RTS versus Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by ARStager
Speaking of "virtual" seminaries.

What do you folks think of this as an educational innovation? Good or harmful? Or not necessarily either?

I know that WSC folks are highly critical of anything that smells like minister-degree-by-mail-order. No cariactures from me. Just curiosities.

I tend to think that a traditional residency is ideal, for theology is supposed to happen within the context of the church rather than individually. Obviously no degree is essentially "individual", virtually-earned or not.

I am having a hard time dealing with this subject myself. On the one hand, I really do see the point that brick and mortar seminaries are making. They can't really evaluate you, nor do you get the kind of one on one teaching that really helps. They are also right when they make the claim that some men take advantage of the distance model so that they can get their degree easy and without much work on their part.

However, I am working hard. I study just as much as the resident students. I work a 40 hour a week job to provide for my family, which some of them may or may not do. I have opportunities with my home church to minister and apply what I learn. Some residents have very limited opportunity in that area. I am being mentored by, In my humble opinion, two of the best ministers in the OPC, whereas if I moved to residency, I would not have these men as guides.

For me, I am torn between two philosophies. I know I am losing out on the personal experiences that only residency can provide. But on the same token, if I moved to residency, I may lose out on a very rich experience in my local church.

I exhorted last night for the first time, surrounded by my brothers and sisters who love me and want to help me in this endeavor, and I must say, I would lose something very valuable if I had to move to SC. Or perhaps, I could still remain in this type of relationship, only from a distance. I know it is feasible for me to come back and do monthly exhortations, but I would still miss out on the day to day ministry experiences.

Even as I type this, I know that I may have to move. My family and I are making plans so that if the time comes, we will do it. Part of the reason for this is because I keep hitting roadblocks and feel that I am very much "outside looking in" at most of what happens at GPTS.

I wish I could have both.

However, God trains the man, not the seminary. He does indeed use means, and the seminary and professors are part of that. But I trust in Him to do what is best for me. Only He knows what He has called me to do. So I will wait on Him.

I think there is value that may not be measured in training a man in the local church. I hope that brick and mortar seminaries will never lose sight of this.

In Christ,

KC
 
I've read with interest the comments here on Covenant Seminary. I graduated from there in 99 and had a great experience. I had to work a lot during my seminary training, so I wasn't quite as much a part of the on-campus life as I would have liked, but still I was very impressed. Here are some of the high points:

1. The faculty is very mature - I never heard a teacher say an ill thing about another teacher in class or out of class.
2. The emphasis on Christ, salvation by grace through faith, humility, etc. was very inspiring and convicting.
3. The focus is on the Bible - systematic theology classes are very exegetically focused; where things can't be known for certain, the professors are humble, and where they can be certain, you can bet you'll be seeing detailed exegesis on why that is the case.
4. It is the official seminary of the PCA, and so if you are headed to minister in the PCA, it is nice to contribute to the official channel for ministry training. We have so many cultures of belief in the PCA; it probably promotes the unity of the church when its pastors are formed in a common educational environment. Of course, the training other seminaries provide, and their geographical locations, makes them important too. But in general, it would seem to me that someone training for ministry in the PCA would want to go to the official seminary that answers to the denomination.
5. St. Louis has a wonderful variety of PCA churches - some with formal liturgy, church plants, contemporary sorts of services, multi-lingual churches, etc. It is really an amazing place that allows you to get exposure to many different ministries and see a lot of gifts that the PCA has. I, of course, wish there could be greater sharing of those gifts across all the churches, but that's where we are, and St. Louis is a great place to experience this.
6. St. Louis has a wonderful variety of educational resources - throught he "inter-university" program you can take classes at all the universities in town for Covenant credit. In seminary, I took a course on Anselm from Eleanore Stump over at St. Louis University. She is a famous philosopher of religion and the course was very helpful to me in deciding whether to pursue philosophy or theology for my Ph.D. work.
7. St. Louis is the Midwest - it has the best of all worlds - south, east, west, north. I am from Mississippi, and though I visited and liked RTS-Jackson, I thought it would be good to get out to another region of the country for a while and it has been a real blessing.

A few responses to concerns expressed here

Someone mentioned the maturity of the students and how a Ryle kind of piety is not emphasized. I would point to several resources on this issue - go to covenantseminary.edu and search the audio resources for Bryan Chapell's lecture "Profile of Today's Evangelical Church". It is a wonderful analysis of the state of evangelicalism and especially interesting here because he discusses the kinds of students they are seeing these days - many are converted in college, have very little understanding of traditional piety, but have a heart to serve others. The challenge is there, as is the promise, and so it shows that he is very aware of the potential dangers with license.

