Office of Doctor

VirginiaHuguenot · #1 (**permalink**) 01-26-2005, 03:35 PM

The Westminster Assembly's Form of Presbyterian Church Government sets forth the office of "Doctor" as follows:

Quote:

Teacher or Doctor.

THE scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor.

Who is also a minister of the word, as well as the pastor, and hath power of administration of the sacraments.

The Lord having given different gifts, and divers exercises according to these gifts, in the ministry of the word; though these different gifts may meet in, and accordingly be exercised by, one and the same minister; yet, where be several ministers in the same congregation, they may be designed to several employments, according to the different gifts in which each of them doth most excel. And he that doth more excel in exposition of scripture, in teaching sound doctrine, and in convincing gainsayers, than he doth in application, and is accordingly employed therein, may be called a teacher, or doctor, (the places alleged by the notation of the word do prove the proposition.) Nevertheless, where is but one minister in a particular congregation, he is to perform, as far is able, the whole work of the ministry.

A teacher, or doctor, is of most excellent use in schools and universities; as of old in the schools of the prophets, and at Jerusalem, where Gamaliel and others taught as doctors.

What opinions do folks have about this office? What is the history of views or practice within the Reformed church or seminaries concerning this office?

C. Matthew McMahon · #2 (**permalink**) 01-26-2005, 03:49 PM

Practice in the Reformed Churches from the Reformation up to that point was indeed that a Doctor was the logical end to "teacher" (pastor/teachers - Eph 4). If someone was going to be a teacher, they would be the best teacher they could be - thus they would have the credentials of learning they needed.

I beleive that every church should have one.

Puritan Sailor · #3 (**permalink**) 01-27-2005, 01:14 AM

The Dutch tradition has an official office of doctor, along with the pastor, elder, and deacon. See the Dordt liturgy.

VirginiaHuguenot · #4 (**permalink**) 04-24-2005, 09:33 AM

Thanks for this feedback gentlemen. I would welcome additional comments, insights and suggested reading to better understanding this office and how it relates to others.

For example, I usually see the debate over the office of elder framed as the "two-office" view vs. the "three-office" view, but how does the office of Doctor fit in?

Are Doctors for individual churches or seminaries or both? Doctors are elders/presbyters, yes?

What churches historically and currently have Doctors? I see Biblical warrant for the office, but hear so little about it that its practicial outworking is unfamiliar to me.

More thoughts?

Contra_Mundum · #5 (**permalink**) 04-24-2005, 01:45 PM

In the OPC 3-office scheme (BCO, FoG, chs 6-9), the office of minister or teaching elder is first described, followed by three categories or functions one might be ordained or called unto: Evangelist, Pastor, or Teacher. I have seen men in the office of teacher in seminaries and in churches (usually not as the sole minister at that church). Nevertheless, the Teacher/Doctor is an ordained minister of the Word and Sacrament (clergy), over against being a Ruling Elder (lay). (The other 2 offices in the OPC are Ruling Elder and Deacon).

I think the designation "Teacher/Doctor" is not strange in Presbyterian circles, though it is much less common than "Pastor," as our ordinary (and smaller) church experience usually has it.

VirginiaHuguenot · #6 (**permalink**) 04-24-2005, 03:13 PM

Thanks, Bruce!

Here is some additional historical material that I found:

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon's A History of The Westminster Assembly:

Quote:

The next topic was the office of pastor and doctor. Relative agreement was in line in defining the pastor as a feeder of the people (Jer. 3:15). It was the title of doctor (or teacher) that debate grew. The Independents maintained the divine institution of a doctor, as distinct from a pastor in every congregation. But the Assembly keenly resisted this since it flavored the Independency´s type of governmental structure. It was at last concluded by Henderson that the same office of pastor may include a diversity of gifts or emphasis, and a learned pastor could in fact hold this office. Those who most excelled in study and exposition should retain the qualification of doctor (the necessary consequence of the learned man after study to engage the people of God with truth and keep the church from error) and minister in the church, or university setting, for the good of the people of God.

