My Responce to Dr. R. Scott Clark

[R. Scott Clark]

Dr. Scott;

What do you think of RTS's distance program?

I'm not crazy about it but it's not an MDiv program, which makes it a little more palatable.

The people who take classes there are certainly not "anti-intellectual". There are specialized instructors teaching through distance means and an assigned mentor.

My concern about anti-intellectualism is that DE invariably means that things that would have been taught face to face and learned face to face won't be.

Part of the problem is that I'm trying to address several things at once.

1) The no-seminary is necessary argument;

2) The "no-specialized training" is necessary argument;

3) The DE argument;

I've tried to signal when I'm addressing each of these, but perhaps I failed.

If RTS had not had the strategic foresight to engineer this program I would have had to spend my 4 years in the army and then spend 4 more years sitting behind a desk in seminary and would still be preparing to serve overseas.

I still think it would have been best for you to be "behind a desk" before hitting the field.

Practicality is an American trait, one which makes my argument counter-intuitive to most Americans. More than most cultures we need to be made to sit down and learn. We more than most cultures, because of the profound weakness of our primary and secondary ed systems need a more rigorous not less rigorous sem system

Sitting in a class does not always guarantee a lot more face time with a professor.

True, but the potential is there. I can't communicate everything I need to by email. There's eye contact, tone of voice, casual conversation, lunch, talks in the office and in the hall. Those contacts are invaluable. They're irreplaceable.

No one is saying ivory tower schools don't have their place. But practicality in getting people to the field or keeping them on the field can help the process of education without taking people off the field or hindering their progress to the field.

"Ivory Tower"? I think I like brick and mortar better! At WSC we require 700 field hours as a pre-requisite for graduation and many MDiv students graduate with far more hours. Many of our MDiv students (2nd and 3rd year) are in the pulpit virtually every Sabbath. That's not ivory tower education. Some of our students, as appropriate, even serve on sessions and some are engaged in full-time ministry when they come. Several of our students go on missions trips, at their own expense. We have very few "ivory tower" students.

Plus, there are millions of Asian Christians and African Christians that could never sit in a WSC class due to location and money. Free online resources like Covenant or distance courses like RTS goes a long way in educating the Third World for future practical hands on ministry.

The solution is for us to build institutions for them. It's being done. I've been involved in the training of faculty for the NKST in Nigeria and elsewhere. On analogy with church planting. They need local, indigenous schools and faculties to do the work there that we do here. We bring students here from overseas who have support by donors and many times those graduates go back to teach and establish institutions overseas. For example, one of our grads, Lito Carag, just became President of FEBIAS Bible Institute in the Philippines. Another of our grads, Lloyd Kim oversees theological education all across the Far East.

Too, are you telling me that the apostolic era has nothing to do with how we should teach people?

No, but this response suggests the profound weakness of DE!

If you were here, you would have been able to see my face, hear my tone of voice, and ask for a clarification immediately.

I'm saying that, unless you have true Apostolic power, then you need a sem education to be a pastor.
-

Too, the analogy between ministers and doctors does not entirely work: Doctors and Dentists must practice hands on type of practices, the very things that often seminaries make it impossible to practice.

Can you elaborate on this? Why EXACTLY does the analogy fail? Physicians study and have internships/apprenticeships. It is a combination of classroom and practical experience that culminates in an MD and entrance into some sort of practice. Med students are exposed to a variety of types of medicine before they specialize. Most pastors are General Practitioners, but on that analogy, I don't see why it doesn't work. You assume that seminaries don't offer hands-on training. That's a false assumption.

Too, where is it that young pastors get most of their preaching and counseling training................at their home church.

I address this in the original article on the blog/WSC Site.

The ministry IS important, but it is NOT brain surgery. An old dusty tome works as well as a new shiny piece of equipment if you feed your mind with it - and good books work in a variety of settings.

This is anti-intellectual. This is exactly the attitude that concerns me. You are saying, if I understand you, that "mediocre is good enough." NO! It isn't. It IS brain surgery. Pastoral counseling is just as difficult as brain surgery and I don't get to quit and go home after 12 hours. My cases go on for weeks and months and call for repeated surgeries -- sometimes for years.

It's comments like these that make me think that some folk neither understand theological education nor pastoral ministry.

I'm saying what I do BECAUSE I am a pastor. Because I deal with the tough cases. I would very much like to be in an ivory tower, but providence won't allow it!

many pastors only do as much Greek as neccessary and most do not go deeply whether they are at a brick and mortar school or not.

I keep saying this and I'll say it again, that's not true of our students, at least as far as I can see and even if it is, the status quo is no argument for mediocrity. We need to continue to work at getting students an excellent start so they can really READ God's Word for themselves and not rely on Bibleworks or what have you.

Probably one of my biggest points of objection to you Dr. Scott is that in all your posting you focus only on the intellectual aspects of the ministry - as if more intense and longer training on-site can make a great minister.

Then, Trevor, you haven't been paying attention or I haven't been clear. I've been arguing for face to face education PRECISELY BECAUSE EDUCATION IS MORE THAN INFORMATION TRANSMISSION.

It is a process of personal and spiritual formation. The church is the primary locus for Spiritual formation, the school has a role. We're called as ministers to serve here, to shepherd students, to mold and form them into ministers. That's a spiritual process. We meed to pray with students. We talk with them. We worship with them. That can't be done by distance.

rsc

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Larry,

Fair enough. I did talk to one of your board members, but I didn't talk to you. I should have done. I apologize.

So, why Wittenberg? Do any of my historical questions/objections make any sense?

My main concern is about the whole theory (and practice) of DE for ministers.

rsc

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Jerrold,

Do the men who tutor future ministers in the FCC FCS have the same level of expertise as practicing scholars?

