Brick and Morter Seminaries v. Distance Ed Seminaries

Unless things changed recently they will allow one to be an interim at a church but not as a full time pastor and professor. Their rules will not allow a professor to serve as a full time professor and full time pastor. They can be an adjunct professor and full time pastor or full time professor and interim pastor but not full time for both.

 

There's no need for every church to have a seminary. Somewhere along the line, I think some here stopped paying attention to the point. Seminaries are for training pastors, and that should be done by local churches with seminaries. Local churches are for making disciples and that should be done by every local church. Someone doesn't have to go to seminary to learn enough theology to lead a Bible study and make disciples in the local church.

 

I didn't say anything about being a pastor or even a full time pastor. I said teaching. I think the profs are all allowed to teach at their churches. There is really no way to pastor a church part time and teach part time if the church is of any size at all. And there is no need to really.

 

Your point has always been my point. I think every prospective pastor including those applying to seminaries should be able to show proven leadership in the disciples they have made. By requiring that, it would put pressure on churches to make disciples and train leaders. Too many pastors are sidetracked by "emergencies" in the churches they pastor. Why should the pastor be spending his time dealing with issues that someone else can deal with. It would free up the pastor to do the things other would find difficult to do or would not have much time to do those things. There are too many "emergencies" rather than leadership and training. Trained leaders can often take care of those emergencies.

A few years ago I read an article which stated that the pastors who train others work less hours than those chasing emergencies and they spend more time with the families.

 

Seminaries are not just for training pastors. Seminaries are also for the graduate study of religion and theology.

If a layperson wants to study theology on a graduate level, that is his or her prerogative.

 

==In the sense that seminary students are disciples of their teachers I suppose it is a form of discipleship. However in that respect the seminary is no different than any other college/university. A teach disciples his/her students. However if you are talking about spiritual discipleship the seminary's main job is not discipleship. The main job of the seminary is education. Discipleship is up to individual church leaders, mainly in the student's home church.

==Where? In the local church. That is where discipleship happens.

==It is higher education. The seminary teaches students theology, history, law, education, business, etc. Those students must meet certain academic qualifications (degrees, grades, etc) or else they are not accepted or let go. That is higher education, a school. The subject maybe the Bible (etc) but it is still school. A professor at a seminary may view their teaching as a ministry in the same way that I view my teaching as a ministry of sorts. Everything we do as Christians is to be a ministry (for the Lord). But the seminary its self is a school of higher education and not a church or ministry body.

==The context there is the local church, not a institution of higher learning. So I don't think that verse fits the purpose of the seminary.

I know my views here go against the majority, and I am fine with that. Seminary is only a ministry at the individual level, just like anything a Christian does for the Lord.

Nothing in the realm of higher education prevents effective theological training online. The personal discipleship, mentoring, etc, should be done by the local church (etc). Seminary distance learning can and sometimes does combine the internet with a real life mentorship. My mentor is my pastor.

 

I am not sure what this distinction is really.

Of course, but if a pastor has been properly trained and is properly training others, this can be done for the most part in the local church. I don't have a problem with "lay people" going to seminary. I think it is good.

 

I agree.

If education is teaching and learning, and if discipleship is teaching and learning, what is your distinction here? I think we too often put discipleship in some feel good emotive realm and fail to realize that teaching is discipleship. It is what the word means, and of course, that can take place in a number of different formats and contexts.

Here's a big difference perhaps. I think discipleship is the responsibility of every believer, not just the leaders.

Exactly. That's my point.

So why isn't seminary ministry? Ministry is service. Are not people being served by teaching theology, history, etc? (I don't know too many seminaries teaching law or business.) I think you are wrongly defining ministry here.

If I am correct that the seminary should be in the local church (and no one has really challenged that), and that the seminary should be training men to teach others, then that verse lays out the precise purpose of the seminary: faithful men teaching faithful mean who will be able to teach others also. If that's not what is going on in seminary, what is?

And what other kind of ministry is there?

 

There are several bromides floating around here. I must address them.
1. "Seminary isn't ministry."
Bunk. Seminary preparation is indeed ministry. It's 2 Tim 2:2 at its core.
2. "Discipleship should not come from the seminary"
While the job of the church is to make disciples, why can't seminaries disciple? You want breadth without depth?
3. "Seminary is just another form of higher education"
well, technically, but not really. It is to prepare ministers/missionaries who deal with souls, handling eternal verities to quote Spurgeon.

Also fallacious is the idea that the SBC seminaries are not church run. Yes they are. To say they are not is ignorance. The church's messengers elect the trustees who elect those who hire the profs. The boards of the seminaries are all church elected by the SBC messengers from the local churches. That's how the liberals took over in the 50s-60s and that's thankfully how the conservatives wrested control away in the 80s-90s.

I am not aware of such a prohibition in place any longer. I can think of about six profs at SBTS and SEBTS that I know of right off the top of my head that are FT pastors / staff ministers as well as FT profs. It's been that way for at least ten years, if not longer.

More fallacy: RE students do not get practical experience. While many don't, many do. They are mentored by profs/local pastors/fellow ministers.

I will not improve on my summation offered much earlier. I just wanted to correct some myths. No question this will never be settled. Some are convinced that RE is the only way. Some DE folks look down their nose at RE. That will always be.

 

I am not saying it can't be, but what Paul is speaking of is not exactly a seminary.

A "disciple" by definition, is someone you do life with, instructing them along the way (think Jesus and the 12). "Class" is not discipleship, unless you are doing life with that person. A professor that is teaching hundreds of people, cannot effectively "disciple" them. He can effectively teach them, though.

