Thread: A Seminary Education in the 21st Century, What Really Counts!

"Seminary Education for the 21st Century: Something Old and Something New."

Audio: http://www.heidelbergseminary.org/Si...2004%20mp3.mp3



BTW, Paul Woolley frequently mention in the audio was a professor of Church History from "Old" Westminster Theological Seminary.
More info. concerning Prof. Woolley here: http://www.wts.edu/about/founders/woolley.html


Rev. Grossmann in the audio points out that:

-Pastors must serve the Church.

-A Higher Theological Education is only to be for the Ministry.

-Seminaries today have become Ivory Towers for higher education and therefore irrelevant for the Church.

-The only excuse for a higher theological education is for the Church.

-Seminary training/theological education should be a advance catechism class.

-Seminaries should train men how to preach, in order to save themselves and others ( 1 Tim. 4:16).

-Seminaries nowadays follow the European Graduate model for teaching men for the ministry, instead of following Jerusalem (the Biblical model). This European Model has failed the Church in Europe and the U.S.

-Seminary training has very often become too academic. It must be rigorous academic education, but at the same time be a vocational technical school giving vocational instruction and techniques on pastoral work, teaching and preaching.

-A Theological education is useless if it cannot be preach in the Church by competent men who can preach.

-The Word of God being taught requires submission to it.

-The Word of God is not neutral..If the Word of God does not get you, does not change you, you are not being train for the ministry.

-Human institutions are fallible.

-Seminary professors often think that they are the higher forms of life on earth and seminary students often come thinking that way and want to be seminary professors.

Much more in the above audio.

BTW, Paul Woolley frequently mention in the audio was a professor of Church History from "Old" Westminster Theological Seminary.

He was also church historian for the OPC at one point

Thought-provoking, Gil.

Can we assume that what he lays out is also what you would find if you were to attend Heidelberg Seminary?

And isn't there another RCUS seminary in California? Is their program different, or does it follow the same model?

Is it appropriate for men to go to seminary to prepare themselves to be academicians to study church history and trends in church history. All roles that serve the church are not pastor roles, and perhaps there are men who cannot preach, but can write and research on vital issues in theology and church history. While I agree that the Ivory Tower is too much focused on, the worldwide Body of Christ IS diverse and there is room for historians, academicians, and introverted experts who can't preach a lick but know much about semitic languages, etc.

Originally Posted by Wayne

Thought-provoking, Gil.

Can we assume that what he lays out is also what you would find if you were to attend Heidelberg Seminary?


And isn't there another RCUS seminary in California? Is their program different, or does it follow the same model?

Yes, I visit the school before and they do teach what they preach. Heidelberg Theological Seminary Home Page

Yes. However, both schools are not offical RCUS seminaries.The school in California is in Sacramento, called City Seminary of Sacramento, City Seminary of Sacramento - Home.

-----Added 7/11/2009 at 08:36:38 EST-----

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Is it appropriate for men to go to seminary to prepare themselves to be academicians to study church history and trends in church history. All roles that serve the church are not pastor roles, and perhaps there are men who cannot preach, but can write and research on vital issues in theology and church history. While I agree that the Ivory Tower is too much focused on, the worldwide Body of Christ IS diverse and there is room for historians, academicians, and introverted experts who can't preach a lick but know much about semitic languages, etc.

The Church has both Pastors and Teachers (Historians, Theologians, Professors, etc.). However, I think the Biblical understanding is for them to serve the Church, not anything else.

They do serve the Church.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

They do serve the Church.

Yes. But I think the point of the audio message is that there are some who have a theological education M.Div. or Ph.D. who don't serve the Church, but seek a theological training only to serve their minds, other men, pride, self, to be known and make a name out of themselves, etc.

BTW, Rev. Grossmann, the speaker in the audio, has a Ph.D. and is serving the Church.

A good example from Church History is Philip Melanchton, he was not a preacher, but used his theological training to serve the Church as a Theologian/Teacher of the Church.