How can a man do all the things a faithful pastor is meant to do and keep up with secondary and primary lit in his field? I am a part-time pastor now and a full-time scholar, but when I was a full-time pastor there were years when I didn't get to a seminary library more than once or twice. I don't think that's unusual.

makes me anti intellectual then you are redefining the term. And the move from the Log College to the Princeton model had as much to to with the European enlightenment University method as anything else.

Do you disagree about the Old Side? They were very much in favor of university/academic training for their pastors. Even the LC men favored the College of NJ when it was founded. It was regarded as a great improvement. The relations between the two are complicated, but the LC was an anomaly not a pattern.

Look, no where in the Scriptures does it say that we are to bring in hired guns who are experts in a field to train men for the ministry. I say you are making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

Jerrold, why is that everyone who ISN'T doing my job 12 hours a day knows how to do it better than I?

How in the world would you know that it's not that complicated? Can you hear the exasperation?

Why am I not right in regarding your argument as fundamentally anti-intellectual?

John Frame

At the risk of ad hom argumentation, are you sure this is where you want to go? Do know the context of this argument and where it would lead?

Are you prepared to follow JM elsewhere? If not, why here?

In the early days of American Protestantism, the training of ministerial candidates was carried out by pastors of churches. A young man feeling a call of God to the ministry would associate himself with a church pastor, receive training from him, participate in the work of the parish, and perhaps even live in the minister’s home. I’m not sure why, but eventually this system was felt to be inadequate". Frame goes on to remind the reader that seminaries are a convention of the church, created to fill in the gap created by churches that are not fulfilling their Biblical mandate of discipleship. He sites old Princeton Seminary board member Rev. Gardiner Spring who contends that in his day the parish-trained minister far surpassed the seminary trained scholar. That is quite a statement from both Frame and Spring - two seminarians (p.11).

It's odd how often John bases much of his arguments on history which professes not to understand.

Call me an ivory tower guy, but unless one has really looked into this stuff and sorted through it carefully, one ought not to be making these sorts of arguments.

There's nothing about the current model as practiced by WSC that precludes heavy involvement by the local church. Indeed our system REQUIRES that.

As to Mr Murray, he did have a little seminary training didn't he?

As to men trained without seminary, they test the rule. Most sem students aren't the doctor or Edwards (who had an extensive univ education).

I'm not opposed to revising the status quo, but I am opposed to lowering standards -- which is what John's proposal and DE would do.

rsc

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Larry,

You're willing to be represented in court by someone who whose legal education was entirely online?

Really?

rsc

On Dr. Clark's updated blog post he sums up by saying...



I didn't realize distance ed meant neglecting these subjects.

i think that utilizing discussion boards, chat rooms, video conferencing, and mentoring can increase the community aspect of distance ed. I am not sure exactly would be the deficiency in a pastor who had online training as opposed to brick and mortar. It's a little to general to simply say that it lacks "community" or "face-to-face contact." I have a hard time believing that simply being in the presence of somebody can somehow impute some special grace for the ministry.

As far as the medical or legal profession...i would not equate the two. I would not want my doctor to have learned via online, but my lawyer i would have no problem with. What a student of theology would have as an advantage to the M.D. student is a church. There is no reason that i can think of why a seminary student could not utilize his church for the hands-on aspects that must be learned. The M.D. student simply does not have this utility.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Good post above Dr. Clark.

Gents: I do wish that it was not up to Dr. Clark to defend against all the ills that are quite outside of Seminaries to fix.

I do believe there is great value to a resident school where you have to sit and learn. We have extensive Professional Military Education (PME) within the American military. Military Officers are actually some of the best educated professionals in terms of continuous education and the $$ to make it happen. I've been in the Marine Corps for about 17 years and I am just now at an educational and experience level where the Marine Corps will entrust me with the souls of over one thousand Marines and Sailors if I'm ever slated for command.

If you want to find a profession that would have the greatest argument for doing over learning than the military would be the easiest to argue in that regard. The very opposite is true.

I received my non-resident degree from Command and Staff College in 2000 and then attended the resident course in 2003. For my non-resident degree, I even had the opportunity to benefit from a new program at the time where seminars are held at various bases to allow students to interact with a seminar leader and pace you through the text. I actually teach PME now to young officers on a weekly basis. Promotions are not affected based on whether or not you attend the resident program or the non-resident program.

Do you know what I tell every Officer that I teach? Attend the resident programs if you ever get a chance. Why? The quality of the education is night and day. To spend hours interacting and debating with your peers as well as senior officers and a scholar in each seminar is one of the best learning experiences of my life. It's one thing to read 100 pages on the Law of War. It's another to have the legal counsel to the Secretary of Defense come talk to you about it in a lecture and then go into seminar and talk that out. It's one thing to read about terrorism and Islam, it's another to actually interact with Saudi, Egyptian, Indonesian, and UAE Officers and debate them face to face about Islam and its support of terrorism. There is simply no comparison.

I'm not completely against DE and there are dumb and ill prepared people that attend B&M institutions. I just think that the ability to interact and learn at the feet of another is priceless. I believe to interact with scholars in the field is priceless. I don't think that Dr. Clark should really have to defend this. If people don't want to avail themselves of this then it's up to the Church to decide whether or not to ordain a person or not who hasn't had the opportunity to have this full benefit.

I simply reject that this environment is ivory tower when you have the regular influx of people "from the field." Certainly there are the young and inexperienced who come into Seminary with no practical experience and can only get a certain degree of experience even with 800 hours of "field time." What a session or Presbytery decides to do with the inexperience, though, is up to them.

