This kind of came up in the Accredited vs. non-Accredited seminary thread and I wanted to start a conversation concerning how much of a role and what kind of role Presbytery Candidates and Credential committees (or whatever your denominational equivalent) should have in their students choice of Seminary?

Also a side issue in this particular discussion is how much control should a denomination (or NAPARC) have over the seminaries in which its students learn?

Now we are all aware of the Princeton Seminary problems that led to the formation of WTS-East but is true denominational control a good idea regardless of the abuses of the past?


Lots of questions. What are your answers?

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

Ben,

I generally think that it is fine for presbyteries to strongly recommend a certain seminary. For example, the men that graduate from RPTS that will minister in the RPCNA all know each other really well. I missed out on that. (Of course I know a lot of FRC and HRC guys well because of where I attended).

Now the problem comes in when there is a fine seminary that is close to your local church. Often the student and his family would be a great encouragement to their home church, but they are uprooted and moved to where ever the denomination requires them to be. They, of course, will be an encouragement to the congregation that they are in, but it is no longer their home church that is benefiting.

Long and short- I think that it is fine to require a certain seminary, but it cannot be looked on with legalistic thinking. There needs to be some flexibility for those who do not fit the mold for whatever reason.

BTW, once you are finished with seminary (like you are), it matters very little- in the RP Church the presbytery exams are the indicator and each candidate is judged by his performance in them only... not the seminary name on your degree.

__________________
Pastor Nathan Eshelman, Los Angeles, CA
Reformed Presbyterian Church
PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS
Los Angeles Reformed Presbyterian Church
RPCLA Sermons Online
Puritan Reformed Seminary

Benjamin, I did not mention this on the other thread, but part of the reason for having an "approved list" has to do with the presbytery assisting students with scholarships, loans, and the like. Because some presbyteries help with seminary costs, they wish to restrict the number of institutions they are willing to help with.

__________________
Tim Phillips
Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Louisville, KY
Husband of Scottish Lass
My Blog: Gairney Bridge
My Facebook/My Avatar

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"Wherever the gospel is preached, it is as if God Himself came into the midst of us." ~ John Calvin

A private seminary is to a denomiational seminary as a parachurch org. is to the church.

The church is God's organization for gettng all of his work done.

A person should be excommunicated for starting a mission board or seminary outside of the church and not under the direct authority and control of the church.

The church can appoint people to operate certain aspects of the school or missions, like a board of trustees, president, to oversee its affairs, accounting, building and grounds maintenance etc. But the presbytery or GA should have a committee that oversees the professors and curriculums.

This of course could include distance learning and apprenticeship programs and is not limited to a brick and wall seminary. But the curriculum would still be under the authority of the church.

The key factor, as important if not more than where they were schooled, is that there should be a GA wide standard for the local CCC to use for examination. This would establish consistency and maintain a standard for ministers.
Current examinations do not pick up, or at least do not sort out ministers who hold to divisive beliefs.

Having said that and recognizing the broader universal church, the presbytery should be free to accept any man for the ministry who is solidly Confessional and meets the necessary conditions of the ministry to which he is called, after thorough examination by a CCC.

A minister may be accepted from another seminary or denomination, or even as the Dutch have an Article 8 Minister; that is a ruling elder who exhibits ministerial gifts adequately maybe ordained as a minister of the word without having gone to seminary.

Also the culture of the place of ministry may be considered. A man who will serve in a new work foreign mission may need different gifts to translate etc. than one in an established congregation.

God may allow strange things to occur, this does not mean we should embrace them and make them the norm.

For a man or group to go outside the church and say, all you ministers and elders don't know what you are doing and won't work with us to build a seminary so we are going out on our own to set it up, then you can accept our men for your ministry, just doesn't make sense.
The private men who own and run the seminary then determines the curriculum and doctrinal interpretations and professors and through this have nearly total control of guiding and directing the churches.
By determining what the ministers are taught, they control the church more than outsiders should.
This control should be in the church, under the GA or Presbytery at least.

__________________
DonP

This is a little bit off topic and so if someone wants to spin it off into a separate discussion feel free:

It seems to me that seminaries and denominational training is not really being handled particularly well in general.