William M. Hetherington's HISTORY OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES:

Quote:

The next subject which occupied the Assembly´s attention was the question, whether pastors and teachers, or doctors, formed one and the same office. The Independents maintained the divine institution of a doctor, as distinct from a pastor, in every congregation. It had been their own practice to have a doctor or teacher, as holding a somewhat subordinate position, to that of the pastor, "“ one to which an ordinary member might readily aspire, forming a connecting link between the pastor and the people; and they were exceedingly desirous to persuade the Assembly to retain this distinction. On the other hand, this was one of the peculiarities of the Congregational system, different from what prevailed in all other Churches, and it was strenuously and even keenly resisted by the Assembly. At length Henderson interposed to procure an accommodation and agreement between the contending parties. It was at last concluded, that there are different gifts, and corresponding difference of exercises in ministers, though these may belong to the same person; that he who most excels in exposition may be termed a doctor; that such a person may be of great use chiefly in universities; and where there are several ministers in the same congregation, each may devote himself to that department in which he most excels; and that where there is but one, he must to his ability perform the whole work of the ministry. Henderson warned the Assembly that the eyes of all the Reformed Churches were upon them, earnestly watching whether their proceedings would be such as to promote or prevent the desired uniformity of all Protestant Christendom; entreating them not to be too minutely metaphysical and abstract in treating of such matters, but rather to direct their attention to leading and important topics, with the view of securing a general harmony, though smaller points should be allowed considerable freedom of interpretation. 4

...

As the report concerning Church officers had mentioned "widows," this was the last point to be discussed, whether widows were to be considered as deaconesses, and their office one of permanent continuation in the Church. Some of the Independents, and one or two others, were inclined to retain this office; but after some debate it was decided that the existence of such an office in the Church was not proved. With this discussion terminated the year 1643, in which the business of the Assembly had been chiefly of a preliminary character. It had, however, been solemnly decided, that Christ is so completely the Head of the Church, that all its offices are essentially in him, and from him are they all primarily and authoritatively derived; that of these offices some are extraordinary, and have ceased, "“ those, namely, of apostles, prophets, and evangelists; that pastors and doctors, or teachers, are essentially the same, and form the highest order of divinely appointed officers in the Church; that ruling elders are also of divine appointment, and are distinct from pastors; and that deacons are likewise of divine and permanent institution, though not entitled to preach or to rule, but to take charge of charitable and pecuniary concerns. And as considerable progress had thus been made, reasonable hopes might have been cherished that the business of the Assembly would continue to proceed with as much celerity as was consistent with the grave deliberation due to its vast importance.

[Edited on 4-24-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

VirginiaHuguenot · #7 (**permalink**) 05-08-2005, 09:17 PM

1556 Genevan Book of Order:

Quote:

Of Teachers or Doctors

We are not ignorant that the scriptures make mention of a forth kind of ministers left to the church of Christ, which also are very profitable, where time and place do permit. But for lack of opportunity, in this our dispersion and exile, we cannot well have the use thereof; and would to God it were not neglected where better occasion serves.

These ministers are called teachers or doctors,[a] whose office is to instruct and teach the faithful in sound doctrine, providing with all diligence that the purity of the gospel be not corrupted, either through ignorance, or evil opinions. Notwithstanding, considering the present state of things, we comprehend under this title such means as God has in his church, that it should not be left desolate, nor yet his doctrine decay for default of ministers thereof.

Therefore to term it by a word more usual in these our days, we may call it the order of schools, wherein the highest degree, and most annexed to the ministry and government of the church, is the exposition of God's word, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments.

But because men cannot so well profit in that knowledge, except they be first instructed in the tongues and human sciences (for now God works not commonly by miracles), it is necessary that seed be sown for the time to come, to the intent that the church be not left barren and wasted to our posterity; and that schools also be erected, and colleges maintained, with just and sufficient stipends, wherein youth may be trained in the knowledge and fear of God, that in their ripe age they may prove worthy members of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether it be to rule in civil policy, or to serve in the spiritual ministry, or else to live in godly reverence and subjection.

a. Eph. 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28

VirginiaHuguenot · #8 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 08:13 PM

Kevin Reed, Biblical Church Government:

Quote:

Doctors, or Teachers

We have spoken of two kinds of elders, commonly called ruling elders and teaching elders. Historically, Reformed churches have also acknowledged a third kind of elder, known as the doctor, or teacher (1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11 ). The doctor is a "minister of the word, as well as the pastor," but he might not have the pastoral charge over a particular congregation; rather, he excels more "in exposition of scripture, in teaching sound doctrine, and in convincing gainsayers, than he does in application." As a theologian and apologist, the doctor "is of most excellent use in schools and universities; as of old in the schools of the prophets."[10]

The doctor is another example of division of labor within the eldership. As a teacher in the church, the doctor is answerable to the authority of the church courts, which set the boundaries of his calling. Within the courts of the church he is on a parity with other elders, thereby preserving the church from any hints of hierarchy. The doctor should not be confused with the modern "teachers" who assume an independent ministry outside the courts of the church, or serve as instructors in institutions which are insulated from proper ecclesiastical authority.

