrying about housing. That said, St. Louis is a very reasonable place to live. Students in the past have scored garage apartments with low rent in exchange for handyman work in west county. Oh, and brush up on the infield fly rule


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 17, 2017)

YRRSBCGuy said:


> Thanks friends, I was beginning to think nobody was going to address my op; But I guess I should clarify some things regarding my signature and profile.
> 
> I am a Southern Baptist looking to become Presbyterian, and I believe getting plugged into Covenant and the many PCA churches located around St. Louis may be the best option for me. There a very few PCA churches here in Arkansas, and I have been in contact with most of them.


Brother, I know another Baptist who enrolled at Covenant Seminary and came out dedicated to the Free Church (Continuing). He pastors the Free Church in the area: http://www.stlpresbyterian.org/


----------



## SCMcClure (Aug 18, 2017)

Hey Charles, it's Stuart from Covenant Admissions. I'd love to talk to you about some of the housing options. For instance, there are really affordable apartments and houses off campus to rent. Give us a call and we'd love to help out!

And for others, please know that Covenant is solidly in the reformed tradition as the denominational seminary of the PCA. If you want to know more about what's taught, free to check out our free lectures online or read some of the articles and books written by our faculty. Hope this helps!

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 19, 2017)

Did they actually change the name of their systematic theology class to "Missional Theology"?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## SCMcClure (Aug 19, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Did they actually change the name of their systematic theology class to "Missional Theology"?



Great question! Covenant didn't change the name of a systemic class or change what's taught in the departments. What happened was an intentional revision to the way the departments were categorized to further the mission of the seminary (which is about the mission of God). Here's an article written by our president and faculty about the change:

https://www.covenantseminary.edu/th...heology-covenant-seminary-biblical-missional/

Hope this answers your question more fully than I could.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 19, 2017)

SCMcClure said:


> Great question! Covenant didn't change the name of a systemic class or change what's taught in the departments. What happened was an intentional revision to the way the departments were categorized to further the mission of the seminary (which is about the mission of God). Here's an article written by our president and faculty about the change:
> 
> https://www.covenantseminary.edu/th...heology-covenant-seminary-biblical-missional/
> 
> Hope this answers your question more fully than I could.



I see. Normally when people talk about "missional theology," it means starting discussion clubs at places hipsters hang out, like Starbucks. And that's what got me nervous.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 20, 2017)

SCMcClure said:


> Great question! Covenant didn't change the name of a systemic class or change what's taught in the departments. What happened was an intentional revision to the way the departments were categorized to further the mission of the seminary (which is about the mission of God). Here's an article written by our president and faculty about the change:
> 
> https://www.covenantseminary.edu/th...heology-covenant-seminary-biblical-missional/
> 
> Hope this answers your question more fully than I could.


The problem I see with this article describing a seemingly innocuous move to move everything under the category of the "mission of God" is that missional becomes a sort of unchallenged "given" in the theology of the institution.

When you look at the way the article lays out what "missional" means by the Seminary, what category of theology is being employed to make the argument?
It's not precisely exegetical because it doesn't exegete specific Scriptures to note that, among all other portions of Scripture, the "mission of God" is at the fore of theology.

It is, in fact, a _systematic_ presentation of the Scriptures to make the argument that the "mission of God" is the archetectonic principle upon which the rest of theology rests.

A further problem is then exposed and this is the irony of the name of the seminary: Covenant.

For the Reformed, the Covenant of Grace has always been seen as the foundational element in theology. Why?

Because Christ is the alone Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. In fact, no fruition between God and man can occur outside of God condescending to man by way of Covenant. Man cannot arive at knowledge of God lest He descend into humanity to become the God-man and by His offices of Prophet, Priest, and King make all of theology fruitful to us.

Where is the "mission of God" in this?

It is apparently a step in theology where man, before considering the Covenant, apprehends that the "mission of God" is the structure of all theology. Where does the Covenant of Grace reside then? Within the super-structure of "missional theology". The Covenant and all other theological systems of the Scriptures will be understood in accordance with the first principle: the mission of God.

Has the faculty taken the time to actually demonstrate that "missional" arises from the system of doctrine of our Standards?

No.

It is merely asserted that it is the center, displaces Covenant theology as the archetectonic principle, and then informs us that nothing is changing with respect to systematic theology or any other discipline at Covenant.

I've been meaning to express this point for some time but have been busy. I have really wanted to ask, humbly, of Covenant seminary if they have considered what this move represents and how the mere assertion through an article on its website sufficiently demonstrates they have considered the implications of this theological move.

How is systematic theology supposed to ever "reform" missional theology if missional theology is the basis by which a system of doctrine is supposed to be understood?

I am concerned not so much about this generation but the generation that follows from this new foundation that has been laid.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 20, 2017)

I wondered too about how the article avoided covenant. And where is worship aside from a quick reference to liturgy? And why is evangelism preferred to discipleship which is the focus of the great commission.


----------



## SCMcClure (Aug 22, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The problem I see with this article describing a seemingly innocuous move to move everything under the category of the "mission of God" is that missional becomes a sort of unchallenged "given" in the theology of the institution.
> 
> When you look at the way the article lays out what "missional" means by the Seminary, what category of theology is being employed to make the argument?
> It's not precisely exegetical because it doesn't exegete specific Scriptures to note that, among all other portions of Scripture, the "mission of God" is at the fore of theology.
> ...




I appreciate your thoughts. Please know that this article was not meant to be exhaustive. But I also think it answers most of what you have asked or critiqued and deserves an open minded reread. It seems as though most of your concerns come from these _divisions_ possibly changing the course content, or lessening systematics, covenant theology, or the Westminster Standards (and therefore affecting future generations), but it was firmly stated that is doesn’t and that they are simply _academic_ _categories_ by which departments are divided.