Apologetics classes. It is true that Jerram Barrs does not focus on methodology, but given that so little time in seminary can be devoted to apologetics - there is a whole bible to learn, theology to learn, languages to learn, preaching to learn, etc. - I think he takes a very helpful approach of trying to tame the inner Bahnsens that a lot of young men come to seminary with. Most of us will be in communities, ministering one-to-one with very mixed-up individuals. With them, apologetics will look more like "counseling for unbelief" than it will some kind of staged apologetical encounter. And so I don't fault Covenant for the approach it takes. And the library is full of books by Van Til :)

Anyway, I loved my time at covenant and think that anyone considering seminary should visit and take a hard look at it. It is a great place to learn the nature of a servant's heart and grow into a helpful and effective minister of God's word. If you are simply interested in taking extension courses, a lot of the community does this, and Covenant has had a great impact on ministers in other denominations who come for extra training (usually their denominations do not require as much education as the PCA does) and who know Covenant is a place where, even if they disagree with the PCA, the bible is honored and taught faithfully. So in some of my classes, there were local Methodist ministers, Baptist ministers, etc. who were edging closer to Calvinism with every course they took. Pretty neat, really.
 
Originally posted by Breadloaf
Okay, hi all. After a year and a half at Gordon Conwell I finally decided that as a Westminster guy, I have had enough of the "general evangelical" flavor of GCTS. Yes, I know that every Christian is not reformed or Presbyterian, and now it's time to move on. I'm all defence but no offence.

SO:

It has come down to :

RTS in Orlando or Jackson
Covenant.

Anything else I should be considering? Can anyone contrast the three seminaries?

We are looking for a (biblical) counseling program that my wife can be a part of, and we are looking for a local PCA church that is interested in being involved with their member's training in ministry.

Thanks. I know that I'm kind of :deadhorse: on this one.

God moves, we move.

Yours,


JK
PCA
Boston MA

My arguments against Covenant can be summed up in two words: St. Louis. 'Nuff said.

On the RTS side of the ball, the school has a very good counseling program (at the Jackson campus). RTS also sports the recently beatified Fred Greco. :lol: (Inside joke--he was recently featured in an RTS quarterly.)

Jackson also offers you First Pres. Ligon Duncan is one of the finest Presbyterian ministers in the nation (and adjunct faculty!) and the church readily uses seminarians in various ministry capacities.

RTS also has very good student housing in Jackson.

Jackson has a high crime rate, but its still liveable, especially in the suburbs.

Covenant...hmmm...I can't get beyond the St. Louis thing.

Seriously though, be prepared. RTS does NOT participate in the student loan program (Covenant does). There are scholarship funds available, but you might want to consider it.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
JK,

I would be remiss if I did not advise you to come to RTS Jackson. Jackson does have a very well known counselling program (Marriage & Family Therapy Program), although in all honesty I can't endorse it. It is sort of the center of Anti-Nouthetic counselling in the US.

But what I can do is suggest a visit!

90% of pastoral counseling can be handled by pointing out that a person's (unrepented of) sin is lying at the heart of the issue.

;)
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Covenant is where you go if you're an evangelical-who-happens-to-baptize-babies kind of presbyterian.
RTS Orlando is where you go if you're a pretty-boy, avante guarde type of guy.
RTS Jackson is where you go if you're angry and bitter at everyone else for being "less faithful" to the WCF than you.
GPTS is where you go if you if you're an RTS Jackson type of guy who additionally doesn't care if he can get a job upon graduation.
WTS PA is where you go if you've got a thing for "has beens."

Just my humble opinion. :scholar:

Please note: the above analysis is meant to be taken as at least slightly humorous. No serious offense is intended.

[Edited on 30-12-2004 by SolaScriptura]

Ben,

This must be why I am burned in effigy here on a weekly basis! :lol:
 
Originally posted by wsw201
Thanks for the replies. What exactly is the "good faith" subscription, and why do you find it so negative?

Good faith subscription is the position of the PCA regarding the ordination vows (specifically the vows concerning subscription to the Westminster Standards) a Teaching Elder makes. Basically its a "loose" subscription position. Loose subscription allows for a number of exceptions to the Standards and historically has lead to aberrant theology coming into the Church.

In your opinion...;)
 
Originally posted by ARStager
Originally posted by openairboy
As a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary, I give it mixed reviews. One, it isn't the den [of] vipers that many a person paint, especially in the South Carolina area.

