Bag of Stones

[Marrow Man]

I found this interesting article at American Vision concerning the education of pastors. In particular, there was this quote from Rushdoony:

The seminary, thus, will endlessly analyze the theories of the adherents of the Graf-Wellhausen myth. Instead of teaching the Bible, it will be dealing with "problems" in terms of critical analysis. It will grant moral validity to the enemy's objections and objectives. The student majoring in either Old or New Testament will know much about what the enemy has to say, but he can leave seminary and be unable, in an ordination examination, to name four minor prophets, spell Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Habakkuk, name the Ten Commandments, or do other like elementary things. (These are actual illustrations, from examinations.) It stands to reason that he cannot summarize the main points of Romans, I Corinthians, Haggai, or Jeremiah. He can, however, discuss ably the Graf-Wellhausen theory, so that, as a pastor, he has a good bag of stones to feed Christ's flock.

If the student is a theology major, it is unlikely that he will leave the seminary with a full reading of any great theologian. He may be "Reformed," but it is unlikely that he will have read Calvin's Institutes. A course in Calvin, the church fathers, Luther, Van Til, or any other like thinker is very unlikely. But he will get courses on the current theological idiot of the covenant-breaker's church. After all, must he not have a box-full of serpents for Christ's flock?

The point is good, but a bit different from my own seminary experience (the work was written in 1979, so things may have changed somewhat since then); e.g, we read Calvin and we were required to outline books of the Bible in ordination examinations. I'm wondering how far this is true of our Reformed seminaries, however.

A second observation: we are supposed to be confessional as Reformed believers. However, I don't remember a detailed discussion of, say, the Westminster Confession while in seminary. True, it was often referenced in Systematic Theology class, we had to memorize the Shorter Catechism, etc., but would not men headed to the ministry not profit from a detailed, point-by-point analysis of our confessional standards? Perhaps then we would not have the confessional confusion that seem to be creeping into the ordained ministry these days.

 

[Edward]

we had to memorize the Shorter Catechism, etc., but would not men headed to the ministry not profit from a detailed, point-by-point analysis of our confessional standards?

That's a good point. Memorization, while it has its own benefits, does not equal learning the subject matter.

 

[chbrooking]

I'm sure there are a few seminaries out there that might be subject to Rushdoony's complaint, but is he painting seminaries broadly with this brush? Sorry, didn't read the article first -- I'm in a time crunch (my boys' have baseball)