I've already said this earlier but it is not the fault of a Seminary if this man is immediately ordained. It's the fault of the Church or Presbytery that allows the man to be a Pastor. I liken some new Pastors to young Lieutenants - full of the right information and confident of their abilites but lacking nuance in how they lead and terribly naive about people. The institution who trains can educate well but don't blame them if the organization that he is sent to doesn't provide a venue in which he can mature. Either way, I wouldn't want a young pastor out "doing" without supervision because he might have the right information but lack some prudence in how to always apply it. Again, not the fault of the Seminary.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

By the way, re: the American frontier

This is a strange argument for some to make. Many attribute the decline of American Presbyterianism to "cutting corners" and partnering with Baptists to get ministers to the front lines of the new frontier as quickly as possible.

Given the luny theology that came out of the American frontier (Mormonism, Campbellites, etc) do we really want to argue that we ought to go back to that idea?

When I think of Pastors getting people out the door quickly and giving them "what they really need", I honestly think of Calvary Chapel Bible College.

 

[larryjf]

Larry,

Fair enough. I did talk to one of your board members, but I didn't talk to you. I should have done. I apologize.

So, why Wittenberg? Do any of my historical questions/objections make any sense?

My main concern is about the whole theory (and practice) of DE for ministers.

rsc

The name Wittenberg was thought of by another Board member. The idea is that it is where the Reformation started. And since our motto is "always reforming" it seemed to fit quite nicely.

I actually appreciate some of the concerns that you laid out in your article. But you took such an abrasive and demeaning attitude that it did not seem to come from the right spirit.

 

[larryjf]

Larry,

You're willing to be represented in court by someone who whose legal education was entirely online?

Really?

rsc

Yes. I choose an attorney based on what he knows and his success rate. You might say that i judge him by his fruit.

I don't see the point of trying to compare fields that are really quite different.

Further, i think that your comment...

Pastoral counseling is just as difficult as brain surgery

shows a great deal of unfamiliarity with the field of brain surgery.

Do you think that M.Div. students at your seminary really go through as much training as an M.D.??
An M.D. takes four years to earn before you even get to the residency part.

 

[fredtgreco]

Larry,

You're willing to be represented in court by someone who whose legal education was entirely online?

Really?

rsc

I would guess though that Larry would be like almost every other person who asks one question only when thinking about a potential litigator: what law firm (i.e. practical place) did he train and work at.

Anyone who picks a lawyer based on law school is a fool. 90% of what a lawyer needs to know - and with a litigator, it is more like 98% (and I know this from more than a decade of experience, work on half-billion dollar deals, personal friendship with one of America's greatest litigators who is in the Lawyer Hall of Fame, and a degree from a top 5 law school). Law school is a weeding out phase for firms to decide who to spend money training.

To entrust oneself to a lawyer based on law school is a sure way to get creamed. The businessmen know it, the bar knows it, and the judges know it. Take a look in you local community and see who the judges are. The vast majority of them will be from 2nd or 3rd tier local law schools (not prime law schools).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Fred,

I'm going to interact with your post not to dispute it but to point some things out because it is compatible with my previous post.

I found this part interesting:

Anyone who picks a lawyer based on law school is a fool. 90% of what a lawyer needs to know - and with a litigator, it is more like 98% (and I know this from more than a decade of experience, work on half-billion dollar deals, personal friendship with one of America's greatest litigators who is in the Lawyer Hall of Fame, and a degree from a top 5 law school). Law school is a weeding out phase for firms to decide who to spend money training.

Don't you think this model should be, in some respects, the way ministers are developed?

Leaving aside how the analogy has been used elsewhere, it does seem that other professions take much greater care in how they train their men to handle really important things.

I'm trying to navigate among all the different things I'm reading on this thread but one thing that has always bugged me is that there isn't a very serious effort to train and mature spiritual leaders. They're more like lawyers fresh out of law school that:

To entrust oneself to a lawyer based on law school is a sure way to get creamed. The businessmen know it, the bar knows it, and the judges know it.

But the Churches don't seem to get it with their Pastors. They think: "The man is educated and ready..." but are they investing the time and energy into the man that a law firm would? Hardly.

A larger point would be that neither law firms nor hospitals ignore whether a man has completed a degree where he had time to learn his craft but they don't stop there.

I still sense that Dr. Clark is the fall guy for the fact that Churches don't take the "rest of the leadership development" as seriously as they ought. This is why Ligonier and Dr. MacArthur have Pastor's conferences - because the majority of Christendom in leaving Pastors to develop on their own.

 

[JohnV]

It is brother! Just send me your $400.00 graduation fee and your ThD will be in the mail!

The board read over all of your posts and decided it was the equiv. of a disertation.

Does that mean that I am now a post-graduate?

 

[fredtgreco]

Rich,

I'm happy to interact with you here. My position is (and has been) that there is no perfect or "necessary" method. I don't think Dr. Clark or any seminary should be the "fall guy" for anyone or any church. I think that in large part, failures in the pastorate need to fall squarely on churches, sessions and Presbyteries.

I'm also not arguing against seminary education. I think it is helpful to most, essential for some. We do indeed have impractical men with little experience running around trying to "minister" to widows by fire-hosing the lastest biblico-theologico-everythotherkindof-o trends in seminaries. But we also have men trying to minister by "just loving Jesus" who fall prey to all the latest theological poison because that kind of study "just wasn't important or practical for ministry."

What I have objected to is Dr. Clark's heavy-handed, Procrustean insistence that every would-be minister must attend a brick and mortar seminary.