...I "desanctified" during my time there... There is no emphasis on mortifying the flesh. The constant, "Oh, you don't want to be a legalist do you", which means, watch movies, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, don't talk about "quiet times", devotion, holiness, etc., but just say "grace" a lot and you have your shibboleth.

First, can you elaborate on your South Carolina comment? I'm new to South Carolina and only a Freshman -- okay, a Sophomore -- Presbyterian. There are 3 pastors at my church that have graduated from Covenant, and while RTS Charlotte is geographically closer, and while DeWitt has more ties with Jackson than anywhere, Covenant doesn't get a bad rap, at least at my church.

Second, I'm sorry to hear about the "desanctifying" effect of your time at CTS. But I will say this: If I don't find some classmates and even professors at the seminary I end up at who will go to the pub and talk about sanctification and culture and church over Guiness and a stogey, I'm going to be very disappointed.

Jackson has a good Irish pub that is an RTS haunt. Pipes are in vogue here. ;)

But a good point was raised it is not unique to Covenant. One's walk with Christ can truly suffer in seminary. It's ironic and sad.
 
Originally posted by Puritanhead
RTS Virtual is where you go if you are loaded up with student loans and have to work full-time and goto seminary part-time

AND you don't mind that you can't get a degree out of your efforts (and dollars)!
 
[[/quote] AND you don't mind that you can't get a degree out of your efforts (and dollars)! [/quote]

Now that is not true:um:

I am only about 6 classes away from having my MA from virtual.

I am currently finishing Christian History II with Dr. Richard Gamble and it was an online course. I see and hear the professor and the class is able to respond over the net with mics and cameras on their computers. In fact it is real cool!

I can take a live online class and then go downstairs and have dinner with my family. :banana:

For His Supremacy,
Steve Clevenger
 
Originally posted by RAS
wsw201?
openairboy?

RAS,

I can only go on what I know from people I know who attended Covenant. The comments they have made about the status of Covenant are along the lines that Keith mentioned. Covenant appeals to a more broadly Reformed cirriculum.
 
RAS - the only thing I'd point out is that Covenant is the official seminary of the denomination you're pursuing membership in. The fact that it is not "sectarian" (as in choosing one stream of the Reformed tradition to emphasize over others) is really a virtue and not a problem. The Westminster Confession itself was a kind of summation and aggregation of a wide stream of reformed thought and has been embraced by a wide variety of reformed folks. The PCA itself is a fairly big tent, I think we'd all agree. Plus, most students really need the basics and these are not as easily subject to narrowness. I mean, if you do an M.Div in three or four years, you've still only scratched the surface of the huge field of doctrine, scripture, church history, etc. One should hardly feel like a confident, competent controversialist after an M.Div. So the fact that your professors at Covenant will shy away from intramural debates and focus on the material at hand will really be a virtue for those seeking to minister to others. Sometimes I think young men (pot kettle black here), especially are prone to get interested in theology *via* controversy. But that is a kind of backwards way of getting at divine things. I think the more one learns, the humbler one should become (because now you know how much there is to learn and how much you really have no nope of mastering) and that should result in one being more reticent to seek a narrower expression of Reformational thought. There are non-negotiables, surely, and you'll get those at Covenant without a doubt. But there are easily three if not more years of essentials to cover in an M.Div. curriculum before one should really think about devoting significant time to controversy over the things that distinguish one stream of reformed thought from another. In summary, if you're not concerned about joining the PCA, then it would stand to reason that you shouldn't be concerned about taking a few classes here and there from its official seminary. The denomination and the seminary mirror each other in many ways, and you of course would need to be a Berean at any seminary.
 
Originally posted by refbaptdude
[
AND you don't mind that you can't get a degree out of your efforts (and dollars)! [/quote]

Now that is not true:um:

I am only about 6 classes away from having my MA from virtual.

I am currently finishing Christian History II with Dr. Richard Gamble and it was an online course. I see and hear the professor and the class is able to respond over the net with mics and cameras on their computers. In fact it is real cool!

I can take a live online class and then go downstairs and have dinner with my family. :banana:

For His Supremacy,
Steve Clevenger [/quote]

If that's the case, then I was unaware of it. Let me assure you, one cannot get the MDiv virutally. We have plenty of students who take the occaional onlince course to dodge certain professors but that will be changing next academic year. The shcool has decided that scholarship dollars cannot be spent on virtual classes nor do virtual classes count towards needed hours for financial assistance. One gets the idea that the school is *discouraging* virtual seminary, which from a marketing perspective, is a step in the wrong direction.
 
You can get an MA from RTS Virtual.