1)When seminaries brag that after 7 years 50% of their graduates are still in the ministry, that tells me churches are not screening their endorsements well at all.

2) I know several seminary graduates, including one who has recently been accepted into a doctoral program, who cannot espouse their own theological beliefs. They certainly sign off on and are questioned as to some standards, but that is often not what they really believe.

3) Many 1st and 2nd year Students can't tell you the Gospel in a concise manner of at all.

4) I see young students and young pastors starving for mentorship, and basically cut off from the churches that sponsored them.

5) I see godly men desperate for theological training who simply cannot afford the cost of seminary education.

When my uncle was in seminary 20+ years ago his home church outright paid for about 1/4 of his education while the denomination picked up 1/2. In return for this sponsorship He was expected to be back at his home church every summer and to intern at the same church.

It seems top me then that we need to do a few things as christians.
1) Really examine those who seek to go into full time ministry. Maybe they should spend a year or two minimum as an amanuensis for their pastor/elder/congregation learning directly.

2) In their "down time" perhaps there could be an established basic curriculum they they should know before they go "away" to seminary. They could come together with other young men in the area doing the same thing. RTS, Concordia and Covenant all have hundreds of hours of lectures available online which could serve as a starting point for such activities.

Certainly there are things which are best taught by the scholarly Greek and Hebrew language and exegesis certainly come to mind.

OK I am starting to ramble... so back to the topic at hand:
I firmly believe that the Presbytery should have every right to withhold an endorsement of a seminarian based on seminary choice. Denominations are right to look at what seminary someone has graduated from before extending a license. Certainly you can find good godly men coming out of Moody, Biola and DTS, but they are likely the exception rather than the rule. In the same way you may find real clunkers coming out of Westminster (any), RTS, Covenent, Geneva etc but hopefully they also will be the exception and not the norm.

__________________
Robert K. "Kelly" Brumbelow
In Inquirer's class at Grace Presbyterian (PCA) Cedartown, GA
Cedartown, Georgia

Dear Lord and Father of mankind, Forgive our foolish ways;
Reclothe us in our rightful mind, In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise. - John Greenleaf Whittier 1807-1892

I agree and think a man should be endorsed to seminary and possibly not allowed to go without a ministerial or presbytery endorsement.

But at least he should be in an internship of some sort.

Recently a man who just graduated and had come to the Lord through the RUF ministry on his campus came to our church with the RUF minister. He announced a desire to go into the ministry and work with RUF. But he will do a 2 year internship assisting the minister 1st. Then go to seminary if he is still convinced this is for him.

If we required this perhaps fewer men would be leaving the ministry.

I am not assuming that you are talking about my situation here, but for the record: Puritan Reformed Seminary is an accredited seminary that is under the authority of the Heritage and Free Reformed Churches. My providence had me trained by fellow NAPARC men's seminary.

As for the parachurch seminary: I agree that sems should be under the authority of the local church (I am not sure about excommunication though!)... although Westminster East and West fall under your charge of parachurch seminaries!

So you would have, for example, excommunicated the men who started Reformed as an alternative to forcing their young men to go to the then liberal PCUS seminaries?

You don't consider Reformed or Westminster to be acceptable, but Covenant and Erskine make the cut? Knox is bad, but Union is fine because of denominational control?

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

Not being argumentative here, Don, but to press the logical conclusion of your statement, it seems a necessary conclusion that you would agree in principle with the 1934-1936 PCUSA action to excommunicate J. Gresham Machen, J. Oliver Buswell, Carl McIntire, Paul Woolley, R.T. Brumbaugh and others for their involvement with the parachurch Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.

For the sake of a more intelligent consideration of your view, here are two contrasting articles:

"Liberty of Conscience" by Wm. Childs Robinson (1935). Robinson argues that the PCUSA was inconsistent in that action, given its own history, which included an approving relation with two independent missions agencies in the 19th century.

and "The Alleged Apostasy of the PCUSA", by Samuel G. Craig (1936). Craig, founder of P&R Publications, takes the opposite view, and in essence concluded that Machen & Co. should have stepped back from the IBPFM and continued to work for reform within the PCUSA. That view prompted his resignation from the Board of Trustees at Westminster Seminary.

Cards on the table, gents. What say ye?