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Originally Posted by Pergamum

They do serve the Church.

Yes. But I think the point of the audio message is that there are some who have a theological education M.Div. or Ph.D. who don't serve the Church, but seek a theological training only to serve their minds, other men, pride, self, to be known and make a name out of themselves, etc.

These charges could be brought against any man seeking any profession. Does the fault lie in the institutions in which they studied or in the secret desires of their own hearts that drives them to these pursuits?

But regarding the OP, I like the suggestions that were made detailing what a seminary education should look like for men who are seeking to shepherds God's sheep.

You cannot teach men how to think at the same time you are teaching them what to do. Since at least Plato and Aristotle, a distinction has been recognized between theoretical knowledge [φιλοσοφια] and "artistic" or technical knowledge [τεχνη]. At bottom, the question is whether we want our ministers to be educated people capable of thoughtful and incisive reflection, or men highly trained (not educated) in a narrow band of tasks.

Now, let me qualify that a bit. Of course the ministry includes specific tasks and ministers should know how to do them. Why, though, would it be necessary to go to seminary to sit in a classroom to learn such things? Why not just have your pastor teach you? The classroom should be primarily for theoretical knowledge, since "vocational training" cannot be well communicated through a classroom environment. The seminary/intern program seems like a better choice than doing vocational training in the seminary.


The speaker's contention that "higher theological education is only to be for the Ministry" is, frankly, ridiculous. I say the opposite: theological education has focused too narrowly on pastors. I would highly recommend Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, or even Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism. One of Christianity's crises is that we have extremely few people who are theologically acute who are doing work outside the narrow bounds of the church/seminary. As Reformed people, we ought to be leading the way in producing theologically acute anthropologists, sociologists, historians (not just church), literary critics, politicians, political theorists, physicists, family doctors, etc. These people, in order to pursue a distinctively Christian (Reformed even) approach to their subject fields, must have access to higher theological education. They aren't getting the grounding they need in their universities, grad schools, or churches.

It seems like it has been "let's bash our seminaries and seminarians" week around here.

Let's start a thread on the downfalls of small local churches who are alone and isolated trying to train its men adequately for the ministry without the input of the larger body of Christ.

Imagine: A bi-vocational man who has never taught Greek or Hebrew and barely knows it himself trying to teach a young man by himself (without utilizing the resources of other Christians)....

Seminaries, or at least teaching from those seminaries (whether in person, by audio or on video), along with vigorous local church involvement and mentoring, seems like an ideal.

I've heard discussion regarding concern that the weakness of the modern church is producing men who perhaps don't know what a truly Biblical church is. That seems more a matter of mentoring than a matter of education. I think the strength of reformed churches in general and Presbyterian churches in particular has been their insistence on an educated clergy -- particularly in regards to being able to handle the word in its original languages and in a systematic application of that word.

My friends, I went to one of the more regognizable reformed seminary. When I graduated, the fellow who would have been voted most likely to succeed, if we'd had "superlatives," already had a pulpit in the same community. By the time I took my licensure exam, it had been found out that he was ibvolved in a sexual relationship with the secretary in his new congregation.

He knew the academics. He even knew the "King lists." But, nobody checked on his personal life; his spiritual growth and maturity.

I don't know how seminaries can address this, but I do know that preparation for pastoral ministry, in particular (but not exclusively) needs to deal with more than academics.

I am currently right now taking a break from writing a paper now for a seminary. I have for a while said as am sure Pergamum can confuse to that seminary training should be done on the local church level, instead of potential ministers going to a seminary and getting into debt.

One problem that was raised was the issue of potential teachers not knowing the biblical languages. If a group of churches banned together, at least one church should have someone who is proficient in Greek and Hebrew; particularly because of the fact that most people who are ministers have that M Div. degree and has the experience with the languages. Also there are plenty of tools and software available to reinforce or supplement certain areas of learning. I keep that in mind now preparing to go into Greek in about a month. Therefore with technology in mind, there really is not much of an excuse for most churches to train up potential teachers. In fact one biblical responsibility for being an elder is being able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2).

