Is seminary important?

I attended Wiliam Carey College in Hattiesburg MS. It is a small Southern Baptist School and was one of the most important experiences of my life, and because of that I think that one of the most important things that a pastor can do before leading a church is to get formal "training."

The fact of the matter is that we have to realize that God has given us the brains to interpret what the bible means (of course that is part of a Christian education as well). The NT authors were wirting the literature that we have to study today. They were on the scene during the founding of the 1st century church. Their methods were different then ours are now in their details. Let's not forget that many things that are a valid part of a churches ministry today is not included in the Bible directly (ie - family life centers and gyms, youth programs, day care centers, mother's day off.) It is entirely possible that Paul would have founded a seminary in the 1st century if he had had the time or if it had been their methodology.

Of course the mentoring that he did with the earlier followers of Christ reflect the eductaional methods of the time.

That being said seminary is not a requirement for being a pastor in most churches but ... It is a good idea. Such a good idea that I will hopefuly being attending in the fall.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: jcadden ]

 

Welcome, jcadden. I see by your post that you are a new member. We are glad to have you. I would like to encourage you to visit the "Welcome to Baptist Board.com" forum and introduce yourself to one and all. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jcadden:
It...was one of the most important experiences of my life, and because of that I think that one of the most important things that a pastor can do before leading a church is to get formal "training."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have noted that a number of people make the seminary and "formal" training argument based on their experience. I think this is significant because many of these same people will not generally argue on experience but rather on scripture.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Their methods were different than ours are now in their details. Let's not forget that many things that are a valid part of a churches ministry today is not included in the Bible directly (ie - family life centers and gyms, youth programs, day care centers, mother's day off.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The fact that many of these things are part of Baptist churches today is as plain as the hair on my face. That these things are "a valid part of a church's ministry" is not accepted as a fact by me (and perhaps a few others on this board), and so remains to be proven.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is entirely possible that Paul would have founded a seminary in the 1st century if he had had the time or if it had been their methodology.

Of course the mentoring that he did with the earlier followers of Christ reflect the educational methods of the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think it assumes too much to think that Paul did not found a seminary simply because it was not the educational method of the day, and in fact I believe that "formal" training was practiced by both Jews & Romans of this time period. Yet the church chose not to adopt it.

Despite my opinions on this matter, I nevertheless wish you well should you choose to attend seminary this fall. Be wise in your choosing.

 

Welcome JCADDEN. I'm in East Tenn as well, aka God's Country.

 

I think that both sides of this arguement are right. I totally agree with rlvaughn
that it is not a requirment to go to seminary to be a pastor. But we should be as prepared as possible. If you can get prepared outside of a seminary then by all means do it. But if you have the time and or money I think nothing beats a formal education, at least to get you started on your lifetime or learning. My father-in-law has taught the Bible for more then 30 years and he never set a foot in college (I don't even think he finished high school!). but he got hepatitis C for three years and did nothing for three years but lay in bed and read the Bible. It was quite an education. I however, have chosen to pursue graduate studies in engineering. I could have learned it in the field, it is not a requirement to have a masters. But I learn here under the greatest engineers in the world, quickly, and with guidence, and will be able to learn much eaiser for the rest of my life. The engineering industry ultimatly doesn't care where I go to school, they only care if I can build things for them. But they will trust me a lot better when I say I can while showing them 200 hours with of engineering education then if I told them I learned it on the street.

 

I don't think its a necessity that one have a seminary education to be a great pastor. Rlvaughn is right in looking to scripture for the qualifications. But lets get something straight here: We're not talking about something where you want to meet God's MINIMUM standards. God and his children deserve your best. So ask yourself-can you give God your best with an education or without it? Therein lies your answer.

 

I am possibly being understood as opposing "higher" learning and "formal" education, but such is not the case.

WHAT I OPPOSE
1. I oppose churches adding to (or deleting from) the Biblical requirements for pastors, and this includes adding the requirements of obtaining a certain amount of formal education or obtaining a certain degree.
2. I oppose churches abdicating their responsibility of religiously educating all their congregants to other institutions.
3. I oppose the attitude that has developed among some churches and pastors that an equal degree of learning is in some way inferior because of the way it was obtained.
4. I oppose the attitude that exists among some churches and pastors that ignorance commends one to God.

WHAT I FAVOR
1. I favor individuals obtaining as much education as they can by the means available to them.
2. I favor churches fulfilling their commission to teach all things that Jesus has commanded, and that they include the laity in depth in this education.
3. I favor churches exalting spirituality, servitude, and perseverance above education.
4. I favor judging ministers by the "content of their character" rather than the "color of their education."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But they will trust me a lot better when I say I can, while showing them 200 hours of engineering education, than if I told them I learned it on the street. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pete, I think this is exactly the type of mentality that is developing in Baptist churches - show me not what you know, but the piece of paper that says you know it.