You learn Greek/Hebrew. New Testament Exegesis, Old Testament, etc. It is Biblical education: which can be done through DE.

This is not "Church run". This is "Convention run". It is being run by members of the convention, not members of a single local church. In order for the distinction that Pastor Larry is trying to make (in other words, something that would eliminate DE), it would have to be run by a local Church: ie Pastor, elders, deacons, etc.

"Convention" run, like the SBC seminaries are, would not disqualify DE.

Not saying they cannot, but it is different. I have a "one on one" relationship with my Pastor. When I am preaching, teaching, etc., he is there. He does not have to split his time between me, and 200 other aspiring Pastors.

I don't know of any DE folks looking down their noses at the RE folks (although the RE folks certainly look down their noses at the DE guys!). RE is necessary in some circumstances. DE is necessary in others.

The only people I "Look down my nose" at, are the pharisees who say "My way is the only way!"

 

The distinction is this: you can study religion and theology without any intent of pursuing vocational or ordained ministry.

But what about those pastors who were not properly trained or who are so swamped with church responsibilities that they cannot devote the time to provide graduate level education? I know that in a perfect world the pastor would have a PhD in theology and would have 40 hours a day, but time constraints exist, and preparation varies.

 

You certainly can. I know a man with three seminary degrees (MDiv, ThM, PhD) who got them as a hobby. But that's not the point of seminary. Most of this teaching can and should be done in the local church. A person shouldn't have to go to seminary to learn the word. Seminaries are to train pastor-theologians.

I hate to say it, but they should have gone to school early. There is no reason no to. Let a man bear the yoke in his youth. The attitude towards seminary is too callous and frivolous. And people and the church pay for it later on. Go to seminary. Get your education.

 

Sorry. The high level of academic interaction, especially in PhD seminars, is not going to happen in a local church. We can talk about what "should be," but reality is far different.

What about those individuals who are not called to ministry until later in life? Oh, well, I guess they should have read God's mind.

Regardless, even the best-trained pastors only have so many hours in a day. And, no, you don't have to go to seminary to study Scripture. But what is wrong with wanting to study in a more structured environment?

 

Of course not. No one is suggesting it can. I am not sure where you came up with that. (It's not going to happen in DE either.)

What about them? If you are called to ministry, go prepare for it. Many men that I was in seminary with were older men with families who were preparing to pastor.

Exactly. And that's why seminary is so important. With a limited number of hours, you shouldn't waste it on things you should have gotten in seminary. One reason I am pretty passionate about it is because I have been in ministry on both sides of seminary. I know what it is like.

Nothing. I am all for studying in structured environments. That's why I think the church should be teaching, and why I think men should be going to seminary.

 

If that is the case then who terminates a professor?

I can think of one I know who was an interim for seven years. Are you sure those profs you know are not interims.

 

I followed a pastor who preached nonsense out of his ignorance. He had a good heart but at times was wrong. When I started pastoring that church people questioned some of the things I said. Then after awhile they discounted what he had taught. He and the church would have been better off if he had stuck to simple things.

I had a discussion with my brother in law (who was not a Christian at the time) about a few sermons he heard at a church he attended a few times. I realized that my brother in law was right and the pastor was wrong. He changed churches and within a short period of time became a Christian.

 

Since I retired, I have taken a course each year through distance education. It can be profitable, but it all depends on the person.

I truly believe that a person should get all the education possible to enter into ministry. I started out with Bible College. It offered a concentrated study of the Bible, book by book, verse by verse. Seminary was quite different. A lot of the work was done by the student in his study. Sure there were lectures, and face-to-face discussions, but for the most part it was up to the student to apply himself.

Post graduate was all seminars and the writing of a thesis. I forget the proper term, but each student presented a paper before the class and faced their criticisms and advanced discussion. The final examination, the student submitted his 30,000 word thesis; faced the faculty for question and answer; and wrote examinations.

In the early days, 40's and 50's, I know many men who went to Bible College for three years and entered ministry full time and never went back to school.

Cheers,

Jim

 

It's starting to sound like a Baptist business meeting in here!!!!

 

Trustees, or the deans hired by the trustees or trustee-hired officers.

1,000% sure.

So? How does that preclude it from happening there?

Who said anything about class? Although, classes in spiritual formation could count, that's not exclusive of other means. Faculty can disciple students in the same ways a pastor can. You don't just see profs from 8 to 8:50 M, W, F. And who said anything about classes of hundreds? So you can't disciple in a church of a hundred? Please.

Circular reasoning. A lot can be done via DE, and a lot cannot.

Don't know how "disqualifying" comes up, but this idea of convention vs. churches...praytell who comprises the convention? The messsengers of the churches, members of the churches themselves. You must not know much about the Southern Baptist Convention.

Glad you have that. The RE person (who you fallaciously strawman as having to compete with hundreds of others) has that, too. And the RE person likely can be "one on one" with more than just one mentor via exposure to other profs, pastors, and other students. Iron sharpens iron.....

I'm glad to hear you say that, because you've seemingly virtually dismissed RE as beneath you often. You have seemed to have exalted yourself as almost more holy because you're DE as opposed to those who are strictly RE. I have done both, and will do more DE. I'm in your corner. But it's apparent attitudes like yours (so it seemed) that give anti-DE folks all the fodder they need. I am glad to hear you say you do not disdain RE or RE folks. Just be sure you actually flesh this out in your posts. Thanks!