# The History of Educating Clergy



## N. Eshelman (Dec 11, 2007)

I have been discussing the need for seminary training with a friend of mine. He has asked some interesting questions that leave me without a book to recommend (which is rare!). Here are a few questions that I am not sure where to go with:

Why do we require a three (of four in my case) year program for ministers?
What is the history of this model? Is it rooted in the Scriptures, or have we just read that into the Scriptures?
In what instances would it be okay to ordain without seminary education?
Has this requirement for 3-4 years of training been helpful or a hindrance to the church overall?

These are just some thoughts that I am having. I am wondering if other have thought along these lines, or do we all just go through 'the hoops' as a way for all things to be done decently and in order?

Thanks for your help! For me, I am about to begin my last semester at Puritan Reformed, so these questions are for future counsel to young men pursuing the ministry!

For His Kingdom, 
Nate


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 11, 2007)

nleshelman said:


> I have been discussing the need for seminary training with a friend of mine. He has asked some interesting questions that leave me without a book to recommend (which is rare!). Here are a few questions that I am not sure where to go with:
> 
> Why do we require a three (of four in my case) year program for ministers?
> What is the history of this model? Is it rooted in the Scriptures, or have we just read that into the Scriptures?
> ...



I am not going to answer the question as such, just give my . I my denomination we have a ministerial college, where men are trained by serving pastors - not professional, academic theologians. They also spend the summer months on placement training under a minister in a congregation. This seems to be closer to the Biblical model than the seminaries you have in the states, but it is easier to do this in a small place like Northern Ireland.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 11, 2007)

Try this Please enable your cookies

I am nearly finished it now. Jack covers the history of ministerial education in the kirk & succession traditions.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 11, 2007)

Daniel and Kevin: 
The RPCNA also follows that idea with their seminary. They have 'pastors training pastors'. Of course, I am at Puritan Reformed Seminary which follows the Dutch model- and has a four office view. The professor of theology is the 'teacher' of 'pastors and teachers'. This was Calvin's view as well. We have one professor (GM Bilkes) who has been ordained as 'teacher'. Dr. Beeke is ordained as 'pastor' and has never officially been ordained as 'teacher'. We, of course, have Dr. David Murray from the Free Church (continuing) who is in a 3 office church. 

Best of both worlds? Who knows. 

Any thoughts on the history of seminary training? Books, articles, journals?


----------



## mr_burns (Dec 11, 2007)

Interesting thread...

Initial thoughts:

1. "We" don't all require it. Most mainline denominations in the states will require an MDiv in order to be ordained. However, you can still minister in a church without this degree... and sometime slip by the radar and even "pastor" a denominational church without one. Also, many of the new church planting movements do not require degrees for applicants to be pastors. I'm thinking specifically of Acts 29 which is throughly reformed and has a rigorous application and evaluation process... however, no degree is required... just sound theology and proven calling to plant churches.

2. I'm not sure you're going to find the seminary model in scripture. The best seminary is seen in Jesus and the 12... our seminaries aren't quite set up like that... but maybe something to shoot for?

Along with this, I don't think it discounts the benefit or need for seminary if we don't find it in scripture. I often think of the analogy of a surgeon. You wouldn't want someone to cut open your chest and operate on you who has not been trained... Yet, we are called to be surgeons of men's souls... I think I want to learn how to yield this scalpel a little better before I kill to many people in the pew...

3. Here again... "ordination" is interesting. Is this simply the "setting in of elders" that Paul commends Timothy to do? Is that Ordination? Is modern day ordination biblical? Is it not God who ordains? Do we simply recognize those who are ordained? Not many answers... just some thoughts.

Short answer, I'd say it is ok when the candidate meets the biblical requirements of Eldership. The bible give no other requirement to lead the church.

4. YES.

Those are my thoughts... I too would be interested to read a little more on the history if anyone has a recommendation.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 11, 2007)

Nate -- The following resources, while not comprehensive histories of theological education, may nevertheless be of some interest:

Robert W. Henderson, _The Teaching Office in the Reformed Tradition: A History of the Doctoral Ministry_ (1962)
William A. McComish, _Epigones: A Study of the Theology of the Genevan Academy at the Time of the Synod of Dort, With Special Reference to Giovanni Diodati_ (1989)
Walter Steuart, _Collections and Observations Concerning the Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland_ (1709, this edition 1770)
Matthew Poole, _A Model for the Maintaining of Students . . . at the University . . . in order to the Ministry_ (1658, to be republished by The Matthew Poole Project)

Older threads:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/education-time-reformation-bibliography-13680/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/office-doctor-4508/


----------



## Kevin (Dec 11, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Nate -- The following resources, while not comprehensive histories of theological education, may nevertheless be of some interest:
> 
> Robert W. Henderson, _The Teaching Office in the Reformed Tradition: A History of the Doctoral Ministry_ (1962)
> William A. McComish, _Epigones: A Study of the Theology of the Genevan Academy at the Time of the Synod of Dort, With Special Reference to Giovanni Diodati_ (1989)
> ...



Thanks for the old threads Andrew.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 11, 2007)

I'm not exactly answering the questions in the OP.

Before anyone dismisses education (and I do believe that "field training" is also essential to any successful training program), he should at least investigate the nature of the "sons of the prophets" who were associated with the ministries of Elijah and (primarily) Elisha.

refs:
1 Ki. 20:35
2 Ki. 2:3, 5, 7, 15
2 Ki. 4:1, 38
2 Ki. 5:22
2 Ki. 6:1
2 Ki. 9:1

Not every pastor can mentor another pastor. Not everyone is cut out for that work. Seminary has proven to be an efficient means of training, even if it isn't the only method we can think of. 3-4 years, given the work involved, plus other demands on many (most?) seminarian's time, is not an unreasonable commitment. Medical doctors need that much time, and more. So do Engineers and Architects. Should the ministry be less demanding? You be the judge.