My point was not that lawyers are brought along by law firms, but that they are made by law firms. Give me the bright former paralegal who did correspondence and night school (they exist!) at a 3rd rate school while working for Kirkland & Ellis over the 26 year old Harvard graduate any day! And so say nearly every business.

Yet it is nearly impossible to become a TE without the vaunted union card. Don't get me wrong, I loved much of RTS Jackson. I have friends there (students and faculty) for life. I was given opportunities to minister. There are men there extremely bright and pious. I recommend it still.

But if you will permit me to speak as a fool, why should it be possible for a 24 or 25 year old young man, with no officer experience, no practical responsibility experience (preaching a few times or "interning" doesnt count) who just spent 3-4 years in a seminary to be qualified to be a pastor, when I, who was a ruling elder for nearly a decade, Chairman of my Presbytery's examining committee, Chairman of the PCA's GA Nominating Committee, secretary of the PCA's GA Theological Examining Committee, commissioner to GA 5+ times, with 20 years of Greek, 25 of Latin, instructor in a foreign seminary/college, and who assisted (both ecclesiologically and legally) multiple congregations in leaving apostate denominations for the PCA, am not?

According to Dr. Clark, unless I go to seminary, and obtain what the 24 year old has, I am unfit - I am a mail order brain surgeon! I would rather let a distance ed brain surgeon operate on my family than many of 1 year out seminary graduates operate on their hearts pastorally.

Not everyone can be sufficient for the ministry by distance ed. I agree with that premise. But not everyone needs brick and mortar seminary education. Many are helped by it, but others are harmed by it.

Fred,

I'm going to interact with your post not to dispute it but to point some things out because it is compatible with my previous post.

I found this part interesting:


Don't you think this model should be, in some respects, the way ministers are developed?

Leaving aside how the analogy has been used elsewhere, it does seem that other professions take much greater care in how they train their men to handle really important things.

I'm trying to navigate among all the different things I'm reading on this thread but one thing that has always bugged me is that there isn't a very serious effort to train and mature spiritual leaders. They're more like lawyers fresh out of law school that:


But the Churches don't seem to get it with their Pastors. They think: "The man is educated and ready..." but are they investing the time and energy into the man that a law firm would? Hardly.

A larger point would be that neither law firms nor hospitals ignore whether a man has completed a degree where he had time to learn his craft but they don't stop there.

I still sense that Dr. Clark is the fall guy for the fact that Churches don't take the "rest of the leadership development" as seriously as they ought. This is why Ligonier and Dr. MacArthur have Pastor's conferences - because the majority of Christendom in leaving Pastors to develop on their own.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Good post Fred.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Fred,

Where do law firms interview prospective employees?

Which law firms hire either self-educated or distance ed trained lawyers?

rsc

I would guess though that Larry would be like almost every other person who asks one question only when thinking about a potential litigator: what law firm (i.e. practical place) did he train and work at.

Anyone who picks a lawyer based on law school is a fool. 90% of what a lawyer needs to know - and with a litigator, it is more like 98% (and I know this from more than a decade of experience, work on half-billion dollar deals, personal friendship with one of America's greatest litigators who is in the Lawyer Hall of Fame, and a degree from a top 5 law school). Law school is a weeding out phase for firms to decide who to spend money training.

To entrust oneself to a lawyer based on law school is a sure way to get creamed. The businessmen know it, the bar knows it, and the judges know it. Take a look in you local community and see who the judges are. The vast majority of them will be from 2nd or 3rd tier local law schools (not prime law schools).

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Larry,

No, MDiv students are, by and large, not as well trained as they should be. They could use another year or two in school. It depends upon how well trained they are when they come, whether they were catechized well in a confessional church or whether they had a good undergraduate education and how motivated they are and how much time they actually have to study while they are here.

We've had physicians and lawyers go through our curriculum and they have said that it is as strenuous as anything they did in law school or med school.

We have faculty with law degrees and we have a current student with a law degree (and several years experience in the law). I make the comparison advisedly.

rsc

Yes. I choose an attorney based on what he knows and his success rate. You might say that i judge him by his fruit.

I don't see the point of trying to compare fields that are really quite different.

Further, i think that your comment...

shows a great deal of unfamiliarity with the field of brain surgery.

Do you think that M.Div. students at your seminary really go through as much training as an M.D.??
An M.D. takes four years to earn before you even get to the residency part.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Trevor,

I've been a pastor for 20 years. If you paid attention to my analogy I didn't compare it to parsing Greek but to pastoral counseling.

Trevor, I don't know how old you are, but I've spent a lot of time in nursing homes, preaching on the street, and in homeless shelters and making hospital visits. This is what I'm talking about.

It's this stuff that requires the intense training.

As to preaching, well, that's at the heart of what the minister is called to do. He must do other things but at the end of the day, we confess that is through the preaching of the Gospel that God the Spirit has ordained to call his elect to faith. Anything that gets in the way of the centrality of preaching must be moved out of the way.

rsc

Dr. Clark:

I am glad your program has so many practical aspects to it. Yes, your school sounds like a very good school and I am sure you contribute to this.


Most of the heat I think from this board is not over trying to do away with BM schools, there IS a need for them...but the responses on this thread may be due to the tactless way you wrote your blog.


Most would not dispute that seminary done residentially is the best way, barring all other factors. We are in no way wanting to do away with BM schools. We just are glad that there are others means to account for life factors that prevent an easy education.

Those other factors are very important. It would be nice to go 10 years to seminary, not worry about money, know that you will have a long life to minister overseas after you are done, have unlimited time and resources, ignore one's own flock or opportunities among people groups who don't even have a Word of Scripture written down, etc.

But having a practical means of attaining an education while ministering on the field, where there will not be any such institution for quite a while (and some that have been built nearby have been burned down in the past) shows the need for theological education by extension.