The genuine office of the doctor has often fallen into disuse. While the employment of special teachers is desirable in fully organized churches, the presence of doctors is not essential for the ordinary government of the local church. Moreover, the higher courts of the church may function fully without them, when the resources of the congregations are insufficient to sustain ministers of this sort.

Semper Fidelis · #9 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 08:48 PM

Thanks for the information. It is very edifying.

One thing that stands out in the excerpts from the Westminster Divines (and Dr. McMahon reiterates) is that Doctors are part of a Church.

I've done a bit of postgraduate work and once had a desire to pursue a PhD in Engineering that has since waned considerably. From my perspective, the culture and demands of Academia can be far removed from having your feet "on the ground" in a local congregation. This is not to say that I malign the real research and study that goes into scholarship, it is just to say that scholarship can become an end to itself and ideas can become divorced from the context of how an idea might practically work itself out in the body life of a Church.

The Scriptures see knowledge not as a means to its own end but toward the goal of wisdom and glorifying God. I'm wondering out loud if some Seminaries allow men to teach that lack a contextual understanding of Pastoral work and whether they are too far removed from the demands of leadership to be able to equip future leaders.

To use an example I am familiar with, we train future leaders regularly in the Marine Corps. At Command and Staff College, which is a postgraduate education, we have military and PhD faculty advisors for each group of 12 Officers. While many of the PhD's are former military, some are not. Even those that have real experience suffer from a bit of myopia stemming from the fact it has been some time since they've "been there and done that". What I truly appreciated about the education at Command and Staff College was the combination of primary research and scholarship from the PhD's combined with the experience of senior leaders. While Algeria, Northern Ireland, Vietnam and Somalia are excellent studies, Iraq is not 1950's Algeria and we are not the French. Not all counterinsurgencies are the same and the PhD faculty knew the limits of what pure scholastic pursuit could glean. Several PhD's regularly stated that the discussions in the Conferences were better than any civilian colleges they had attended or taught at because of the context that students with 10-15 years of military leadership brought to the discussion.

While the knowledge I posses about leadership is mostly gleaned is from general revelation, it is true as far as it goes. In my estimation, many young pastors remind me of junior Lieutenants in their people and leadership skills. In my estimation, many Seminaries focus little on leadership training and focus solely on the intellectual development of its students. Intellectual development is indispensible, lest you believe I'm eschewing academic rigor but it is not an either-or issue.

I understand the culture of Academia enough to appreciate the tension. I just believe that Seminaries ought to be more an incubator for leadership rather than just another postgraduate program. Doctors of Theology who train Pastors ought to be more than just brilliant men. If they are not apt to lead then, it is my opinion, they are not apt to teach and equip future Pastors for that role.

Thus, I find much wisdom in the Westminster definition of what a Doctor should be about.

[Edited on 2-1-2006 by SemperFideles]

WrittenFromUtopia · #10 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 09:06 PM

For example, R. Scott Clark holds the Westminsterian-defined office of a Doctor in the Church. He is both a pastor/elder AND a teacher in the Church.

SolaScriptura · #11 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 09:17 PM

I want to be known as "The Doctor of the Church." That would be cool.

Semper Fidelis · #12 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
I want to be known as "The Doctor of the Church." That would be cool.

pastorway · #13 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 10:24 PM

Humbly,

there is no such office given in Scripture. It is an added requirement/expectation given over and above the Scriptures that creates an office that the Bible nowhere mentions. It helps maintain a professional clergy class that is more detrimental to the church than it is helpful.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing a higher degree - but the qualifications given for elders in 1 Tim and Titus 1 do not even mention education. It is a matter of maturity, spiritual character, and the ability to rightly handle the Word of God.

