;)
Is Our Seminary System Biblical? Wise? Effective?
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology
In the late 1989, my wife and I were in the process of appointment as Foreign Mission Board (now IMB) missionaries. I was planning to do what they called TEE (theological education by extension). The students did not come to the professor, but the professor would come to the students. My job would have been to go out to do theological training where people lived.
Frankly, I think that sounds like a much better way to do theological education than the way that we do it. I have serious doubts that entering a cloistered theological community for three to five years is the best way to train pastors. What seminaries produce is young men with heads full of knowledge but who are lacking in practical experience and wisdom in the realities of pastoral ministry.
Our seminary system is great at training minds – filling them with original languages, theological adeptness and academic achievement. It often is found lacking in spiritual formation – producing passion and holiness in the student’s lives. And the seminary experience is woefully lacking in the ability to train young men for the realities of pastoral ministry. In fact, it seems that many leave the ivory towers of academia with wholly unrealistic ideas about what it takes to be successful in ministry.
Between the Times Series
Bruce Ashford, at Between the Times has edited and rerun a series of eight posts about the dangers of seminary. In the first post, he spelled out the dangers in this way.
“(1) losing your first love for God and your love for the lost; (2) allowing seminary to replace church; (3) becoming a seminary dork; (4) seeking to impress the academy; (5) becoming an arrogant, narcissistic, hyper-critical jerk; and (6) perhaps a few others.”
It is a well-written and light-hearted series of posts that spell out some of the dangers.
But in the final post, Ashford identifies the final danger – missing out on the seminary experience! I’m not sure I agree. I think that there may be a better way of doing it. In this internet era, students could study while doing real ministries at real churches in real places, rather than sequestering themselves in the illusory world of academia.
Ashford uses the fact that Paul spent years in the desert preparing for ministry as the biblical basis of the seminary experience. But did Paul’s time in the desert equate to and provide biblical support for our current resident seminary system? I am sure that there are people who benefit from the time in seminary. But I think that for most of us, especially for those who are going to be local church ministers, there may be a better way.
My Experience
Please don’t misunderstand me. I love my seminary experience and it was a great blessing to me. I got the majority of my theological education at Dallas Theological Seminary and I am constantly grateful for that. Dallas had three key emphases in their training. They drilled us in the original languages (requiring 3 years of Greek and two of Hebrew). We were trained in inductive Bible study and we were required to do an inductive study of every book of the Bible. And they also emphasized systematic theology. We did not have one Systematic Theology class, we had one every semester for four years. The goal was to equip us to do our own study of the Bible so that we could competently exposit the Scriptures. I am so thankful that my Southern Baptist pastor dad encouraged me to go to Dallas and get that training.
I then finished up my training and got my M.Div at Southwestern in 1981. I enjoyed studying. In fact, I had always planned to get a PhD or ThD and become a professor, but God redirected me into pastoral ministry.
And that was the problem. When I was hired as an Associate Pastor at a church in Tequesta, Fl, they had the expectation that as a graduate of the seminary, I had a certain level of competence in pastoral ministry. Could I exegete and exposit a Bible passage? Yes. Could I argue some of the fine points of biblical or systematic theology? Arguing was my spiritual gift! But I had NO IDEA what pastoral ministry was all about. I still remember the first day I walked into the office. I stood there with two thoughts in my mind. First, I thought, “Wow, I can’t believe they are paying me to do this!” But I also had this thought. “What on earth should I do now?” I didn’t have a clue. I did not have the competence that my church assumed I had as a seminary graduate.
I may have been a little bit unique in this. I was only 23 years old when I graduated from Southwestern, so I didn’t have as much experience as some people do when they graduate. But in my years of being involved in the leadership of our state convention, I have seen guys come out of the seminary with heads full of brilliant ideas and a confidence that they were going to revolutionize the church with their energy and innovation. I saw many of these young bucks do some brutally stupid things that caused a lot of problems in their churches.
Seminary trains the mind but it does not train the heart and it does not prepare someone for pastoral ministry! This is not really a fault of the seminary, as I see it. It is a fault of the system. You cannot sit in a seminary class and learn how to comfort a grieving widow or confront a cantankerous deacon. Some things cannot be learned by theory, but only by practical experience.
My Thoughts
1) With the rise of the internet, it is possible for people to study online without sequestering themselves in Ft. Worth or Louisville or New Orleans.
My wife goes to college in Oskaloosa, Iowa right now. But she lives in Sioux City. Oskaloosa is over four hours away. Every Tuesday night and every other Saturday she either goes to a local school for closed circuit classes, or she turns on her computer and participates by internet.
Liberty has an online education program that is pretty good. It may not be the way to train future seminary professors, but it can educate pastors while they continue to do the work they were called to do.
2) Leaving home, uprooting family, and attending seminary is a difficult and expensive proposition. Staying at home and taking classes in the evening while you continue your life and serve in ministry would save money for everyone.