You cannot get an MDiv from RTS Virtual.

Almost every Presbytery in the PCA (and OPC) will require an MDiv, and an MA is not enough.

You can, however, get the MA Virtually, and then complete the rest of the work toward an MDiv on campus.

RTS is discouraging Virtual work by resident MDiv students. They are still encouraging those who cannot come to a campus to do work virtually.
 
Fred,

You are correct;)

The MA degree is what I am working toward not the MDiv. And I am not presbyterian but Reformed Baptist:worms:

The Washington DC satellite in the future hopes to offer the MDiv and I might be able to transfer my hours.

Grace to You,
Steve
 
JK,

Here's my take on WTS/CA.

1. As far as the biblical counseling practice goes, you'll have a solid exposure to it here. George Scipione directs the local counseling scene and gives instruction at the seminary every winter and summer semester. There are three main courses offered, which can be taken during your three successive winter terms: Intro to Biblical Counseling, Marriage and Family Counseling, and Advanced Counseling Issues. Along with this, you can sign up to be an observer at live counseling sessions for a semester. These are run through the local IBCD program (Institute for Biblical Counseling and Discipleship), and if you show up to all of them and engage in the weekly post counseling discussion (including critiquing the method of the counselor!) you can gain a couple of credits, I believe. You may also study and test for a certificate/license (or something of that nature) from the National Association of Nuothetic Counselors. His wife, and other trained women, have seminars during the year aimed specifically at training pastor's wives and women in the church. They run seminars during the year in local OPC/PCA congregations as well.

They focus heavily on critiquing non-biblical approaches to pastoral counseling (i.e. the mix of humanistic-naturalism and pop-psychology that is found in so many of the evangelical churches that we've attended in the past), yet are much more balanced in this than their critics would paint them. The authors read and discussed are Jay Adams, Wayne Mack, Ted Tripp, Ed Welch, and David Powlison. Very Christ centered, very biblically based, and very practical for real world application. They don't mince words about the nature of sin either, which is why so many compromised "Christian counselors" wince at their writings. Look into it. You can probably write IBCD for more info.

2. I admit that the school is not as strictly confessional as I would like, it does however smack WTS/PA in most areas where the latter has become more broadly evangelical, and loose in its theological formulation regarding evangelistic methods, etc. The reason for the confessional down playing which occurs at times at WTS/CA is due to, in my opinion, the fact that although it sets itself forth as a strongly confessional seminary it contains a mixed faculty. By this I mean that there is a sizeable proportion of faculty from Dutch churches (URCNA) that hold to the Three Forms of Unity as their standards. This creates a tension, because although in theory they are compatible reformed documents, you start focusing on the Westminster Standards exclusively and the other side feels slighted. Because of this there is not as systematic a study of these documents as you might find at Greenville. Although they do offer a confessional study of the WFC/3FU in alternate years.

3. Notable Faculty:

Hywel Jones - absolutely outstanding preaching courses, right-hand man of the late Lloyd-Jones.
David Van Drunen - a monster Systematician
Brian Estelle - studied Ancient Semitic Languages with one of the world's top Hebraists.
Dennis Johnson - one of the most humble men I've met; excellent exegete an teacher of pastoral theology
Scott Clark - excellent historical theologian (I think he knows his Vulgate better than his Greek and Hebrew); a man of convictions who does not step down when he has an axe to grind (although occassionally this gets ground on wayward students)
Robert Godfrey - I've heard several other reformed seminary presidents/faculty say that he is the best church historian you can get a seminary institution.

There are others of note, but my time is short.

By the way, don't get too hyped over Mike Horton. He may know his stuff in certain areas, but his theology is suspect to me. He is way too enamored with Barthians and "post-liberal" writers, and this comes out in his critique of certain reformed theologians. His views on the inerrancy and infallability of the Scriptures are at times very fuzzy, and a cause of concern to a number of students. And when you get a prof at an otherwise conservative school insisting that you must incorporate "gender-inclusive" style into your papers and essay exams (yes, we had no small debate over this) in order to be understood and have your writings accepted, well, you get my point. Put your head in liberal academic circles for too long, and you'll come out smelling like your friends.

I would say that if an accredited degree is important to you and you like rigorous academics, take WTS/CA. If you desire a more Old School Presbyterian school that values its history, the Westminster Standards, and has more biblical views on what the role of seminary education is in regards to the church (and what is allowed of women who may study there) take Greenville; although I don't know if they have a biblical counseling program. We came within a hair's breadth of going to Greenville, but the doors opened to WTS/CA instead. It's a great school, just very expensive to live down here.