 

rlvaughn, amen and amen! My sentiments exactly! As not only a pastor but also a Seminary President/Professor, I tell my students that their degree is to give you credibility with those outside the church. It is your love of the Lord and knowledge of His word which gives you credibility with God's people.

And, I wholeheartedly agree, it is the responsibility of the local congregation to teach all those who come, regardless of their level of academic attainment, or their calling! We teach children in beginners sunday school classes, and also doctoral candidates in our Seminary's post graduate programs. It is only when we fail to train our people, that we delegate that biblical responsibility to others, then complain about the quality of education they got at the denominational college or seminary!

 

I pretty much agree with you too, Rlvaughn. Only thing I'd add is that the churches who team up to run seminaries or pastoral training schools actively stay involved in that process and the schools/seminaries actively stay accountable to the local church. Otherwise, you have the fiasco that happened in SB life that has only been corrected within the past ten years or so.

 

C'mon Tom, one more post for the big 1000!

On this topic, the number of seminary grads who can't apply a text to save their lives is appalling. Some of them can't preach their way out of a paper bag. Non-grads seem to be more likely to mis-handle Scripture--making it say something God never intended it to. Both of those statements are obviously generalizations and don't apply to all.

I'll admit that anyone can get the intellectual content of a seminary education from books, journals, mentors, and other resources without seminary. It's harder, but not impossible by any means.

The big issue to me is that seminary cultivates open-mindedness, critical thinking, and apologetic skills that are not as easy to develop without the constant challenge of knowledgeable faculty and peers.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
The big issue to me is that seminary cultivates open-mindedness, critical thinking, and apologetic skills that are not as easy to develop without the constant challenge of knowledgeable faculty and peers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent ... well put ... wish I had said that. These issues are why it is important to seek out a seminary who develops these skills with a firm belief in the orthodox doctrine of Scripture. I think critical thinking is way undervalued in our circles typically.

 

rlvaughn,

I think you misunderstand me, indeed I did not express myself very clearly. The climax of my statement was the sentence before.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The engineering industry ultimatly doesn't care where I go to school, they only care if I can build things for them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hold the exact same beliefs when it comes to ministers. I don't care how you learned what you learned as long as you know, understand, and preach the Bible correctly. I only wrote the next statement because I was thinking of myself in an interview, which has been on my mind of late since I am graduating in five months and looking for a job.

Anyway, I agree with everything you wrote on your post "What I Oppose / What I Favor". I'm afraid I can't relate much because I have never been in such a church were these things were happening.

 

Pete, perhaps I should have been more explicit. I didn't really mean to refer directly to you, just to use your engineering point to illustrate the mentality I feel exists in some churches. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Siegfried and Pastor Larry, I know I sound like a broken record, but if <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>seminary cultivates open-mindedness, critical thinking, and apologetic skills<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>, and if these are skills that need to be cultivated (properly understood, I think they are), then I believe our local Baptist churches ought to be cultivating them.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Siegfried and Pastor Larry, I know I sound like a broken record, but if , and if these are skills that need to be cultivated (properly understood, I think they are), then I believe our local Baptist churches ought to be cultivating them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you taught your people the necessity of presuppositional apolegetics? Have you taught your people Hebrew and Greek? Have you taught your people why and how to form a biblical philosophy of ministry and then enact it? Do you have your people read from a variety of systematic theologies to gain a broad spectrum of theological views?

My guess is probably not and for valid reason. The people in your church are like the people in mine. They do not understand nor need it. They do need to be taught to think and understand Scripture but it needs to come in bitesize pieces rather than dumptruck loads as it does in seminary. As a pastor, you need to know presuppositional apolegetics, Greek and Hebrew, philosophy of ministry, church history, homiletics, etc.

And though I might sounds like a broken record, it is one church in many who have the resources to operate a mininstry such as this. Rather than me diluting my efforts as a pastor to become a seminary professor, I will avail myself and those men in my church training for the ministry of those churches who are able to operate a seminary in an excellent manner (not some fly-by-night degree mill). There is no need for me to duplicate what someone else is already doing better than I can do it.

 

Pastor Larry, I do not want you or anyone else to cease being a pastor to become a "seminary professor", but I do not agree that the laity cannot understand or do not need these things. Now I certainly understand that there are some things particularly related to the peculiar duties of a pastor that everyone else does not have to know. Beyond this I think we are selling the church membership short. The real practical problem as I see it is that many church members are unconcerned and do not WANT to grow beyond the elementary level. As pastors we cannot make them do so, but we should not be content to not try. Perhaps some have been lulled into thinking minimal standards are OK by pastors who expect no more of them than to attend and support the church. While all are not preachers (or pastors), the entire church body are to be ministers. If the entire church is taught to carry on ministry, the burden of it is not all on the pastor's shoulders. Surely you do not mean the following the way it sounds: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They do not understand nor need it. They do need to be taught to think and understand Scripture...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If so, perhaps we are further apart than I thought. If top notch Christian education is reserved for pastors, then perhaps you would be duplicating what someone else is doing. If the laity should have it as well, then the local church surely is responsible.