Again, it was missionaries who came up, championed and promoted this idea and the institutionalized folks that opposed it. Apperently some still opose the concept.



Again I say that the ministry is not brain surgery. It is easy to call someone an "Anti-intellectual" as you have called me. But, one can gain a great deal from discussing tomes with their immediate ministry context, rather than a stranger at a university. Given other factors, theological edcuation by extension makes sense and may be the most effective means of training folks who are geographically located in far places or have other pressing committments.


Again, you barely addressed the largest part of the ministry, which is character rather than the ability to parse Greek. Character and care of the flock can best be learned in context of a local church. It would be nice to have everything and be close to one's home church and still go to Westminster for example, but for most folks something has to give and be sacrificed and I think that in many cases extension education ought to be promoted and not ridiculed like you have done so quite insultingly on your blog.



The brain surgery analogy: The work of pastors is very much a work of moral issues and the tender care of the soul that springs from character rather than pure technical skill. People at a funeral wouldn't want to hear Greek. A couple who has lost their child would not want to hear what Vos would say.

Perhaps you cannot appreciate this because you live largely in a world of academia and are concerned to promote academia. But most people do not. They minister to folks who deal with "hurt soul issues" rather than apologetical issues.


Ministry is more of who you are than what you know. Do not stretch my words...knowledge is important, but you completely ignored this point in your last post. Any schol deals with the person's mind and the person's soul.

And, again, this is nurtured best under one's local church who knows you best and can guide you most personally. That man may go to seminary to learn the biblical languages, where biblical languages ARE taught best, but seminaries are often inferior to one's local church context to nurture the "bedside manner" of the physician called Pastor/elder/misionary. So, your analogy, again, does not entirely work, and I hope you will listen to this "anti-intellectual" for once and admit this truth.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Okay, Larry, I understand your point about tone.

I apologize for that too.

I've seen a lot of damage done by do-it-yourself schools. We get students who are damaged and hurt by well-meaning but misguided evangelicals who set up poorly conceived schools. Then we have to try to clean up the mess they make. I've also spent a lot of time in ecclesiastical assemblies undoing the damage done by do-it-yourself schools.

Yes, there was a little sting in my comment but, For what it's worth it was fueled by practical experience and pastoral concern for the churches.

rsc

The name Wittenberg was thought of by another Board member. The idea is that it is where the Reformation started. And since our motto is "always reforming" it seemed to fit quite nicely.

I actually appreciate some of the concerns that you laid out in your article. But you took such an abrasive and demeaning attitude that it did not seem to come from the right spirit.

 

[CDM]

Rich,

[. . .]

But if you will permit me to speak as a fool, why should it be possible for a 24 or 25 year old young man, with no officer experience, no practical responsibility experience (preaching a few times or "interning" doesnt count) who just spent 3-4 years in a seminary to be qualified to be a pastor, when I, who was a ruling elder for nearly a decade, Chairman of my Presbytery's examining committee, Chairman of the PCA's GA Nominating Committee, secretary of the PCA's GA Theological Examining Committee, commissioner to GA 5+ times, with 20 years of Greek, 25 of Latin, instructor in a foreign seminary/college, and who assisted (both ecclesiologically and legally) multiple congregations in leaving apostate denominations for the PCA, am not?

According to Dr. Clark, unless I go to seminary, and obtain what the 24 year old has, I am unfit - I am a mail order brain surgeon! I would rather let a distance ed brain surgeon operate on my family than many of 1 year out seminary graduates operate on their hearts pastorally.

Not everyone can be sufficient for the ministry by distance ed. I agree with that premise. But not everyone needs brick and mortar seminary education. Many are helped by it, but others are harmed by it.

Imagine the 24 year old with the freshly acquired M.Div. moderating a Session with the ruling elders being twice his senior, with 10 times the ministerial and pastoral care experience?

Speaking as a seminarian, under care of Presbytery, this should not be the case.

This may be somewhat off point but what about these married men with families that go to seminary all day long while the wife works to pay his way? A candidate for the gospel ministry ought to be working and ministering in the world while he undergoes his seminary training. These perpetual students you find in some seminaries have the maturity and experience level of a child.

One thing I know is a must: the student ought to be mentored personally buy a faithful, proven minister of the Word. There is no better mentor than one's own pastor who keeps him on the straight and narrow. DE and BM students can complete their training with little or nothing in the way of spiritual oversight. Believe me, if I wanted to I can continue taking my classes with maybe a sentence or two exchanged between me and my professors.

It is the church's responsibility to disciple and train upcoming ministers.

 

[larryjf]

Okay, Larry, I understand your point about tone.

I apologize for that too.

I've seen a lot of damage done by do-it-yourself schools. We get students who are damaged and hurt by well-meaning but misguided evangelicals who set up poorly conceived schools. Then we have to try to clean up the mess they make. I've also spent a lot of time in ecclesiastical assemblies undoing the damage done by do-it-yourself schools.

Yes, there was a little sting in my comment but, For what it's worth it was fueled by practical experience and pastoral concern for the churches.

rsc

I can appreciate that, and i certainly forgive you.

I would appreciate your input once we have a program actually developed. I think that some serious criticism can help us make the school as good as it can be. And i appreciate that your criticism comes from a zeal for the Church. You may even be surprised how much of the community aspect we are able to incorporate into a distance ed. program...but that is still being developed.

 

[larryjf]

One thing I know is a must: the student ought to be mentored personally buy a faithful, proven minister of the Word. There is no better mentor than one's own pastor who keeps him on the straight and narrow. DE and BM students can complete their training with little or nothing in the way of spiritual oversight. Believe me, if I wanted to I can continue taking my classes with maybe a sentence or two exchanged between me and my professors.

