Training Men For Pastoral Ministry

[ServantsHeart]

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

 

[R. Scott Clark]

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

Here's an introductory essay on this topic.

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

Here's an introductory essay on this topic.

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

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

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

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

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

Yours,
Ben

 

[Marrow Man]

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

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

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

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

 

[jwithnell]

because in his context of coming out of the RC church

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

because in his context of coming out of the RC church

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

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

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

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

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Ben,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AThornquist]

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

 

[jwithnell]

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

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

 

[Wannabee]

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

Our graduates are prepared to enter pastoral ministry

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

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

 

[ServantsHeart]

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

 

[Wannabee]

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

 

[ServantsHeart]

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

 

[jwright82]

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

 

[ServantsHeart]

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

 

[R. Scott Clark]

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

That's the essential question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ServantsHeart]

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

 

[AThornquist]

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

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AThornquist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

 

[ServantsHeart]

1. 
   
   ​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

 

[ServantsHeart]

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

 

[AThornquist]

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

Point one, "The More Things Change" The electronics/internet means of training men from a distance or in home grown schools such as say MCTS in Owensboro KY. I do not think such church based schools will ever replace the Faithful Seminaries but will assist or compliment them on a local level. The Seminary can produce a greater number of candidates for Christian Ministry and at first no doubt a better trained student in some areas but as a Church based school matures and gathers to itself many able Professors I think this gap wil close somewhat. Quantity as long as it maintains quality is not a bad thing, but I don't think quality of education is only found in a well establisehed and long time Institution. Many once fine Seminaries are no longer such, if anything they are a great problem for the Church.

His second point is the,"Face to Face is Best". I agree that there ia a dynamic in the face to face setting in same intimate groups which is much better than a computer screen or email system,this I agree with but it does not mean any other method is therefore not able to be used to teach by as is granted by Pastor Clark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point Ten,"The Proper Role of Distance Education" If a local Church does not have a resident School or is close to a Seminary as I have stated it is a good thing to send our Pastors for continued training to such hopefully Church Overseen Seminaries. What I mean by Church Overseen is that no school should be Independant from the Churches that support it and use it to train future Pastors or better educated church members. It seems to me these Schools end up secular or full of Apostate Professors and students that become enemies of the Gospel. Concluding Thoughts,As long as the Slogan "The Whole Council Of GOD." Remains true I will bless GOD for WSC and all Seminaries like it, but I think there should be a level of Unity and Cooperation between local smaller Home Based Schools and the Seminaries and not a unhealthy compitition or distrust between them. It is my conviction that the Local Church should have a greater say and role in preparing men for Gospel Ministry and that Seminaries can be a great help to this cause but should never be disjointed from the Body Of Christ and Local Churches. If this can be done and maintained then I believe it is has been and will be a great help to the cause of Christ.

 

[Wannabee]

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

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

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

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

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

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