Also, the languages are stressed here. You must pass all of your first year Greek and Hebrew courses, because they incorporate the languages heavily into the subsequent biblical studies. Very nicely integrated - and you can take Aramaic and Latin while you're at it! :2cents:

:book2::scholar::book2:

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by Archlute]
 
I am gaining an understanding of the practical concerns with Covenant. It seems to me that the practical concerns are subjective, seeing as schooling is alot about what you make of it and whther you are a determined hard-working student who is responsible for his holiness and education before God. And it seems to me that the primary source of sanctifying fellowship is in the context of the local church, to be supported by the seminary, not vice versa. If one's spirituality falls during seminary, is that the seminarys fault, the persons fault, or the local church's fault? Or maybe the better option is God in his providence is working in one's life in a way to bring them more and more to him and less and less to their own efforts. I know in my own life, I go through spiritual downs, and usually realize it was due to me depending on my own efforts or the efforts of others in some corner of my heart. Again and again I am reminded that my motivation for holiness is Christ, not for social standing or simply just to be holy as an end in itself. (I'm not attacking anyone in this paragraph, just personally sharing my thoughts)


But what are the supposed doctrinal deficiencies? I know that they came out last year against the NPP teachings. This is my biggest question, because of those who I have engaged in personal face-to-face conversations with on this, they have told me that Covenant is implicitly apostate. But this criticism came from people who thought independency from the entire church at large was "reformed", and that a church wasn't reformed unless it held to supralapsarian calvinism and the philosophy and theology of Gordon Clark, so understandably I have a tendency to take criticism of Covenant with a grain of salt. Specifically what doctrines do they deny that renders them broadly reformed, or broadly evangelical as others I think have said. If easier, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being most doctrinally pure and 1 being apsotate, where would you rank Covenant? The other seminaries like RTS, WTS, and GPTS?
 
Sadly, RAS, I think that sometimes when an institution gets criticized for not being reformed enough, the upshot is that they are not banging the reformed gong loudly enough. In other words, they may believe all the right things, but they are not as strident as they should be.

Further, it is always wise to think "by what standard?" when someone criticizes Covenant. By the standards of an exclusive psalmist, strict subscriptionist, nouthetic-only counseling perspective, yes, Covenant might be deficient. But by the standards of the PCA and the concerns for the fundamentals - inerrancy, justification by faith, etc. - Covenant is great and very reformed. The professors at Covenant have so much to offer - each having strengths in various areas. The bottom line is that seminary training is packed full of content and there simply isn't time in your average M.Div. curriculum to do more than equip a student to be a lifelong learner in the reformed tradition. The M.Div. is at its heart a professional degree, more akin to a Law Degree or a Medical Degree than a Ph.D.

I also would recommend thinking hard about the nature of the big concerns that the more conservative members of the PCA have. Consider nouthetic counseling, for example. I was just sure, before going to seminary, that it was the only way to go. And then I read a debate between the counseling prof from RTS, Hurley, the new-nouthetic guy from WTS, Powlison, and perhaps Crabb on the issue of Sola Scriptura and the methodology of counseling. It was an eye opening exchange, illustrating to me that Hurley, who is eclectic in his methodology of counseling, was very epistemologically aware of the issues, and very well equipped to defend his reasoning. Often times the "movements" in our circles are just over-corrections to very real problems. The church had something to learn from Jay Adams, no doubt. But I think in the end, these movements have to be tempered and appropriated wisely as one goes forward and isn't forced to be so dichotomous and "us and them" about the issue in question. So I don't think that criticism is always on target; most of the time it is an overreaction.

Look at the comments above criticizing Horton for requiring gender neutral language in papers. It isn't as if Horton is requiring gender neutral language for God the Father! So little things like that tend to get magnified. It is a phenomenon now that some students are more conservative than their reformed professors, and I think a lot of that has to do with the zeal of youth, the allure of easy answers, and allure of surety in a very fragmented world. I don't think everyone who nuances his or her answers or uses a more modern approach to the generic pronoun is comprising the faith.
 
Jonathan,

The things that folk such as yourself belittle are very often the indicators of things to come. I have seen enough slippery slope action begun in this manner, which then blossom into larger problems, to not be timid about calling these things on the floor from the get go. For the same reason, my family and I are currently leaving the PCA and transitioning to the OPC due to the push in many churches for women reading scripture and serving communion, a trend that many men in both denominations see as a harbinger of ills to come. This is a blurring of the ministerial office that, frankly, my session had no exegetical defense for. By the way, papers in seminary should be judged by their form and argumentation, not on whether or not their style offends some segment of academic elites.

