Scott,
I have a great deal of respect for your position at WSC, and have no doubt that your labors have equipped men for faithful service in Christ's church. I am not seeking to undermine or marginalize seminaries, nor am I suggesting that a thread on the PB is going to introduce a better system for training ministers of the gospel. This is about dialog and whether there are alternatives that can exist independent of a seminary or compliment seminary training.
Quote:
|
We tried this in the 19th century. We decided that Princeton worked better.
|
I don't know who "we" is. Are you referring to Presbyterians? Princeton certainly wasn't a Baptist seminary. Perhaps I am approaching this from a Baptist perspective. I meant my OP to be more broad but I can see where my Baptist leanings may be peeking through.
Quote:
|
We've had this discussion many times here. There must be several threads that cover this.
|
Okay, so we're having another one. I don't recall a thread that has treated the subject in this way. This board is all about discussing and refining theological and theologically related thought. I may be wrong but I believe worth can come out of this discussion.
Quote:
The local church or presbytery, unless it is filled with academics (which would not be a good thing probably) is not prepared to replace the seminary. Even if it was full of qualified, full-time scholars, neither would have the resources -- books haven't been replaced by electronic resources. There are academic journals and other resources that every presbytery or particular congregations simply cannot afford.
In short, the alternative necessarily short changes the academic preparation necessary for ministry.
|
Scott, if you've followed the thread you would have noticed that the discussion centered more on a group of churches that are cooperating together in the pursuit of training able bodied men for service. I concur that a single church would be hard pressed to embark on such and endeavor. But the dynamic could change if a network of like minded churches shared the same vision and commitment. For example:
A group of six Baptist churches decide to study the issue of training their own pastors. They perform due diligence and agree on an academic curriculum. Additionally they construct a practicum on pastoral ministry. Part of their due diligence is to assess their capability in providing instruction on languages and theology. In order not to overload their current pastoral leadership they agree to hire qualified staff, shared among their churches, who are dedicated to this work. Everything is done decently and in order. Course work is determined, books are selected, syllabi arranged and classes held. In addition to course work the candidate is involved directly in ministry with their local pastor and elders. This ministry is not an internship for course credit, it is ministry according to their vocational call.
I believe many of the criticisms about this approach are due to the belief that it will either be run by unqualified men or embarked on without the preparation and commitment necessary to see it through. That is not what I am writing about. This type of training would be provided by churches that are well prepared and committed.
This should not be seen as a threat to seminaries. Perhaps men would be called to ministry by their elders who would not have given seminary a second thought. Isn't that the role of the local church anyway?