3) We ought to develop some sort of internship program as a part of the seminary experience. I think there would be a lot of churches who would be willing to be host churches/overseers for the process. Lets say some local kid senses God’s call to ministry and wants to get an education. Instead of moving to Kansas City or Wake Forest, he plugs in a Southern Hills. He takes classes and I would be a resource to discuss things with him and help oversee his studies. In addition, we would plug him into ministry here at Southern Hills. He would be a volunteer intern, but that would be part of his studies. He would visit hospitals with me and my staff pastors. He would have opportunities to preach, organize ministries, etc. He would be DOING ministry while he was learning how to do ministry. He would learn how to (or perhaps how not to) deal with troublesome members by watching me and my staff do what we do.
I think he could get a theological education that is comparable to what he could get in a residential program. But when he graduated, he would have a much greater familiarity with what it means to be a pastor than he would coming out of a residential program.
4) It is possible that you could combine the two programs, at least in some cases. Maybe you are in a residential study program for two years, and then you spend two years in an internship at a local church while you continue your studies online.
They don’t let doctors do surgery the day they graduate med school. They spend years as interns working in hospitals and learning on the job.
Why on earth do we take a seminary graduate who has never had much real “on-the-job” experience, and put him in charge of leading a church? No wonder that process blows up so often? How many pastors do you know whose first ministry ended badly? I have a friend who has spent the last 20 years out of the ministry after the difficulties he encountered at his first pastorate. Maybe if he’d had some more experience before we threw him to the wolves, things might be different.
5) Dr. Ashford used Paul as the model of seminary training, because he spent time out in the desert. But did Paul ever use that model to train other leaders? No. He took Luke and Mark and Timothy and Titus and Gaius and Aristarchus and the others with him. They worked with him in ministry until he felt they were ready and then he sent them off to work by themselves.
There is no support in the New Testament for a seminary-style education process. But there is some support for the idea I am advancing – on-the-job training. Work with an established, successful pastor who will help you learn and will mentor you in ministry.
Where’s the flaw there?
I am sure I will be misunderstood on this one. I’m not against theological education. I can see that seminary is a good thing for many people. I just think that there might be better ways to do it today. Perhaps we can find a way to train the mind and heart while also preparing people practically for real-life ministry.
What say you?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Just for clarity – the purpose of this post is to discuss whether residential seminary education is the best form of theological education and pastoral training.
We will NOT have a discussion of our personal gripes or grudges against particular seminary presidents, professors or past events.
Stick to the topic. I’ve got a delete button and I’m not afraid to use it! (Do you feel intimidated now?)
By the way, I need to tell the “rest of the story” on our missionary service. Our third son was born in January of 1990 with a health problem that was potentially serious. We were turned down because of the possible health care issues he would have.
He’s now 20, was captain of the cross country team in high school and is very healthy.
Instead of the foreign field, Jenni and I ended up in Iowa, which most of you southerners think is a foreign country anyway, right?
At the ’08 T4G Conference Mohler said his goal was for the local church to put him out of business. I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon.
Brother Dave,
The way we (SBC’ers) has designed the seminary experience is not new. It is simply a copy of the Roman Catholic pedagogary, where that “Catholic Leadership” has built a strong theological system for many, many years. And you could say the same about their system….it has produced some very good theological works. But, the formation of the system itself is foreign to the scriptures, yet we pour gobs of money into the form to sustain it. As you have mentioned….The Pauline “desert” experience was not like he declared a “doctoral thesis path” and then set out for the desert to get his letter of commendation. His desert experience was one of necessity….not too many folks were in love with the man (Christian or Pagan)!
The most effective training is in the family,..in the church….. and I will be challenging Mohler and his statement from this last convention during the next few years. I’m not sure if he was challenging the churches or if he really would be willing to be out of business should a better “form” makes its way into the churches. But, you don’t know unless you ask…and I’ll be asking him over the next few years.
These things have been discussed before….but I get the feeling that Pastors like to protect their own turf, so it may be difficult to convince a Pastor that is holding a letter of commendation from one of the SBC seminaries to move that into another form within his own fellowship. That may be where most of the opposition will really emerge.
Blessings,
Chris
All it takes to do both—to study in Fort Worth (or New Orleans or Louisville or…)—is a little bit of gumption and self-sacrifice. I’ve got two degrees from the SWBTS Fort Worth campus without ever having lived in Fort Worth. I served at local churches all of the way through. Now, I had to get up at 4:00 am and drive 2.5 hours each way two days a week in order to accomplish the first two years of that. And we nearly starved to death that first year. But we got it done.
I don’t give my personal history in order to suggest that people who do it this way are better than others. I’m merely trying to point out by personal experience that I believe that this post has posited a false dichotomy: Go to a seminary campus on the one hand or settle for the far inferior experience of an online class in order to serve in a local church. Thousands of people have done both—are doing both today.
The single largest obstacle to #4 and #5 is the individual pastor who does not see hes role as that of training his replacement or preparing young men to follow after him in ministry.