One thing that WRTS has decided to incorporate into its program is a solid mentoring program.

 

[Kevin]

Well said, Fred!

Rich, your example of the military falls down at this point; officers are employees who are paid to study.

My brother in law just got his MBA at the Naval graduate school in California. If I wanted to get my MBA at a local University I would have to do it around my full time job i.e. at night and pay out of pocket. This does not leave much time for peer interaction and one-on-one chats with profs. Of course his experience would be better. His classes would be during the day after resting all night, mine would be at night after working all day. He would have his evenings to study and still have weekends for his family...etc you get the point.

For us to advise men to follow the USMC example would mean that some denomination would have to hire the candidate and pay him to study. If some church were doing that now we would not be having this conversation.

We have a saying in politics that I think applies here; Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good!

 

[fredtgreco]

Fred,

Where do law firms interview prospective employees?

Which law firms hire either self-educated or distance ed trained lawyers?

rsc

Law firms acknowledge that law school is about getting a union card. Most firms (of the highest caliber) interview in three places: (1) top tier law schools, (2) a few select local law schools that are 2nd or 3rd tier but where the reputation of a mentor(s) is known by lawyers in the firm, and (3) most successfully of all - over the phone with lateral hires at other firms after the lawyer has been trained.

For the first year, few lawyers are given any responsibility, being treated as if they know almost nothing about the practice of law - because they don't.

In the interview process, if a firm hears you have experienced much law work and know your way around a deal or court - like paralegal work in a big firm - that is worth much more than grade point average or the name on your diploma.

We're not talking about every case here.

Standard seminary education is not bad, but you continue to insist it is a sine qua non. I guess that is why you did not answer my question above.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Fred,

I'm not deliberately ducking your question. I missed it. Can you re-state it? I'm being blitzed with questions and then there is real life outside of the PB.

Did I miss your answer counselor?

Which firms hire DE-trained or self-trained or non-traditionally trained lawyers?

I guess that all the lawyers I know went to law school, wrote the papers, did the internship etc.

By invoking the union card metaphor are you suggesting that law school is pro forma, that students don't actually learn anything in torts or con law? My law-school friends, students, and former students, seem to tell a different story.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Kevin,

The RCUS does pay the tuition of its sem students. Frankly, I think all the denominations ought to do that. As it happens, they create freelance students and try to tidy up after the process.

rsc

Well said, Fred!

Rich, your example of the military falls down at this point; officers are employees who are paid to study.

My brother in law just got his MBA at the Naval graduate school in California. If I wanted to get my MBA at a local University I would have to do it around my full time job i.e. at night and pay out of pocket. This does not leave much time for peer interaction and one-on-one chats with profs. Of course his experience would be better. His classes would be during the day after resting all night, mine would be at night after working all day. He would have his evenings to study and still have weekends for his family...etc you get the point.

For us to advise men to follow the USMC example would mean that some denomination would have to hire the candidate and pay him to study. If some church were doing that now we would not be having this conversation.

We have a saying in politics that I think applies here; Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good!

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Chris,

I don't think we graduate many 24 year olds - certainly not in the MDiv and directly into Sr Pastor or solo pastor positions.

Most of our younger grads become associate/assistant pastors or, even more likely, serve lengthy internships.

In my case, I was 26 when I began pastoring in Kansas City and spent the first two years with a Sr Pastor (who was 63 when I began).

I did have to sit across the table from older men. That was a challenge. There are trade-offs. As a young man I had a lot of energy and enthusiasm. On the whole I think it was a good combination. I had an experienced Council/Session (in the RCUS, Council = Consistory/Session).

The RCUS has a requirement of an extended internship. I'm not sure the OP and PCA require the same but it is often what happens. The URC isn't very structured about many things but some of our grads have taken internships or become associate pastors.

The internship requirement is a very good idea, but that said, I do recall Paul saying something about not despising Timothy's youth.

rsc

Imagine the 24 year old with the freshly acquired M.Div. moderating a Session with the ruling elders being twice his senior, with 10 times the ministerial and pastoral care experience?

Speaking as a seminarian, under care of Presbytery, this should not be the case.

This may be somewhat off point but what about these married men with families that go to seminary all day long while the wife works to pay his way? A candidate for the gospel ministry ought to be working and ministering in the world while he undergoes his seminary training. These perpetual students you find in some seminaries have the maturity and experience level of a child.

One thing I know is a must: the student ought to be mentored personally buy a faithful, proven minister of the Word. There is no better mentor than one's own pastor who keeps him on the straight and narrow. DE and BM students can complete their training with little or nothing in the way of spiritual oversight. Believe me, if I wanted to I can continue taking my classes with maybe a sentence or two exchanged between me and my professors.

It is the church's responsibility to disciple and train upcoming ministers.

 

[Robert Truelove]

The biblical teaching is that a man must be able to teach and convince the gainsayer. The insistence on Seminary or any 1 particular method over another for raising men up to the office of elder is simply not biblical. A man should be apt to teach and should be able to demonstrate that before his presbytery. I known men with doctorates who are utter morons and men with no formal education who are brilliant and vice-versa.

If Presbyteries are so ignorant they cannot adequately assess the ability and understanding of a man (apart from a piece of paper), then perhaps we Presbyterians are all out to lunch?

Rich,

I'm happy to interact with you here. My position is (and has been) that there is no perfect or "necessary" method. I don't think Dr. Clark or any seminary should be the "fall guy" for anyone or any church. I think that in large part, failures in the pastorate need to fall squarely on churches, sessions and Presbyteries.