We should not see our churches as standing alone and not all pastors are bi-vocational. Some pastors all they do is preach on Sunday and visit the sick and that really it. We need to establish church accountability on the local level. Baptist churches are really bad about that in their associations. We can include in this accountability teaching the young, which let us face facts must of our young people in our churches do not even have a basic biblical instruction and are what I would consider Bible illiterate. So this goes beyond teaching on a seminary level, but simple teaching period has left our churches. And nobody as a whole can deny that.

The Internet now has a ton of reading sources for free for students that pastors can assign. In fact this type of teaching along side with prayer and preaching should be what we are paying our pastor for anyway. The church has taught their own without the use of seminaries for generation for the sake of the church. It is the churches fault that they have concentrated their time more on social and political issues then the teaching of its people. In fact it is one of my pet peves. that it is not taking place.

We also do not need seminaries to teach church history; that actually what I am going to seminar for (HT degree). We could teach that on the local level and I have with people who were interested. The problem is the people are not interested and we have allowed for the people ears to be tickled. I am all for sacrificing for the church, some of what been going on is needless though in our church society. Therefore we do need to go back to basics, which are the Gospel and the Bible. We need to reform the varies offices like the deacon and the overseer/pastor. After we have established the various roles and biblical responsibility then we could possible move on to the various programs that are out there. But the people instruction and herding must come first and it has not been. Even on the smaller church level; which I have many storied I can testify to.

Smaller churches can offer so much more then a seminary. The instruction they give can not only be more personalized, which is better, but they can also offer up accountable in what going on in your individual lives. This is something most seminaries cannot do. In fact you can feel quite isolated in seminary, which is not healthy for the individual, especially if they are preparing for the ministry. Local needs can also be meet as they go through this process; instead of the general “will pray for you” line; which sums up to the fact the church will sit on their duff and do nothing. Do not look at this on an attack on prayer. One thing I have noticed is that people replace the willingness to act, including in evangelism, and replaced it with prayer. There must be action along side with prayer to really show love and I see this being meant more practically if the student was in a local church instead of far off in a seminary.

First, I hope that I have not come across, in the other thread, as seminary bashing. I only commented on certain types of seminaries. TMS has a good model, with the leadership of the local church overseeing its administration, though more personal pastoral oversight for individuals would be highly beneficial. It's on the church campus. Cornerstone up in the Bay area has a great model. Expositors' Institute is another excellent model for a seminary. It can be done well. But I see these schools as the exceptions rather than the rule.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Let's start a thread on the downfalls of small local churches who are alone and isolated trying to train its men adequately for the ministry without the input of the larger body of Christ.

Imagine: A bi-vocational man who has never taught Greek or Hebrew and barely knows it himself trying to teach a young man by himself (without utilizing the resources of other Christians)....

Seminaries, or at least teaching from those seminaries (whether in person, by audio or on video), along with vigorous local church involvement and mentoring, seems like an ideal.

That's me, the small local church alone in the U.P. who would love to train up men, if any would step forward. I've never taught Greek or Hebrew and am quite rusty at it. But I would rely on materials from others and focus more on these things if given the opportunity to train a young man. And DVDs of classes from a seminary would be an excellent resource.

With these considered, I think Grimmson nailed it. We get caught up in all these credentials, many of which can be a great asset for the pastor. But seminaries have a tendency to diminish a man's character rather than promote it. It is the character of a man that qualifies him to be an elder though. The requirements found in God's Word do not include many of the things that are presented as vital for a pastor.

Pergy, when you train men in your villages do you teach them Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, church history, etc.? Are these things necessary before you make one of them an elder? Why? Is not the reasoning for them cross-cultural in the scheme of things?

Blessings,

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Let's start a thread on the downfalls of small local churches who are alone and isolated trying to train its men adequately for the ministry without the input of the larger body of Christ.