__________________
Wayne Sparkman, Th.M.
Director, PCA Historical Center, St. Louis, MO
Blogs: The Continuing Story and PCA History Blog

I like the idea some denominations have adopted for various reasons of having a required supplemental to seminary education.

This is helpful when a denomination may not whole-heartedly endorse any one seminary or does not have its own seminary for training men in its distinctives. An example of such a supplemetal course is provided by the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) in its US presbytery http://www.westminsterconfession.org/Syllabus.pdf

I believe this is also the idea behind the OPC's MTIOPC, although in that case it is not madatory.

Thus, while recognizing that it is not possible in every case to train men at one institution (which is still the most desireable in my opinion) you do have some degree of common instruction in distinctives. In time, if God wills, such a start could develop into the first-steps of a denomination's own seminary.

__________________
Rev. Adam King
Minister in the RPCNA
Pastor,Trinity Reformed Church
Wichita, KS

ADKing,
What are your thoughts regarding my previous post? starting the commonality before seminary rather than as a supplement? I understand it is a fundamental shift away from modern seminaries, but it would be of interest to me to get some feedback on the idea.

Not talking about anyone specific.

But yes Westminister and most of the rest apply.

I say excommunicate because they have set out to be a separate church. They have departed from the church.

Why don't these people with great ideas work through the church?

They end up going back to the churches anyway and seeking some kind of r
relations. Is it the money??

The common complaint is, well the church doesn't give us the freedom we need to do it our way. Or one denomination can't support a seminary we want to reach out to others.

Fine, just because the PCA runs a seminary does not mean men from other churches are not allowed to go.
Other church can pay higher tuition or whatever you want to set up.

And if that denomination does not like one seminary then do their own or apprentice or distance learning with apprentice.
It is still how it is done anyway.

The church was and is God's means of grace; private businesses are not.

Certainly not a bad idea. I agree that we should be a bit more discerning. On the one hand, we must realize that not everyone who wants to go to seminary is actually called. On the other hand, we are to pray that the Lord of the harvest should raise up laborers and we don't want to reject them to quickly and easily before giving them the opportunity to really test a calling.

In my opinion churches need to do a much better job of catechizing people before membership. Some exams I have seen in presbyteries for coming under care or for first step licensure are not really even up to the level of an exam people should have to become communicants (imo).

Some churches in areas where there are many more reformed churches close together or more men in the same congregation who want to go to seminary may be able to implement some of your suggestions better. In cases where we are very isolated it may prove more challenging.

Those are my rambling responses. Thanks for your input. I sympathize with much that you said.

Of course not. I did not say which. And of course originally Princeton and Union were good.

The point is not only one criteria of course now. I was speaking to the deal not how to live within the mess we have.

Of course when the larger part of the church apostates, then you must start over, not continue to use the apostate seminary.

Wayne Unity versus purity is always a hard decision, you as an unbiased church historian must struggle with this more than the rest of us. Some of us more independent minded for purity would split sooner others like William Gurnall would subject themselves to ridicule for staying Anglican.

I am not here to tell a man his conscience in this area. But my understanding of History is that Machen and others felt the denomination had basically apostated in regards to the gospel and missions.
There fore as a 1st step to correction or separation began to start a new mission, eventually a new denomination and seminaries.

So isn't it unfair to compare that which was in the process of separation and did eventually split with what should be?

Also for clarity I do not speak of how to correct the current situation, ie disciplining the men who started any seminary out of bounds, but speak tot he OP on what would be best or ideal.

I think even those of Westminster would agree as far as ideal. Maybe not.

If fault did any good I would go back to those ministers who forsook the truth and did not maintain enough confessional and biblical purity for one like Machen to stay.

The fault is our ministers do not teach and do not discipline adequately.
And perhaps the are too controlling and restrictive or not unified enough to even organize a seminary or mission board so men work out of bounds to do it . Perhaps, sadly, even with permission from a church to do so.

I was speaking to the ideal method IMO.

Who and I to resist the providence of God as He has allowed it to unfold. Good has come from it, but should we eat of it...?

That is where liberty of conscience comes in.
The scriptures are plain on who is to have authority in the church and what God's means of promoting the gospel is.

Thanks for the opp to clarify.