Physicians go through more academic schooling than any other profession in this country. At the same time, they go through internship and residency before they are allowed to practice medicine. I would think that those responsible for the care of the soul should be just as rigorously trained, both academically and professionally, if not more so.
It used to be that the clergy were the most educated men in the world both before and after the Reformation. Thanks to American egalitarianism, individualism, and the Second Great Awakening that resulted in a legitimization of lay ministry and elevation of an uneducated pastorate among new and established evangelical denominations, there was a stigma on trained ministers that created a love-hate relationship with the educated ministry. Even our most highly trained speakers come across as folksy and homespun whether it be J. Vernon McGee or Adrian Rogers. This is part of the SBC DNA and is eminently worthwhile. This is in contrast to northern Baptists who value a stentorian academic style of preaching common to the likes of David Jeremiah or R. C. Sproul.
If the SBC wants to maintain the mix of highly educated, yet folksy, down-home ministers, the only place to really learn that is in the shadow of an established pastor. The challenge is to find pastors willing to have a gaggle of seminary preacher boys following them around learning how to do ministry.
Now I know of three cities in Iowa. And Dave, I hate to break it to you, but Cornland is a foreign country to much of the Midwest too!
Seriously though, you said, “You cannot sit in a seminary class and learn how to comfort a grieving widow or confront a cantankerous deacon.”
Exactly! I think the problem is that we often expect Seminaries to teach up-and-coming pastors these things, when we should know better. You mentioned that surgeons spend years interning before getting to handle a whole operation. I doubt recent graduates are expected to be able to perform a heart transplant immediately after accepting their diploma, so why do we get so frustrated at the seminaries when recent graduates lack life experience and soft skills we want pastors and missionaries to have? I think part of the problem is we expect seminaries to do something we don’t expect them to do.
Although I am an internet student and I’m getting a lot of experience back home in ministry, I know that students who live on campus have a great number of opportunities to get involved. Think of how big Louisville, Dallas, and New Orleans are! Students have ministry opportunities available to them, but those who don’t take advantage of them are likely to disappoint.
And even though moving on campus can be an expensive proposition, so is taking an unpaid internship, especially if the internship requires you to move. Besides, making internships a required part of the program will either extend the seminary schooling (currently 3 years for full-time students) or it will mean cutting out some subjects.
So I don’t know if internships are the solution, though they may help. The onus for involvement in ministry should be on the students, not on the seminaries. I’ve heard many missionaries and pastors complain that, “Seminary never prepared me for this.” From my perspective, it is their fault, not the seminary’s.
Also, I know that I probably wouldn’t have gotten my current job if I didn’t have some kind of extracurricular activities on my resume (like a job, involvement in student organizations, volunteer work, etc.). So why are churches hiring people with no ministry experience who were just book worms for three years (or longer if they went straight through Bible college)?
To summarize my view, seminaries can always improve, and the internet and distance programs are a great start to keeping potential ministers in their local church where they can serve, but the problem doesn’t primarily lie with them. It lies with seminary students who don’t get involved in ministry until they’ve completed their schooling (3-7 years away from ministry) and the churches who hire them.
Brother Andrew,
I think you have uncovered why the seminary has become the normative approach to ministry…. families that make up the churches have opted out of their responsibility to train,…thus seminaries have become the calling. Maybe that is Mohler’s point as well.
Blessings,
Chris
Dave, I think the ideal preparation for ministry may involve a “both/and” situation, not an “either/or.” There is much to be said for the classroom experience where a discussion led by a well-qualified mentor provides opportunities for give and take in a visible group. (As we have all learned, discussions tend to be more polite with a visible group than with a cyberspace group.) In regard to a classroom type of experience, we do have a biblical precedent in Acts 19:9-10 (the description of Paul at Ephesus):
“But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.” (NKJV)
In Acts 20:20, Paul likely alluded to the school of Tyrannus when he said, “I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house.” In Acts 20:30-31, he also described the length of time he was with the Ephesian disciples and his warnings to them about false teachers: “Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.”
I think things have improved in our seminaries in regard to going beyond the classroom. I mentor a group of students in a required spiritual formation course at SWBTS. They are required to be active in a local church, and the goal is help them learn to walk in faith day by day and to develop the spiritual disciplines of prayer, Bible study, and Scripture memorization. They are required to attend small group accountability meetings with their fellow students. Also, there are practicums attached to required courses in evangelism and missiology. I teach Introduction to Missiology at SWBTS, which has a required practicum attached to it. Course descriptions follow:
“EVANG 3000 is the application of the principles of personal evangelism taught in EVANG 3303, Contemporary Evangelism. This practicum involves the implementation of personal evangelism skills and techniques taught in the classroom. It includes the presentation of the gospel message by the student with a supervisor.”