AJM
 
Originally posted by Archlute
my family and I are currently leaving the PCA and transitioning to the OPC due to the push in many churches for women reading scripture and serving communion, a trend that many men in both denominations see as a harbinger of ills to come. This is a blurring of the ministerial office that, frankly, my session had no exegetical defense for

You sound like you have a problem with your session that needs to be addressed by Presbytery. Trust me when I say the PCA is not heading in the direction you just mentioned.

And going to the OPC might get you obsorbed into the PCA again. Heheheh.
 
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Archlute
my family and I are currently leaving the PCA and transitioning to the OPC due to the push in many churches for women reading scripture and serving communion, a trend that many men in both denominations see as a harbinger of ills to come. This is a blurring of the ministerial office that, frankly, my session had no exegetical defense for

You sound like you have a problem with your session that needs to be addressed by Presbytery. Trust me when I say the PCA is not heading in the direction you just mentioned.

And going to the OPC might get you obsorbed into the PCA again. Heheheh.

Sadly Kevin,

Your PCA experience is a bit limited, and limited to its most conservative area - Mississippi. The things described above are happening.
 
I do think women reading scripture, liturgically, and women serving communion is a problem. I also think, though, that women in the PCA often have real trouble trying to figure out their role in the church. So it is a challenge to figure out what to do to encourage them, use their gifts, etc. while maintaining the right kind of scripturally guided liturgical role for women. I have a feeling that churches that experiment with this are not trying to actively promote a feminist agenda, but are groping toward trying to figure out how to model a view of the church that draws *a* line somewhere with women not being pastors, but that doesn't draw the line in such a way as to exclude women. Very few PCA churches, I would guess, are trying to violate the prohibition of women preaching or admonishing the congregation. My guess is that their view of the ministry is such that they don't see the scripture readings as being the ministry of the word. I do, of course. I remember talking to Dr. Paul Helm about this - he was surprised when I mentioned that it was a controversy in the PCA over whether women may perform the scripture readings. He himself is a very conservative person, but owing to his particular reformed baptist type of context in England could not immediately have sympathy for the view that the reading of the word of God publicly *is* a ministry of the word. And I think the BCO even goes farther, perhaps confining the reading to the pastor, not necessarily just to any male, but that is fuzzy in the text there.

In the churches I grew up in in Mississippi, the service was essentially a few hymns, an extemporaneous pastoral prayer, and the climax or center was a big sermon that usually concluded with something approaching an evangelistic call. There was no real overarching redemptive "story" to the service. Many churches are returning to the more classical pattern of having a call to worship, praise, confession of sins, confession of faith, reading of the scriptures, sermon, offering, communion, etc. In this kind of service, it is more coherently a redemptive story and the pastor's leading the congregation (rather than assorted laypeople) through the story makes more sense. In the more "elements" approach to the service, I can see why even a pious woman might think - hey, in this big unorganized string of unrelated events, what would be so bad about women helping out?

So, to my mind, the problem isn't so much a matter of what women vs. men should be doing in the service - it is a problem of what the pastor or pastors vs. laypeople should be doing in the service and what kind of service is it - a string of required events, or a redemptive story moving from call, through repentance, through instruction, through reconciliation and peace.

Now, to bring it back to slippery slopes, we have to ask ourselves whether it was really some decision made hundreds of years ago - about the place of the sermon, the structure of the service, the nature of the pastoral office, that isn't the real first step on that slope. In that light, having a woman serve communion may be a natural application of some step taken much earlier that no one envisioned being a problem.

Now, my own ecumenical disposition would be tested pretty heartily if my church were to have women leading worship, and so I don't blame you for joining an OPC church if the local PCA church was really violating your conscience. But at the same time, I think things like this often happen because of deeper deficiencies in our theology of worship or in our theology of the pastoral office, and not because PCA men are suddenly abandoning complementarianism and becoming egalitarian feminists. I would hope that we could work together on these issues rather than split too quickly.

In that vein (and to bring this back to the topic of seminaries), Covenant held a conference on women in ministry and there is an eight part recording of it you can download for free from covenantseminary.edu. Just go to their resources thing and type "women" in the title search and you'll find them. I would especially commend Dan Doriani's excellent work on this issue. His book "Women in the Church" is really phenomenal. He has thought through this so thorougly. A little background - his mother is an ordained minister and one time at Covenant, she sat in on one of his classes in which he was arguing against women ministers. It was really a tough test of his convictions, I'm sure. But wow, he knows the exegetical issues well, and his approach is very winsome and helpful. So right there is another good reason to go to Covenant - getting to know Doriani.
 