If we require this "office" of Doctor then the Disciples were not qualified to serve as elders in the church.......those uneducated Galileans!

Phillip

WrittenFromUtopia · #14 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 10:37 PM

Uneducated pastors and self-proclaimed teachers have done more harm to the Church than trained pastors could ever do.

SolaScriptura · #15 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Uneducated pastors and self-proclaimed teachers have done more harm to the Church than trained pastors could ever do.

I agree that uneducated pastors and self-proclaimed teachers have done tremendous harm to those for whom Christ died.

But let's face it: trained pastors have been responsible for liberalism in almost all its forms.

Thus training and ordination do not, in and of themselves, ensure orthodoxy, much less vibrant evangelical faith.

C. Matthew McMahon · #16 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 11:55 PM

Phillip, I am going to humbly and profoundly disagree with you here on pastors being educated or not.

Quote:

Originally posted by pastorway
Humbly,

there is no such office given in Scripture. It is an added requirement/expectation given over and above the Scriptures that creates an office that the Bible nowhere mentions.

Phillip, there is very good exegetical reasons why pastor/teacher is mentioned the way it is (Eph. 4:9ff). Pastors are certainly teachers, but double honor goes those who labor in word and doctrine. If one were to take that to the "nth" degree, then you would have someone very studied in the Scriptures. Certainly we would want to be mentored under godly pastors. Timothy would not have been what he was unless he had his Paul. Mark his Peter. Etc. Personally, I've never heard of anyone (yet) in history that decided to simply "anoint" themselves "educated" without being trained. I would have gladly given up 11 years in school for 3 years in Christ's school. The Disciples were far more educated than I am after 11 years of seminary. Those Galileans were NOT uneducated. As a matter of fact the Scripture makes this very plain about them, Acts 4:13, "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus."

Christ rubbed off eh?

To say someone is taking up the role of a "teacher" in a Church, is certainly not an unbiblical idea. It simply follows that those who desire to be best educated would desire to get the best Scriptural education they could. Harvard was founded by Thomas Shepherd to train pastors. The idea being, take the best and most thoroughly trained pastor (like Paul) and make many Timothys. Do that in a structured environment and you have seminary. Structure does not void one, then, of the office of teacher.

Quote:

It helps maintain a professional clergy class that is more detrimental to the church than it is helpful.

Can you give some good historical examples here? Would Owen, Edwards, Calvin, et al. be considered in this class?

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with pursuing a higher degree - but the qualifications given for elders in 1 Tim and Titus 1 do not even mention education.

A BIG "HUH?" on that one brother. You contradict yourself in the next line....

Quote:

It is a matter of maturity, spiritual character, and the ability to rightly handle the Word of God.

How can one rightly handle the Word of God without knowing how to do that and being trained to do it? The Disciples grew up, for example, in Synagogue under the teaching of the word their whole lives. Christ then solidified that.

I guess among qualification they need to be educated then? Otherwise they can't rightly divide the truth.

That is why ever pastor should not only be trained, but so thoroughly trained that he can answer EVERY objection that any gainsayer may throw at him so as to uphold the word.

Titus 1:10-11 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not,

Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

There is no way one will be able to do this unless they were well trained. I personally don't think that one needs to have a "Doctorate", but they better be WELL educated before ever getting into the pulpit. As Gabe right said, "Uneducated pastors and self-proclaimed teachers have done more harm to the Church than trained pastors could ever do." AMEN.

An uneducated pastor is no pastor. He is wolf, and should never assume the responsibility of God's people.

Phillip, overall, is your reply an uneducated reply that one should not listen to or an educated reply because you know the Scriptures better than most? In other words, to assert that anyone should listen to you would mean you know more than them and that basically voids your entire post. You are chasing your tail here. If you tell us anything, we should/shouldn't believe you based on....what?

Someone who is spiritually mature will know the Word very well. Someone who has spiritual character has knowledge, for it is impossible to know God without it. If one has the ability to rightly handle the word, then they are rightly trained up as a pastor.

I'm not being defensive because I have a doctorate, or two, or eight. However, one who has a doctorate has put int he time it takes to study well. Would we want someone not studied, or someone studied in our pulpit?

Think of a medical doctor. Would it matter how much he knew before cutting into you? I think so. Spiritual surgeons are no more apt to be less trained that medical doctors. As a matter of fact, it SHOULD be that pastors would have MORE training and extensive knowledge than medical doctors IMHO.