“MISSN 3100 is the application of the principles of missions taught in Introduction to Missiology, MISSN 3363. This practicum includes the implementation of missions’ strategies and skills to cross cultural personal evangelism. This course includes cross cultural interaction and personal evangelism by the student with a supervisor.”
For Spiritual Formation 1: “The study and practice of corporate worship, involving participation in chapel, plenary lectures on personal worship, and small group interaction and accountability.”
In regard to TEE, Steffen/Douglas said:
“Ralph Winter . . . played a major role in the development of the Theological Education by Extension (TEE) movement. . . . The goal of TEE was to take schooling to the settings where the greatest number of potential, tested leaders resided. This was thought to be much better than drawing to a city-based seminary a few untested, free from responsibility, youth who after graduation were more likely to stay in the city than return to their home areas.”
Tom Steffen and Lois McKinney Douglas, Encountering Missionary Life and Work: Preparing for Intercultural Ministry (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 15.
I think my seminary experience at Golden Gate is what you are describing. Golden Gate has 5 campuses, so it’s not one big center you attend, it was a small center where you were. For me, it was in a church building that was no longer used as a church, but housed the State offices and the seminary. None of my professors were just academics, all of them were in some sort of ministry, most of them pastorates. Everything was practical, hands on and real. It was not as theological deep as Southern would be, but we walked away with a good idea of how to do practical ministry. My last year, I took a class called Theological Field Education, in which I was required to be in a ministry, have a field supervisor, a spiritual mentor, and a group that met and evaluated me. Much of my class time was a waste in my opinion, because I was a full time youth pastor most of my seminary time. It was, however, what you were talking about Dave, a practical time in ministry with a safety net and mentor type guidance. It was a great experience.
In the purely abstract, educating you where you are, doing what you’re doing, has got to be the best way. OJT, as it were.
You’re onto something big here. Chapter Nine of Max Lucado’s “And The Angels Were Silent” was written for you, brother. Read it if the naysayers get to you.
Dave,
I agree with the basic thesis of what you share here. I believe this is an important topic, which, although it has been brought up before, needs to be kept on the discussion table. I also agree with those who have pointed out that our approach to this doesn’t necessarily have to be black-and-white–there are hybrid models that, in certain situations, seem to work quite well.
In any case, I think it is a complex issue to tackle, because so much of what we do in our churches, and in our seminaries, is interwoven into a system, in which each side feeds the other. It’s kind of like the clump of bamboo stalks in a corner of my backyard that has spread into the corner of two of my neighbor’s backyards as well. You can chop down the individual stalks, but the only way to control the continued spread and multiplication of the bamboo forest would be to tear down the fences between our three yards, and dig a huge hole big enough to uproot the entire underground system of bamboo that joins each individual stalk to each other. Since that is likely not going to happen in the near future, we keep chopping down individual stalks. And, they keep popping up just as fast.
So (back to seminaries, and church leadership preparation), do we just throw up our hands, and say, “What’s the use?–If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”?
I think a better option is to do just what you have done here: keep bringing this item up to the discussion table, and try to get us to reason among ourselves (and all those who are willing to listen), and little by little, work toward reformation and renewal. Also, try to be more understanding of those who opt for a more radical solution.
FWIW, here are my main contributions to this discussion in past posts here at SBC Impact:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/02/04/church-leadership-training-structures/
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/11/24/home-grown-church-leadership/
I think extension centers are part of the solution here. I earned most of my hours at NOBTS through their Birmingham extension center. Several of those extension center guys were serving as pastors while spending a day a week in class.
The problem was the accrediting body (forgot the name) required several hours of on-campus work to be done (the equivalent of a whole academic year if I remember correctly). This was usually accomplished through one-week workshops.
Most of us thought this on-campus requirement was a very antiquated idea–especially considering the fact that professors would fly in from the main campus and teach us the exact same thing they were teaching in New Orleans.
Jeff Iorg, president of GGBTS, wrote a blog post on this issue some time ago called Do We Need Seminaries?
Here are some quotes from the article:
“What seminaries produce is young men with heads full of knowledge but who are lacking in practical experience and wisdom in the realities of pastoral ministry.”
I think part of the cloistering removes them from culture and they often end up having the personality of a box. This is unfortunate as both their preaching, church and neighborhood suffer as collateral damage.
I remember serving at my first church. I was honest with just how green I was. I could definitely exegete, but I needed help on the pastoral side. Though they promised to help me with this, we had no real way of relating to each other. I did learn a lot through the whole event, though not in the way I would have preferred.
There’s been a Bart Barber sighting, folks!! That’s exciting.
Bart, I know that there are opportunities for ministry at churches in seminary areas. I’m not sure they are universally available. There are a lot of seminary students seeking a limited number of ministry positions.
We had a lively discussion on this at our pastor’s lunch today. While we did not produce a document, I think we agreed in general that perhaps the best solution is a combination of resident seminary and internship, perhaps a two year resident program and two years at a local church as an intern.