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by ARStager
Originally posted by openairboy
As a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary, I give it mixed reviews. One, it isn't the den [of] vipers that many a person paint, especially in the South Carolina area.

...I "desanctified" during my time there... There is no emphasis on mortifying the flesh. The constant, "Oh, you don't want to be a legalist do you", which means, watch movies, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, don't talk about "quiet times", devotion, holiness, etc., but just say "grace" a lot and you have your shibboleth.

First, can you elaborate on your South Carolina comment? I'm new to South Carolina and only a Freshman -- okay, a Sophomore -- Presbyterian. There are 3 pastors at my church that have graduated from Covenant, and while RTS Charlotte is geographically closer, and while DeWitt has more ties with Jackson than anywhere, Covenant doesn't get a bad rap, at least at my church.

Second, I'm sorry to hear about the "desanctifying" effect of your time at CTS. But I will say this: If I don't find some classmates and even professors at the seminary I end up at who will go to the pub and talk about sanctification and culture and church over Guiness and a stogey, I'm going to be very disappointed.

Jackson has a good Irish pub that is an RTS haunt. Pipes are in vogue here. ;)

But a good point was raised it is not unique to Covenant. One's walk with Christ can truly suffer in seminary. It's ironic and sad.

On Campus, the ghetto as is known to most of us (on campus living residents) is our Pub and Pipes are definitly slim to none, I am the only one that smokes a pipe in the ghetto. Most others here smoke cigarettes, few cigars.

P.S. The Ghetto is where none of the women, are so if you are single and don't care what women think...this is the place for you. In my case, I am happily dating someone, yet they don't live near hear.
 
The main problem with the role of women in the Church in the PCA context is the patently absurd dictum that finds its genesis in St Louis:

"A woman may do anything that an unordained man may do."
 
Just to make things clear. Our decision to transition was based much more on our conservative theology of worship and covenantal education (esp. the use of catechising), and how those convictions work themselves out in the practice of the church. While appreciating much about the PCA, my family and I felt that our convictions were more in line, overall, with the tenor of the OPC (where we had been attenders for some time before coming to study here) and we made this move to preserve the peace of the churches, in addition to the well-being of our own consciences. I realize that this discussion diverges from the subject of the thread, but I wanted to make sure that nobody would take my comments as intending to slander fellow bretheren. Just divergent theological convictions in an area of great importance to us.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
The main problem with the role of women in the Church in the PCA context is the patently absurd dictum that finds its genesis in St Louis:

"A woman may do anything that an unordained man may do."

I dont originate from the PCA and have never been a part of one really. Is that really true? That scares me and makes me thankful that I am part of the MVP. Ah, if God would reveal to men and women their roles.
 
Yes, but look closer at the dictum:

"A woman may do anything that an unordained man may do."

On its own, I don't see how you could really object to it so stridently - after all, it is a "slogan" and thus always says some things but can't say everything. Think of "sola scriptura" - it doesn't really stand on its own without explaining that we mean that the Bible is the norm of norms - it trumps all other authorities, not that there aren't other subordinate authorities.

So what does the dictum "a woman may do anything that an unordained man may do" actually mean when it is fleshed out?

a. The dictum is probably with respect to Sunday morning worship - Lord's day worship, a time when unordained people can't do too much on any Presbyterian interpretation of the scriptures.
b. A lot of the impact of the dictum depends upon what you believe that an unordained man may do in worship!
c. etc. - we'd have to think through this carefully

I just think that we should be slow to judge on the basis of slogans. After all, from what I've heard, RTS actually allows women in preaching classes and allows women to get M.Div. degrees, if I'm not mistaken. Covenant requires that women receive a non-ordination-route M.Div., and they take a substitute course for the preaching curiculum that instructs them in how to lead studies, etc.

Further, even that dictum itself may be okay as far as it goes, but could be criticized for not wisely portraying male headship in the church's liturgical contexts. In other words, you might think that the dictum is unwise, but calling it "absurd" is probably an overreaction.

I also would urge you to listen to the tapes from the conference. Listen to Doriani even speak about the wisdom of not allowing a woman to teach an informal bible study regularly if it means that she begins to acquire a spiritual authority in the church that could be disruptive.

Anyway, surely this is something we can have a peaceful disagreement about - some people have a very low view of the pastoral office, and thus obviously they are going to see places in worship where laypeople can contribute. The PCA does not require people to have a position on whether or not a woman can read the scriptures in church. I think it is unwise in a Sunday morning liturgical context, but I would hardly want to criticize another church for doing it.