Regarding ordination: this is the setting apart of a man _with a call to serve in the church_ to the ministry. Men don't simply graduate, and then "get ordained," at least not in any well-ordered church. It does include the "laying on of the hands of Presbytery" (1 Tim. 4:14), and is the solemn setting apart of a man to be a church officer--deacon, elder, or minister. Examination is integral to ordination, but usually that happens well in advance of the charges, oaths, hands, and prayers.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 12, 2007)

The pattern of ministerial education is traceable to the patristic period in certain respects and to the medieval educational pattern. 

After the Renaissance, in the Reformation, before university students studied the trivium -grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Study of these loci continued in university. Prepatory school tended to focus on the aquistion of languages (the vulgar, Latin, and, in some cases, Greek). In University students would come face to face with Aristotle in the Organon and other "greats." The trivium was designed to foster the ability to explain and defend a point of view. The MA was more focused on the quadrivium (music, astronomy, maths, geometry -- students would read more difficult texts in Aristotle). 

Depending upon the curriculum and university, divinity students would take a bachelor's degree in the Bible, and then in the sentences (theology, in the medieval schools). Luther's entire program from BA to MA at Eurfurt took about 4 years, but in the more traditional curriculum it could take much longer and the MA longer still.

The English clergy were expected, under Elizabeth I, to have an MA. The reformation of ministerial education in the 16th century made things somewhat fluid. E.g. Olevianus had a BA and a somewhat ad hoc and brief ministerial education in Geneva and in Zurich. Ursinus took his BA and spent a 7-year long post-grad internship with Melanchthon. Calvin had essentially a BA in classics. Many of the 16th-century Reformers had essentially an BA in liberal arts or classics. It took time for Protestants to develop theology faculties (departments).

In the post-Reformation period the pattern moved back toward the medieval pattern in some respects, depending upon the circumstances. 

rsc


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 12, 2007)

This is interesting stuff gentlemen. Recently I read Seeking A Better Country by D.G. Hart and John Muetheur (a PB member) and I think they said that the idea of seminaries was more Roman Catholic in origins than Protestant. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 11, 2008)

Another useful resource here is by Joey Pipa, "Seminary Education," in _The Confessional Presbyterian_ (2007), Vol. 3, pp. 223-230.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 12, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Another useful resource here is by Joey Pipa, "Seminary Education," in _The Confessional Presbyterian_ (2007), Vol. 3, pp. 223-230.



What line does he take?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 12, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > Another useful resource here is by Joey Pipa, "Seminary Education," in _The Confessional Presbyterian_ (2007), Vol. 3, pp. 223-230.
> ...



He gives an historical overview of the history of training ministers starting with the company of prophets in 1 Samuel 10.5 and elsewhere, through Paul's education at the school of Gamaliel, Clement of Alexandria's Catechetical School, the monastic schools of the Middle Ages, the European universities, Protestant Reformation-era ministerial training, Old World and New World Puritan theological education, and then spends more time covering American theological education under the parsonage and university systems, focusing on the Princeton model (asserting that GPTS follows that model), weighing the pros and cons of distance education, and setting forth the proper goals of ministerial education overall. That's a brief summary; hope that is helpful.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 12, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > VirginiaHuguenot said:
> ...



Very helpful indeed, thanks.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 12, 2008)

There's also a pertinent article in the recent WTJ by Tim Witmer. He defends the traditional seminary education (which is to be expected, given that it's his job!) I don't know yet which position I favor. There is something to be said for the pastoral training method. However, as Bruce pointed out, not every pastor is qualified/has the time to do something like that. For most pastors, if they had to train a minister, that trainee would have to shoulder quite a bit of the burden of the ministry. The plus side of that method is that the student gets a much more accurate feel for the ministry. The PCA is wise to require a 1 year internship before ordination. The advantage of the seminary is that learning the hermeneutical tools can happen much more efficiently.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 12, 2008)

Why Pastors Need a Seminary Education

For those who haven't seen it.

A version of this was also published in EVANGELIUM


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 12, 2008)

As to whether seminary training is "Roman Catholic," see my post above. Ministerial training began with catechetical training in the patristic period. Those catechetical schools became cathedral schools in the early medieval period. In the high medieval period those cathedral schools became theology faculties in universities. Ministerial training was done there until the Reformation, where there was a brief hiatus because of the relative absence of Protestant theology faculties!. The Protestants set up academies and as some university faculties were reformed training returned to the university until the Enlightenment when gradually theology was thrown out of the university. Contemporary seminaries are essentially university theology faculties in exile.

Roman Catholic? Only if anything that happened before the Reformation is "Roman Catholic."

rsc


----------



## Poimen (Jan 12, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> The PCA is wise to require a 1 year internship before ordination.





I think our denomination should require the same. At Westminster West we were required to perform 700 hours of (varied) ministerial work in order to graduate in the M.Div. program. This was excellent but perhaps more so was the 11 months of internship I finished after seminary. 

Something along these lines, I believe, would satisfy those who (rightly) desire pastoral training as much as theological training for our ministers.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 12, 2008)

WOW, great discussion!




What do you recommend for Third World churches who struggle in all areas? 

What if illiteracy is high and no schools exist but a local church is being rasied up? 

How long would these churches be kept under missionary tutelage and at what point will locally and informally trained leaders be entrusted to lead their own people?

The church is growing like fire (wildfire in some cases) in many parts of Asia. What education should be required so as to adequately equip, but not slow down the spread of the Faith?


----------