For some, complete internet education seems to be necessary. For others (especially those who plan to serve in teaching positions) a resident program may seem best.
Bart, one question – on what basis do you assign the term “far inferior experience” to online studies? Is that just an opinion or is there empirical evidence to support that? Just wondering
Rick Presley, since your comments seem to agree in general with mine, I found them articulate and highly intelligent.
Andrew/Chris,
(I’m ignoring your comments about Iowa cities, Andrew – you young whippersnapper!).
As per my comment above, the more I think about this, the more I think that some kind of combo education might be the best – a year or two of resident learning, then directed internships for hands-on training.
Andrew, Jeff Iorg’s comment (in your comment #14 is instructive here. There are things that seminary CAN teach us and things it CANNOT.
But I believe that churches have the impression when they hire seminary-educated pastors that those pastors have been trained both theologically and practically. In a seminary setting, you simply cannot get the practical training you need.
Dave,
There may be a limited number of ministry positions available, but there are unlimited ministry opportunities. Also, there are a ton more SBC churches in the seminary cities (with more ministry opportunities and positions) than in my hometown. On campus students have the option. If they don’t get involved in ministry while they’re there, it’s not because they couldn’t.
Update My page didn’t show your last comment when I posted. I guess what I’m saying is that on campus students can get practical experience before graduating. If they don’t they shouldn’t blame it on the seminary, and the churches shouldn’t either. The blame rests with the student who decided he needed to be in the library seven days a week instead of gaining practical ministry experience.
I think internships and practicums are a good idea, so I hope my focus on who’s to blame isn’t propogating that thought.
My only contention is that making them a required part of your seminary curriculum makes the whole thing too subjective and too long. How do you grade it? Is the way I counseled that pregnant teenager worth an A, B, or C?
Practical ministry experience should be encouraged, but a two year internship program (likely unpaid) would probably be too big a burden for the schools to manage. Perhaps churches hiring inexperienced pastors should try to link up (face to face, phone, internet) the new guys with older pastors who have the experience.
Mike, good thoughts. Have to explore that “School of Tyranus” concept.
Bob, thanks. I’ll check into that book.
Dan Barnes, I guess we hashed all that out over lunch, didn’t we?
Andrew (#21) I will admit that. However, what I am talking about goes beyond just being involved in leadership in the church. I’m talking about getting involved in a specific mentoring role with a local pastor – goes beyond just teaching a class of 5th grade boys or helping with the youth group.
It is a formal, contracted, mentor relationship.
David,
I should have read the archives more faithfully! I guess Solomon was right when he told us that there is nothing new under the sun.
Kevin – I think the resident/internship hybrid we have been discussing would dot the i’s and cross the t’s of what you are saying.
Rastis – I look back on my early years of ministry and I’m a little embarrassed. My heart was right (mostly) and I could handle the Word, but my skills in reacting to and dealing with people were horrid, my administrative abilities were lacking, my understanding of the practical issues of ministry were almost non-existent.
I learned on the job, which is fine. My concern is that the people who hired me for my first job were looking for more of a finished work and less of a work in progress.
Dave,
I updated my comment #21, but I didn’t see your comment #23 at the time.
Dave,
I hope I didn’t communicate that we should only write about topics no one else has ever dealt with yet. We would all be up a creek without a paddle, if that were the case. Your perspective on this question is valuable, and, as are all of our perspectives, unique in this or that. And, as I said, I am glad you are keeping this on the discussion table. There are many topics that are worth bringing out and examining afresh over and over again.
Dave,
You make a lot of good points.
But perhaps more is already being done than some are aware.
For example, in my church, the last 5 full-time pastoral staff members have had degrees from SWBTS, but only 2 of them actually went to school in Fort Worth. The other 3 went to SWBTS at the Shawnee campus at Oklahoma Baptist University. It took them longer, partly because they mostly went to school on Monday, and partly because they were in some kind of pastoral capacity already.
Right now, we have a regular member, who has a local business, who is attending seminary in Shawnee in just the same way.
This satellite campus in OK has apparently existed for years and addresses, I think, a great deal of what you are talking about for pastors in OK.
David, I was just being funny (or trying at least – I find that being funny and trying to be funny are often two separate things).
Karen, I think that is closer to the kind of process I would recommend. However, seminary extensions such as you mention tend to be non-existent in this part of the country.
That’s why, I suppose, I focused on internet schooling.
Liberty has such a good internet program (Liberty Online). Several people around here are involved. I just wish there was a SEBTS Online, or a Southern Online, or something like that.
The Southeastern offer may not be as complete as the one at Liberty—I am not sure.
But, Between the Times just posted this a couple days ago, for whomever may be interested in distance learning options through Southeastern.
http://betweenthetimes.com/2010/09/06/distance-learning-at-southeastern/
Also, I am currently working on my Ph.D. in missions without having to live on campus—though it does require attending various on-campus seminars, while doing the bulk of the reading and writing assignments at home.