 

Common ground: I think we would all agree that the indifference shown by many church members is disappointing. Our churches would be better off if every member had the same passion for knowing God's Word as the typical sincere seminarian. Top notch education should not be reserved for seminarians. A pastor should try to inspire his people to cultivate a passion to master the Word of God.

In a perfect world it would be great if everyone wanted and could get a thorough seminary education through the ministry of his own local church. That is often not possible for several reasons:
1. Not every pastor is knowledgeable enough himself to do the job.
2. Not every pastor would believe that he has time to focus on a few committed men who are serious about preparing for ministry.
3. Very few churches have strong enough libraries to fully expose students to truth (and falsehood) that will prepare them to forcefully defend Scripture.
4. Most important--The indifference shown by many church members limits the number of peers who will be able to stretch the serious student through debate, discussion, and mutual examination of various viewpoints. It's like a classroom that includes very weak and very bright students. Since the teacher has limited time and resources, one or both will suffer.

I'm not saying that a local church education is always inferior to a seminary education. I'm also not saying that seminary is without its own possible pitfalls. I certainly do believe that most orthodox seminaries (particularly those operated by a local church) are better equipped to train pastors than most orthodox local churches.

 

Can I throw something else into the mix? Why is it we assume that if a person is prepared at a seminary, they are not being prepared relative to the local church? Isn't it also erroneous to assume that just because a person is prepared strictly at a local church, their training will be applicable to the local church? My point is I don't think there is a universal chasm that exists between church and seminary as many assume. Obviously, there has been a documented widening of the gap in some circles, mostly in the mainline traditions, but in others as well (Cf. George Barna, Today's Pastors). But it is not a gap that exists by necessity. If the seminary is accountable to the church(es) of a particular area or denomination/affiliation and the churches are directly responsible for the operation of the seminary (I.e., SBC seminaries) then the gulf doesn't have to exist between the church and its seminary. You get the best of both worlds. That doesn't mean the churches should not teach theology or ministry. If they don't do this, there will be no one to go to the seminaries. But as Larry has pointed out, the burden of training ministers is too heavy for the small to medium sized churches to handle all by themselves. We need seminaries, but we need them to be accountable to and participants in the local church, as opposed to being self-serving, self-perpetuating entities that answer to no one.

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

To Tom:
Some of the "SBC" seminaries certainly proved they were not only not accountable to the churches, but also not accountable to the Convention.

To Joshua 2415:
I am making some closing comments as for my part of this discussion. To again refer to your original question, to me whether a person has been to seminary or has a degree in not important because I will judge each pastor individually on the basis of the Biblical qualifications. It seems that the majority think my ideas are mostly impractical and unworkable, but IMO, that is partly because they are placing their assumptions and expectations on my suggestions. I would like to start a topic on Christian Education in the local church to discuss this further. Look for it, perhaps in the near future. Finally, I have not tried to argue this topic from a practical standpoint, but from what I believe to be a scriptural one. But if I were to be only practical, I would say this to you:

1. In general, you will have more trouble earning the respect of churches and colleagues without a seminary education. I do not believe this is scriptural, nor even fair, but it is generally (though not universally) true.
2. In the group with whom you are associated, it is generally (again not universally) true, that an education in one of "their" seminaries is preferable to an education in one outside of them. In fact, in some areas, which one of "their" seminaries one went to is important. That is, because of regional differences in doctrine & practice, an education in one of the seminaries in another region might cause you to be suspect.

 

RLV, I never answered your question about whether or not our churches should do a better job of providing seminary-level educations.

They should, although it would be the rare believer who had the time available to gain the training and education of a professional minister.

Nevertheless, I see no need to reinvent the wheel on the training of clergy. You point out that using seminaries is a secular model, but that is far from the case. Our current model of classroom education was pioneered by the Church and implemented for the training of clergy. In addition, there really aren't enough true scholars out there (people who live, eat, sleep, and breathe their discipline and read everything written on it) to put one of each kind in every local church. It makes since to group them together in one place and let ministers come learn from them.

Joshua

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
You point out that using seminaries is a secular model, but that is far from the truth. Our current model of classroom education was pioneered by the Church and implemented for the training of clergy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I intended not to post further to this topic, but I should clarify - seminaries are not the New Testament church model, but rather a later development.