I'm also not arguing against seminary education. I think it is helpful to most, essential for some. We do indeed have impractical men with little experience running around trying to "minister" to widows by fire-hosing the lastest biblico-theologico-everythotherkindof-o trends in seminaries. But we also have men trying to minister by "just loving Jesus" who fall prey to all the latest theological poison because that kind of study "just wasn't important or practical for ministry."

What I have objected to is Dr. Clark's heavy-handed, Procrustean insistence that every would-be minister must attend a brick and mortar seminary.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Chris,
The internship requirement is a very good idea, but that said, I do recall Paul saying something about not despising Timothy's youth.

rsc

But then again Timothy was not seminary trained. He had a rather extensive "internship" with Paul prior to assuming a "pastorate".

Of course he didn't have to go somewhere and learn Greek and Hebrew.

 

[VictorBravo]

Fred,


Which firms hire DE-trained or self-trained or non-traditionally trained lawyers?

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I had to laugh a little about this.

Probably no big-name law firm would hire such a lawyer, but that doesn't mean much to those who go through non-traditional training. They already know they won't get hired by big firms.

On the other hand, one of the most successful attorneys I've ever met, both financially and ethically, went through self study and mentoring that was allowed in Montana. He is now considered one of the "Deans" of law practice in that state.

 

[wsw201]

I remember reading this before and thought it might give some biblical background into why Seminary training. It's an article by Joe Pipa of GPTS. You can find it here: Seminary Education

 

[JOwen]

Jerrold,

Do the men who tutor future ministers in the FCC FCS have the same level of expertise as practicing scholars?

This is a non-starter. Do the practicing scholars have the same level of expertise as the minister in real ministry? You are assuming that the practicing scholars are the litmus test, not the Church. In the ministry of the Church of Christ, I find no where the office of "practicing scholar". Pastors and teachers are the highest offices, period. If you were asking me if the tutor/ministers who train the students are qualified to do so, then the answer is yes. If this were not the case then the Synodical licensing is a wink-wink, nudge, nudge, titular body. "Well we will go through the motions and license and ordain, but your real sending has already come from the practicing scholars of the Seminary". Do you not see how arrogant that sounds, not to mention unbiblical? If a Church is equipped to license, it is also equipped to teach. This is what makes Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary distinct; it is training pastors by pastors.

How can a man do all the things a faithful pastor is meant to do and keep up with secondary and primary lit in his field?

By being a lifelong student. Read, read, read. Also by networking with other ministers who have specific interests in certain fields and relying on each other at the Classical level. The minds of the many out preform the mind of the one almost every time. This is why Paul went of Jerusalem, to meet with the Apostles and Elders- to gain their collective mind.
[/QUOTE]

Do you disagree about the Old Side? They were very much in favor of university/academic training for their pastors. Even the LC men favored the College of NJ when it was founded. It was regarded as a great improvement. The relations between the two are complicated, but the LC was an anomaly not a pattern.

I'm saying that the Academy vs. the Seminary, and the Seminary's triumph in America, had as much to do with European Enlightenment Rationalism as anything else.

Jerrold, why is that everyone who ISN'T doing my job 12 hours a day knows how to do it better than I?

That's a bit unfair Scott. You are a top scholar in my opinion, and one of my favorites to boot. But don't insist that your higher level of achievement somehow makes you (and your peers) the standard by which all others are to be measured by in training men for the pastorate. I'll look to the Word for that plumb line, thanks. All along I have been insisting, not a one or the other, but a both and. You seem to discredit any other method because of the potential for abuse. Look, there has been a 'land grab' by the seminary over the years that now dominates the Church's thinking with no real questioning of its legitimacy. I'm advocating a self-correcting inspection of how things are done in training our students and to have an openness to methodology. That's all.

How in the world would you know that it's not that complicated? Can you hear the exasperation?

First, because I'm not an idiot (despite my spelling!). Second, we have created a lot of 'hamburger helper' in the Seminary that is not essential to the ministry! What we need is a paring down of the system not a theological bureaucratic upturn. London Theological Seminary has a great model and I advocate something like it.

Why am I not right in regarding your argument as fundamentally anti-intellectual?

Because the system I am advocating is not anti-intellectual. Here is the model I was trained under. Tell me what is anti intellectual about it? Keep in mind is is 164 years old.

REGULATIONS FOR THE RECEPTION
AND TRAINING OF STUDENTS
FOR THE MINISTRY​

II. Preliminary Courses.

1. The Training of the Ministry Committee shall make full enquiry into the state of the student’s education and shall decide as to whether he shall take the University Arts Course or the General Arts Course.

2. In the event of the student not possessing the necessary qualifications for entry to these Courses, the Training of the Ministry Committee shall prescribe a preliminary course so that the student can obtain these qualifications.

III. University Arts Course

1. Course of Study.

Students shall be required to attend graduation classes in at least seven subjects during their three years’ university course. In advising a student that he is to take the University Arts Course, the Training of the Ministry Committee shall indicate the subjects which the student shall consider with his University Director of Studies. The subjects which a student is to take must be submitted to the Training of the Ministry Committee for approval immediately after the student has discussed them with his University Director of Studies.

2. Class Certificates

On completing their university course, students shall present to the Training of the Ministry Committee class certificates setting forth that they have attended the classes regularly and passed the call and degree examinations. Failing the receipt of such certificates, the Training of the Ministry Committee shall report to the Synod, who shall decide whether further attendance at the University is necessary.

3. Presbytery Examinations
University Students shall be examines once a year by their Presbyteries on religious subject as follows:

First Year

Scripture The Four Gospels.
Larger Catechism Questions 1-29.
Shorter Catechism Questions 1-52.
Books Dr. Bonar’s Life of MacCheyne;Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.