Dave,
I am an internet student via Southern. It exists. I live too close to Southern to have an extension center nearby, and too far away to attend Saturday or evening classes. Although Southern requires 30 credits on campus, that could change in the next few years.
Brother Dave,
A couple of things:
So far in the comment stream it appears that “seminary” remains the focus and not “those that qualify”. Why does seminary get such a high standing?
Is it possible for boy that is raised in the church, and gains biblical understanding in the fellowship, all along is growing into a godly man that begins to have a love for those in his fellowship and now because of his passion for Christ and continued diligent work to study and teach …aspires to lead, and from those years of commitment and life in the fellowship is qualified to lead.
Is seminary required at this point? It seems the only problem he may have is being accepted when he is suddenly “called” to another church, as so many of the young preachers are after about an average of two years.
I love what has accumulated in the seminaries, but somehow we glorify them to a degree not supported in the scriptures, and set up a false system of success if one is attended.
Students at a seminary should not be forced to do anything with the local churches….. that kind of defeats the intended motive for those attending. You see, there are a lot of guys that just want the education so that they can teach professionally. Nothing wrong with that, …unless one of the churches nearby are forced to get one of those guys just meeting the prerequisite for a class. Odd, very odd ways!
It might work out better if seminaries only accepted men that are already qualified overseers…. and godly women. That way, if the local churches do need assistance,…they will have qualified men and women to edify the churches.
-Chris
David, Andrew, I think online/distance learning is the wave of the future. SBC entities have not been on the cutting edge of that, but perhaps we are beginning to ride the wave.
Hey Dave, we did sorta cover it over lunch, and I will admit that my seminary experience was probably not normal for the other SBC Seminaries. I have been to my professors homes on numerous occasions, worked closely with them in ministry, my Education Professor is a mentor and a friend, and I am not sure how common that is for the students at Southern. It may be, I know that Alvin Reid, who I very much respect, at Southeastern has a great relationship with students, but I am not sure how common that is.
I did not form such relationships with professors. I don’t know why, but I didn’t. I doubt there is a single professor at Dallas or SWBTS who remembers me.
I knew my college professors better – and I’m sure many of them have memories (perhaps not pleasant ones) of me. I was a conservative at a liberal school and I was pretty vocal.
If professors initiated the kind of relationships you mentioned on a more regular basis, it would be great. Howard Hendricks did that at Dallas, but it was pretty exclusive – lots of young men wanted into his breakfast club.
I like the idea of professors having students in their homes. I had such a thing planned for one of my classes this past Saturday night but had to postpone because my older son was in the hospital with dehydration. I am planning to invite all my students to my home during the semester. I think it makes a huge difference when there is a personal relationship between professor and student. In America, we often emphasize task over relationship.
There is a lot I’d love to say on this subject, but I simply don’t have the time at the moment. But a few comments.
1. Much of theological education is going through a paradigm shift (one that I have cried out for for quite some while now) — a shift from “what did we teach them?” to “what did they actually learn?” This is demonstrating itself in “competency-based” learning outcomes for the ministerial training of students — who they are personally (character), what they know (knowledge), and what they can do (skills). In a context where 80% of churches in North America are either plateaued or declining, and most of those ministers trained through the classical model, it is high time for someone to question the model. Competency-based programs demand that if the student does not gain the requisite competencies they will not graduate from the program. Our MDiv has recently undergone a major revision towards this end.
2. Accredited ministerial education through distance is both available, affordable, and increasing in quality all the time. Our seminary provides its entire MDiv through distance learning. Check out our “seminarylink” program at http://www.csbs.ca — it may be beneficial for some of you in your contexts.
3. While there are some great advantages to learning online, there are also some distinct disadvantages. For instance, in many ways, it is harder to learn through this format (imagine trying to learn Hebrew). There is also something to be said for “being there” in a community that enhances learning, builds fellowship, and helps with character formation. Research is easier with a quality library nearby, etc.
4. The accrediting agencies are progressively re-addressing the “residence” requirement for seminary study. We anticipate that shortly this requirement will be dropped from the accrediting standards.
5. The concern for more hands-on experience concurrent with seminary studies and personal mentorship is also valid. This is an area where we are making considerable strides for our students, but we are finding an intense lack of interest on the part of many practitioners to take on an intern and everything such an “education” involves. In other words, many pastors are excellent at “doing the work of the ministry” but not very adept or conscientious about “equipping the saints to do the work of the ministry.” The obstacles may be considerable, but we are finding that they are worth the effort to address.
From up north,
Kevin Peacock
In my profession (counseling) completing graduate school does not allow one to enter the profession. Earning a degree allows one to become a “candidate”. To fully enter the profession one must provide 3000 hours of counseling under the supervision of an approved supervisor (mentor) and the supervisor must sign off (literally) on the readiness of the candidate to be a professional.
One problem with our current SBC system is the expectation that a seminary degree means one is ready to become a pastor rather than the expectation that one is merely ready to enter into an apprenticeship.