Yes, that would cancel out quite a lot of pastors. But that is OK. Charles Bridges, in his book "The Christian Ministry", gives a very hearty look at what should make a minister according to being well trained. Ministers should be of the highest spiritual character. Spiritual attainments also must be combined with a spiritual character - including chiefly a clear and comprehensive view of the evangelical system of doctrine. As Bridges says quite rightly, "The solid establishment of the people may be materially hindered by the minister's contracted statement, crude interpretations, or misdirected Scriptural application." (28) Malachi 2:7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

Paul instructed Timothy to be about specific habits of study - 1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

Paul himself desired - 2 Timothy 4:13 when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Christ said that scribes of the kingdom are well versed int he kingdom's doctrine -
Matthew 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

His course of reading must embrace a comprehensive view of Scripture (note COMPREHENSIVE) in its doctrinal light, practical obligation, and experimental influence. A point of every minister is that they be profoundly studious. They should know systematic theology, historical theology, biblical theology, church history, and the like. Ask Edwards at 15 if he knew that, then read a sermon or two from that period in his ministry. He was profoundly studied. One can say the same of every Oxford and Cambridge puritan, every scholastic reformer and all the early church fathers. Personally, I can't think of a time in church history that a revival was not ensued by anything less than one who was profoundly educated in the things of God!

Quesnel said, "Not to read or study at all is to tempt God: to do nothing but study is to forget the Ministry: to study, only to glory in one's knowledge is a shameful vanity: to study in search of the means to flatter sinners is a deplorable prevarication: but to store one's mind with the knowledge proper to the saints by study and by prayer, and diffuse that knowledge in solid instructions and practical exhortation - this is to be a prudent, zealous, and laborious minister."

Ministers MUST cultivate their heart and their head. The duties of this office are such that it is impossible to discharge them effectively without a life of close study. Thomas Murphy (his book "Pastoral Theology" is second to none) says that a minister should study at least 5 hours a day. Edwards studied 13 hours a day and look where that got him.

So I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone could say that among the qualification of the elder (seen also in the Scriptures above) that one should be uneducated. Even in his home life, and that of spiritual maturity, for him to RIGHTLY discharge those duties, would be to know HOW to discharge those duties in a godly and effective manner. Would that not include being well educated in the practical things of God and thus the Word of God?

I cannot see how one could divorce them at all.

We need more learned, godly teachers. Especially today, when knowledge is being tossed away by the Rick Warrens and Joel Osteens of the day, we need more doctors who are committed to the Reformed faith. We should pray for more seminaries that will uphold the truth.

Pilgrim · #17 (**permalink**) 01-31-2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Quote:

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Uneducated pastors and self-proclaimed teachers have done more harm to the Church than trained pastors could ever do.

I agree that uneducated pastors and self-proclaimed teachers have done tremendous harm to those for whom Christ died.

But let's face it: trained pastors have been responsible for liberalism in almost all its forms.

Thus training and ordination do not, in and of themselves, ensure orthodoxy, much less vibrant evangelical faith.

pastorway · #18 (**permalink**) 02-01-2006, 01:13 AM

did I ever say uneducated??? (other than a refernce that was made in Scripture about Jesus' disciples from Galilee)

You have missed my point - COMPLETELY, and burnt a straw man to the ground.

The Bible does not require that a man have a college, university, or seminary degree in order to serve the church as an elder.

It requires he be educated IN THE WORD, to handle it rightly. But that can be done without any "formal" education. Spurgeon is proof enough of that!

Adding the office of "doctor", and defining it as receiving a degree from an educational institution, ADDS to the Scripture my friends. The Bible speaks of pastors and teachers, but never of profesisonal academic theologians called "doctors."

It may be nice to have the degree, but it is not required to be Scirpturally qualified for being a pastor.

Nobody I think would argue that we should put uneducated men in the pulpit - but let's be clear - education is more than a piece of paper conferring a degree. A man can receive the best education the academic world has to offer and earn that little paper to hang on the wall, and he can still be an idiot and a heretic.

A pastor should know the Word, living and written. And any church that REQUIRES a "degree" to qualify that knowledge has made more of the requirements than the Bible does.

Phillip