I also think that women have a lot of room to criticize the PCA; we seem to know a lot more about what women shoudln't do in corporate worship than we do about what they should do at every other time. At least the Covenant conference took on this question in a biblical way - the best way to counter feminism is to be sure that women are encouraged to do what God has designed them to do, not to only harp on what God has not designed them to do. Right?
 
Jonathan,

Let me cut to the chase:

Our standards (specifically the BCO here), which should be very familiar to those who espouse the slogan, specifically allow for an unordained man to preach. That is certain. In fact, we have an entire chapter in the BCO that touches on it: Licensure. Licensure is required for those men who regularly preach in a Presbytery. Every Presbytery has a threashold beneath which a man need not be licensed. And the semantic dodge of preach vs. exhort does not solve the problem; for otherwise it be a license to exhort regularly.

That is just one of the major issues in the PCA. As far as women reading Scripture, I would advise you to review the actions of the GA regarding the censure of a Presbytery (S. Florida, I believe) for having a woman read Scripture. But of course those who espouse this (not by any stretch limited to seminaries) ignore that action of the Church, as well as our practice for 500+ years.

I think I won't go any further than saying that there are a great many good men at Covenant (on the faculty and in the student body), and that there is much to be thankful for, but Covenant's general stand on men's and women's issues is not one of them. I know too much and am privy to too much to be persuaded otherwise at this point.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Jonathan,

Let me cut to the chase:

Our standards (specifically the BCO here), which should be very familiar to those who espouse the slogan, specifically allow for an unordained man to preach. That is certain. In fact, we have an entire chapter in the BCO that touches on it: Licensure. Licensure is required for those men who regularly preach in a Presbytery. Every Presbytery has a threashold beneath which a man need not be licensed. And the semantic dodge of preach vs. exhort does not solve the problem; for otherwise it be a license to exhort regularly.

That is just one of the major issues in the PCA. As far as women reading Scripture, I would advise you to review the actions of the GA regarding the censure of a Presbytery (S. Florida, I believe) for having a woman read Scripture. But of course those who espouse this (not by any stretch limited to seminaries) ignore that action of the Church, as well as our practice for 500+ years.

I think I won't go any further than saying that there are a great many good men at Covenant (on the faculty and in the student body), and that there is much to be thankful for, but Covenant's general stand on men's and women's issues is not one of them. I know too much and am privy to too much to be persuaded otherwise at this point.

I'm scared! Does that make me effeminate? (Note: This post has no bearing on conversation, please disregard).:detective:
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Jonathan,

Let me cut to the chase:

Our standards (specifically the BCO here), which should be very familiar to those who espouse the slogan, specifically allow for an unordained man to preach. That is certain. In fact, we have an entire chapter in the BCO that touches on it: Licensure. Licensure is required for those men who regularly preach in a Presbytery. Every Presbytery has a threashold beneath which a man need not be licensed. And the semantic dodge of preach vs. exhort does not solve the problem; for otherwise it be a license to exhort regularly.

That is just one of the major issues in the PCA. As far as women reading Scripture, I would advise you to review the actions of the GA regarding the censure of a Presbytery (S. Florida, I believe) for having a woman read Scripture. But of course those who espouse this (not by any stretch limited to seminaries) ignore that action of the Church, as well as our practice for 500+ years.

I think I won't go any further than saying that there are a great many good men at Covenant (on the faculty and in the student body), and that there is much to be thankful for, but Covenant's general stand on men's and women's issues is not one of them. I know too much and am privy to too much to be persuaded otherwise at this point.

Hmmm... As one who has sat and listened to professors insist on this point, it is hard for me to believe reports that they are soft on the issue. (Beside, I thought Tim Keller was the source of the dictum so Westminster East, not Covenant, would be the "villian" if there is one.

My own experience with well-meaning, and godly, but I think mistaken "neo-patriarchialist" movements within the Reformed sub-culture tend to attract me to the dictum, Fred. I have been in situations where the only real office seemed to be that of a male, and the Pastor was supposed to organize rotating teaching opportunities for these men and over see this teaching. Typically, (not in my direct experience) one finds a great deal of denigration of the ordained ministry in some of these circles, in the name of "the priesthood of all believers" where the actual creed is the priesthood of all male believers. Any "clericalism" is seen as an ursurpation.

My attraction to the dictum is this: men will be more plausible in expecting submission from their wives if they themselves will show some submission to God's gifts to the Church: pastors and teachers. I like pointing out that most men have to submit as well.

For what it is worth:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top