The other is our churches: some church somewhere will always be willing to call as a pastor a seminary graduate. How do we convince churches that graduate studies plus an apprenticeship is more acceptable than either alone?
Wise words, Kevin.
Your point #5 is disturbing. Howard Hendricks used to tell us, “Show me your men” – indicating that a man’s success in ministry was largely demonstrated by the men into whose lives he was building. Paul certainly seemed to model that by taking younger men with he wherever he went so they could learn by his example.
Bowden said, “One problem with our current SBC system is the expectation that a seminary degree means one is ready to become a pastor rather than the expectation that one is merely ready to enter into an apprenticeship.”
Dave says, “Amen.” Well said.
Brother Dave,
I like that you have at least challenged the concept that seminaries could be formed in a more biblical manner for teaching. The scriptures are overtly obvious that the nexus of teaching is in the context of the local churches.
1 Corinthians 4:17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.
1 Timothy 1:2-3 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (3) As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
1 Timothy 3:1-3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. (2) An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (3) not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
2 Timothy 2:1-3 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. (2) The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (3) Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:4-11 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. (5) For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, (6) namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (7) For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, (8) but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, (9) holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. (10) For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, (11) who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.
Jude 1:17-21 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, (18) that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” (19) These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. (20) But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, (21) keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.
The Apostle Paul was clear in his epistles to the churches and his encouragement to fellow workers that teaching and instruction in the context of the church is where we learn to love one another and truly live out the words we are called to obey. Somehow we have moved the nexus of this great command of making disciples to another venue…into venues that have been given no power in this pursuit of love for one another. It could not have been any clearer than what we see with Jesus in the Gospel letters as well as the entire construction and maturing of faithful congregations. Why we tend to steer in other directions should be questioned and corrected if possible.
This “seminary” content and teaching methodology that is quarantined for only a few, should be actively pushed to occur within the fellowship of the local churches. Men are called to be holy, lead their families and then aspire to love and lead in the fellowships. Moving what is accumulated in the “seminary” instruction into 42,000 churches with millions of men will not yield a small harvest of workers.
Blessings,
Chris
Perhaps on the flip side of this, our seminary focus has created a sense of inadequacy on the part of those who have not received a seminary education.
I’m not denigrating the value of theological education, but on the other hand I sometimes think we’ve given the impression that if you don’t have a degree you can’t be competent in Bible study or communication.
Now you’ve hit on the other danger, Dave. The trouble is, the minute we say this, there are a lot of nincompoops out there who are good communicators and maybe even great personal evangelists who feel personally qualified to pastor one of God’s churches. They haven’t the least notion of discipleship and are not capable of the onerous task of watering and cultivating young Christians. They like the quick success of witnessing and see many saved and baptized. Meanwhile folks go out the back door nearly as fast as they come in the front door. I think there is a place for evangelists. I think they should be on staff, not necessarily pastoring.
More than that Dave (#43), I have seen the men in the church use the seminary as an excuse that it is not their job to ultimately lead their families and the local fellowships. They would rather the “professional” get the nod,…so that they can sit on the sidelines (possibly even become a deacon if they get enough votes), then the sideline soon becomes the couch.
Those that work hard at preaching and teaching must understand that is in the context of the church…where the hard work is done. And if any man aspires to such,..that is a wonderful and normal thing in the fellowship. If a man in the church thinks the “Pastor” is supposed to prepare and deliver a sermon on Sunday morning….then the problem in that equation is the “Pastor”. The “Pastor” must quickly and often correct that false dichotomy.
-Chris
They just reprinted an Internet Monk piece on a closely related topic. Far more eloquent than anything I’ve written: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-classic-dumb-up-brother-a-spirituality-of-ignorance
Brother Rick,
I-Monk has given us a portrait of an overseer. good stuff…..
There are undoubtedly some drawbacks to the seminary system. I have seen some real jerks graduate from seminary, and in their early pastorates, mess things up BIG TIME for themselves and churches; but then I suspect that had they not attended seminary, they would have been real jerks without a seminary education, and if they had served some sort of apprenticeship, they would have been jerks. And I will agree that I lacked practical experience when I finished seminary. But is that seminary’s fault, or is it the fault of our Southern Baptist way of doing church? Since we do not and cannot establish minimum salaries, inevitably a lot of churches pay as little as they can get away with–and for those within an hour, even two or three hour’s drive from one of our seminaries, they have a ready supply of preachers ready to hear God’s call to Skunk Swamp Baptist Church; and because of the rigorous individualism of many of those churches, they are neither willing to participate in any such internship program or be honest enough to be part of one anyway. Of course, a few would; but I tend to think that a seminary requirement to take practical ministerial courses alongside of ssyematic theology and languages would be better. When I attended SEBTS, they offered such courses, but did not require them; and coming into seminary with a degree in the sciences rather than religion, I believed I needed the academic courses more.