Second Year

Scripture Acts to Galatians.
Larger Catechism Questions 30-61.
Shorter Catechism Questions 53-107.
Books Edward’s Life of David Brainerd; Bunyan’s Holy War.

Third Year
Scripture Ephesians to Revelation.
Larger Catechism Questions 62-90.
Shorter Catechism Questions 1-107.
Books Autobiography of Dr. J. G. Paton;Guthrie’s Christian’s Great Interest.

IV. General Arts Course

Rhetoric and English
Moral Philosophy and Logic
New Testament Greek
Scottish History
Biology
Hebrew

V. Divinity Course

I. Theological Course
The Theological Course shall extend through three sessions of at least five months each.

The following subjects and such other subjects as the Synod may from time to time determine, shall be included in the course, and divided among the three Tutors as follows:—

(1) Hebrew; Old Testament Criticism; Church History; Pastoral Theology; Bible Instruction.

(2) Greek; New Testament Criticism; Catechetics; Church Law; Bible Instruction.

(3) Systematic Theology; Apologetics; Bible Instruction.

2. Entrance Examination

Before admission to the Theological Classes, students shall be required to pass the board of Examiners’ entrance examination in Scripture, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Greek and Hebrew. The prescribed work shall be as follows:—

Scripture Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew and Ephesians.
Larger Catechism Questions 1 to 90.
Shorter Catechism Questions 1 to 107.
Greek Grammar. The elements of New Testament Greek. Wenham. Greek text of Gospel according to Mark, Chaps. 1 to 8.
Hebrew Davidson’s Grammar, Chaps. 1 to 26 Hebrew text of the Book of Ruth.

The Board of Examiners shall communicate the results of this examination to the Training of the Ministry Committee, who shall certify the Tutors in respect of all students eligible for admission to the Theological Classes. Should any student fail to pass the entrance examination, the Training of the Ministry Committee shall report his case to the Synod and, unless in very exceptional circumstances, he shall not be permitted to enter the Theological Classes.

3. Exit Examinations

There shall be an exit examination at the end of each session. Papers will be set on the work covered in the theological classes during the session. The Board of Examiners shall communicate the results of these examinations to the Training of the Ministry Committee, who in turn shall report to the Synod.

4. Presbytery Examinations.

Divinity Students shall be examined by their Presbyteries on the following subjects during their theological course:

First Year

Scripture Genesis to Ruth.
Confession of Faith Chapters 1-13.
Larger Catechism Questions 91-121.
Shorter Catechism Questions 1-52, with proof texts. ††
Books Bunyan’s Grace Abounding. Spurgeon’s Lectures to my Students (First series).

Second Year

Scripture I Samuel to Psalms.
Confession of Faith Chapters 14-33.
Larger Catechism Questions 122-160.
Shorter Catechism Questions 53-107, with proof texts.
Books Edwards on Religious Affections; Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students (Second series).

Third Year

Scripture Proverbs to Malachi.
Confession of Faith Chapters 1-33, with Shaw on the confession.
Larger Catechism Questions 161-196.
Shorter Catechism Questions 1-107, with Fisher’s Catechism.
Books Baxter’s Reformed Pastor; Samuel Rutherford’s Letters.

5. Presbytery Sermon

Divinity Students shall be required to preach a popular sermon, without manuscript, before their Presbytery at least once during their theological course, the date and place of meeting and also the prescribed text to be intimated to them by the Clerk of Presbytery at least two weeks beforehand.

Licence

(1) No student shall be taken on trials for licence until (a) he produces a certificate from the Training of the Ministry Committee showing that he has passed his exit examinations; (b) the clerk of the Presbytery to whom he has applied has notified the other Presbyteries of the Church; and (c) leave has been granted by the Synod to proceed with his licence trials.

(2) The following exercises shall be prescribed by Presbyteries as trials for licence:—
(a) An exercise on some stated controversial subject.
(b) A popular sermon on a given text.
(c) An exegetical exercise on some prescribed portion of the Hebrew Old Testament.
(d) An exegetical exercise on some prescribed portion of the Greek New Testament.
Questions shall also be put to test the student’s knowledge of the Scriptures, Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms.
(3) When a student has undergone all his trials to the satisfaction of a Presbytery, he shall be asked to answer the questions appointed to be put to students at their licensing, and to sign the formula. He shall then be licensed by the Moderator, in the name of the Presbytery, to preach the gospel, and the Clerk shall supply him with an extract of his licence.
If, on the other hand, a student does not satisfy his Presbytery, he shall not be granted licence, but in such a case the Presbytery shall instruct the student as to his right of appeal to the Synod.

1. The Board of Examiners
(1) The Board of Examiners shall consist of the three theological tutors and three additional members appointed by the Synod.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Board of Examiners to conduct the entrance and exit examinations of divinity students. In this connection, they shall appoint one examiner for each subject, and shall arrange the time at, and the conditions under which, these examinations will take place, due notice being given to the students concerned.

Tell me, where is the anti-intellectualism in this? Keep in mind that on top of this I have a degree in IT, and A B.Th (houns). You seem to be arguing that any approach that is not your approach is anti-intellectual. I'll let you see the flawed reasoning in it.

At the risk of ad hom argumentation, are you sure this is where you want to go? Do know the context of this argument and where it would lead?

Are you prepared to follow JM elsewhere? If not, why here?

No, just here. The reason he is safe here is because he has nothing to gain by arguing as he does. In fact he stands to lose much, which makes his argument that much more intriguing.

There's nothing about the current model as practiced by WSC that precludes heavy involvement by the local church. Indeed our system REQUIRES that.

Good to hear.