Also, the faculty’s arguments seemed to be made from scripture and from specifically covenantal passages (though the phrase “covenant theology” isn’t explicitly stated). It also is worth noting that in our Covenant Theology classes we are clearly taught a reformed view of the covenants (check out _Far as the curse is found_ by Dr. Michael Williams as one of our standard texts).

And you said the word _concerned_ several times, which I appreciate. _Would you be willing to contact the faculty of the seminary to get a better understanding of what they did, why they did it, and how they exegetically got there? _There is a faculty email on our website that you can use to contact them. I think it would be helpful for you to get clarity from them and possibly helpful for them to have feedback (other than those who were involved in the process: faculty and the Board of trustees). And if you still have concerns, you can also go through your presbytery since we are accountable to the PCA and the General Assembly as the denominational seminary.

Hope this helps!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 22, 2017)

SCMcClure said:


> I appreciate your thoughts. Please know that this article was not meant to be exhaustive. But I also think it answers most of what you have asked or critiqued and deserves an open minded reread. It seems as though most of your concerns come from these _divisions_ possibly changing the course content, or lessening systematics, covenant theology, or the Westminster Standards (and therefore affecting future generations), but it was firmly stated that is doesn’t and that they are simply _academic_ _categories_ by which departments are divided.
> 
> Also, the faculty’s arguments seemed to be made from scripture and from specifically covenantal passages (though the phrase “covenant theology” isn’t explicitly stated). It also is worth noting that in our Covenant Theology classes we are clearly taught a reformed view of the covenants (check out _Far as the curse is found_ by Dr. Michael Williams as one of our standard texts).
> 
> ...


I think you may be missing my point.

I was at General Assembly when Covenant Seminary pretty much "announced" to the denomination that oversees it, that it had decided to change the name of the department overseeing a number of disciplines to the department of missional theology. There ensued mostly a period of questions and answers to the speaker as to the rationale for it because no justification had been offered for this change. The president offered that he would present an article describing the reasons for the change, which I have read. I maintain my concerns as expressed.

I know you haven't attended seminary and so I don't want to speak over your head or be patronizing but I didn't state that they failed to offer Biblical rationale for the decision. That said, there is in theology a sort of way to understand the Scriptures that can fall into categories of Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. Biblical theology covers overall exegetical themes in Scripture - for example, the progressive revelation of the Promised Seed to Christ. It acts as an exegetical (from the text) help to tie together specific passages to see larger themes developing. Systematic theology organizes Scriptural ideas or doctrines as they are presented in the Scriptures. What is the nature of God? What is the nature of the Covenant? What is the nature of sanctification, etc.

Systematic theology would answer the question (presumably): What is the nature of God's mission?

I honestly believe that, in 10 years, people will wonder why Covenant adopted a buzzword for it's main department of theology. My kids, the other day, told me "...kids don't talk like that anymore...."

Missional has been a hip way of describing a whole host of things. I was talking to a fellow PCA pastor who rents from a PCUSA congregation and asked him how the relationship was. He told me that the pastor there was actually a really good guy and was really focused on being missional.

Since the Pastor was a Barthian and into social outreach I can assume it meant the latter. The idea of reaching the community has been associated with being "missional".

In fact, because it is such a vague and hip term, the faculty at Covenant end up having to write: "This is what _we_ mean by the term missional" and provide a bunch of FAQ.

In other words, if missional meant much of anything solid then it would not require an FAQ. If I wrote that my Seminary was going to name its department of missional theology the department of systematic theology then I wouldn't need an FAQ because everyone knows what the latter is while everyone can bascially make up their own definition of the former. It's like the Marine Corps word "oorah". You can have a whole conversation based on voice inflection but the word is vaguely defined.

So I get back now to the article itself because this is the sum total of Covenant Seminary's explanation on what it means that they have a department of missional theology.

Remember when I wrote about systematic theology and the idea that "what is the mission of God" would be a category of systematic theology. Consequently, a systematic category should have some sort of way to see how it fits within the overall system of doctrine. For Presbyterians, our system of doctrine is the Westminister Standards. This article not only doesn't try to say: "We acknowledge that what we're doing is presenting "missional" as a systematic category and here is how it fits hand in glove with other doctrines like justification, covenant, sanctification, good works, etc."

Rather, the article sort of says: "This is what missional theology is. Based on the Biblical arguments we just made we are trying to show you why this should be considered at the center of how we think about God and our mission. Now, _in addtion_ to that, we want to assure you that we still hold to systematic theology but that's _over there_. That's something else we think about after we've already arrived at our conviction that we've just presented.

Put another way, if "missional theology" is the archetectonic theological idea upon which our system of doctrine should be considered then one would presume that we ought to modify our Westminster Standards to have a Chapter entitled "the mission of God" where we, as a Church, confess that this is what God is about and what all our theological energy and reflection ought to be guided by. My sense, however, is that they seem to think that missional theology is just something that can exist alongside of our system of doctrine and needs no harmonization.

That's what concerns me. Again, mission theology is just a given in the same what that being an inerrantist or confessing the Westminstter Standards is. Yet the three need to be coordinated and harmonized. Inerrancy already arises from the Westminister Standards but does "missional theology". If it does not then should it? Is it up to Covenant Seminary, a denominational seminary, to unilaterally decide that it does?

Finally, I found the article to be a little bit odd in its presentation. It seemed to go out of its way to use "mission" as many times as it could in order to prove that God's "mission" was at the fore. Instead of traditional words like decree it sought to find creative ways to prove the point.

As I noted, I'm very busy. I have thought about taking up these concerns more broadly but it came up here so I thought I'd spill out what I've been thinking about.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