Imagine: A bi-vocational man who has never taught Greek or Hebrew and barely knows it himself trying to teach a young man by himself (without utilizing the resources of other Christians)....

Seminaries, or at least teaching from those seminaries (whether in person, by audio or on video), along with vigorous local church involvement and mentoring, seems like an ideal.

That's me, the small local church alone in the U.P. who would love to train up men, if any would step forward. I've never taught Greek or Hebrew and am quite rusty at it. But I would rely on materials from others and focus more on these things if given the opportunity to train a young man. And DVDs of classes from a seminary would be an excellent resource.

With these considered, I think Grimmson nailed it. We get caught up in all these credentials, many of which can be a great asset for the pastor. But seminaries have a tendency to diminish a man's character rather than promote it. It is the character of a man that qualifies him to be an elder though. The requirements found in God's Word do not include many of the things that are presented as vital for a pastor.

Pergy, when you train men in your villages do you teach them Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, church history, etc.? Are these things necessary before you make one of them an elder? Why? Is not the reasoning for them cross-cultural in the scheme of things?

Blessings,

We always want to teach future leaders with the best tools available. If they are offering pig fat to the local spirit, then just getting them to know about sin is a HUGE achievement. And how to hold a pencil. And how to treat their wife, or multiple wives. And the Germ Theory of disease. Greek and Hebrew would be a stretch. Maybe in 30 years.

But in the US, why settle for sub-standard means if better means are available, and one (sorry)... one lone isolated pastor, working bi-vocationally in the Yooper, and trying to teach men Greek and Hebrew and trying to minister to the restofhis people is a recipe for a shoddy product. No hit on you, but you can't work, be a pastor, and train someone adequately for ministry. You would at least need not to be bi-vocational.

I would propose heavy local church involvement with local-church ministry during summers and after graduation. If some classes could be taken online, then the student could live part-time near one's local church and be mentored locally, even while taking advantage of the fact that seminaries exist to gather highly trained minds that teach and reteach the same materials so that Joe Johnson is not trying to figure out lesson plans and re-remember Greek participles for his poor pastor-in-training after a 40 hour work week and 30 more hours trying to deal with church vistation/coumseling/funerals.

Specialization in the body of Christ makes sense.

-----Added 7/12/2009 at 11:54:03 EST-----

P.s. I love your attitude though and your desire to train up men! Praise God for Big Holy Ambitions!

Forty hour work week? Heh, my "part-time" job is only about 8 hours a week, unless I want to work more. I don't think it would be a problem. But I also agree that utilizing a seminary would be a great option to help the education along, bringing the trainee back on breaks to serve and be evaluated. I said as much in an earlier post.

It's interesting, I see what you do as taking on much more than what you describe in the above post...

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Forty hour work week? Heh, my "part-time" job is only about 8 hours a week, unless I want to work more. I don't think it would be a problem. But I also agree that utilizing a seminary would be a great option to help the education along, bringing the trainee back on breaks to serve and be evaluated. I said as much in an earlier post.

It's interesting, I see what you do as taking on much more than what you describe in the above post...

I think we are agreed. We might be emphasizing different aspects. We both want to strengthen local churches.


What do you think I do?

Build houses in the jungle and play with lizards.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Build houses in the jungle and play with lizards.

That's in my spare time.

At one point, I thought it was required for men to be under care of a presbytery in order to be attending seminary -- and in that context, wouldn't their spiritual lives and maturity be tested and grown? Going back to a much older system, when young men read under the direction of an established pastor (isn't that what Greenville is trying to do now?) wouldn't you have similar oversight?

A classroom can give you a lot, but it seems that many things are best learned within the context of a relationship, something like you see between Timothy and Paul. This also frees the professor to focus upon what he does best, giving the next generation of pastors the theological tools they will need.

I guess part of my concern here is that when seminaries start focusing on doing anything but giving a solid theological education, (say teaching executive skills, or to go back to the 60s, social consciousness) the seminaries begin to slip and with them all the churches that receive these future pastors.