Frankly, while I agree there can be a problem with the seminary route, I find myself more in agreement with Bart Barber on this one.
John
A couple of other matters occurred tyo me.
First, Paul may not be the best model to look towards. When he became a Christian, he already had both academic training (sitting at the feet of Gamaliel, Acts 22:3) and practical ministerial experience in the synagogue. While none of that was specificially Christian, all of it was transferable into Christian ministry. But since few today come into Christianity with such a background, what Paul did as a model does not apply to the vast majority.
Second is this thing about “being Biblical in all we do.” That sounds good, and plays well to our base, but really it is like carrying water in a sieve–it may look like a bucket or be shaped like a pot, but it isn’t made to hold water. It is far too broad and far too little detailed in many instances. Depending on exactly what one’s presuppositions are, it may produce either a legalist or an antinomian. It may elevate the Ten Commandments over Jesus’ declaration of the greatest commandment, or it may produce one who is so full of love and acceptance that there is no discernment for the boundaries of Christianity. It produced both the Amish, who refuse any technology not found in the Bible, and the Church of God, which refuses instrumental music and think they are the only ones saved. Personally, I have a fear of a whole generation of pastors who may be good ministers, but are lacking in critical thinking skills, and thus are blown about by every wind of doctrine–heaven knows, we see enough of that now. The fact is that there are many situations simply not addressed in the Bible, and to give the appearance of “being Biblical” require all sorts of mental and theological gymnastics. Perhaps the questions to ask–as Dr. Peacock suggested–revolve around what actually works, and how what works is acrually learned.
John
My focus on Paul is not so much about how he became educated, but how he educated those who followed after him.
There is no evidence of Paul sending people away for academic training, but of him teaching and modeling leadership with those whom he mentored.
John, I will agree that some, attempting to “be biblical”, have gone awry. But that does not abrogate our duty to be biblical.
I think Paul would not agree with the idea that “critical thinking” would trump biblical thinking. I’m preaching through 1 Corinthians and it seems to me that Paul wrote chapters 1-3 primarily to confront that idea and to say that truth is spiritually discerned, not achieved by human education.
Got to disagree with you on this one.
“I love what has accumulated in the seminaries, but somehow we glorify them to a degree not supported in the scriptures, and set up a false system of success if one is attended.”
I think this is a good point. Many of the “Christian celebrities” these days are seminary presidents, professors, or mega-church pastors closely aligned with these men. It is interesting to see so much credence given to an institution that is nowhere found in Scripture.
It seems to me that biblical languages are the toughest thing to learn on one’s own and are probably the most neglected area of non-seminary trained pastors. Biblical, Systematic and Historical theology can all be easily grasped through books and online. So how much of seminary is tolerated just to train a limited number of people Hebrew and Greek?
How much more sense might it make for the SBC if every region (associational or state level?) had it’s own language scholars to teach introductory and supplementary courses to local pastors AND be available for individual counsel on an as-needed basis on the front lines? This way, every elder-qualified man in every SBC church could have easily accessible language training in his own backyard.
John, in #48 you said, “I tend to think that a seminary requirement to take practical ministerial courses alongside of ssyematic theology and languages would be better.”
I do not think a couple of practical ministry courses works. I think you need hands-on, church ministry mentoring.
I think we have bought into a system that says that you prepare pastors by educating their minds. No! There is value in education and theological proficiency, certainly. But it is a small component of ministerial preparedness. Practical experience is another component. Competence in ministerial tasks.
But the most important part is character development and maturity. You just can’t get that in a classroom.
Darby, your comment (with which I am in basic agreement) leads me to an observation:
1) The majority of comments here have questioned whether the seminary system as it exists is the best way to prepare pastors. I know this isn’t a scientific sampling, but the flow of comments has been fairly consistent.
2) The SBC luminaries today are largely seminary profs and presidents.
I’m not sure what this means – its just an observation.
Brother Dave,
There is no doubt that the majority of the men laboring in the seminary or have labored there do a remarkable work. Some of my greatest friends teach at seminaries….but I like the way you have at least put forth a post to tease out the elephant in the room.
If you boil it down,…seminaries are wonderful repositories of religious thinking. Kinda like a denominational commentary on steriods. So, in my mind at least they are good to have as a resource….but they are not the model that is most effective for training leadership in the church. Effective training must occur locally and often…. that is the responsibility of the Overseer (Pastor). If Pastors don’t buy into the idea that men “aspire to oversee” then they will never get away from the the fact that seminaries don’t qualify overseers… and in turn will train the church to agree with them. That is the current climate.
It will take Pastoral commitment to the local church for real change to occur.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris – “Kinda like a denominational commentary on steroids.” That’s funny.
My views have been forming as I’ve gone through this discussion. My current theory is that our seminary structure represents a tendency to put the academic and theological ahead of the character formation. We train the mind more than the heart and judge leadership by academic prowess rather than by spiritual standards.
That’s my firm conclusion until I change my mind tomorrow.