Seminaries and Church Oversight

[Knight]

Some posts in a separate thread reminded me of a question I had about whether, from a moral standpoint, seminaries can be independent institutions or ought to be under the oversight of a church [or Presbytery?]. That is, if seminaries are the means by which men are ordinarily trained to be prepared for ordination in a church, and especially if it is ordinarily expect a man to be so trained in order to be ordained, doesn't it make sense that said training should take place in an institution which itself is under the oversight and authority of a church into which he is seeking to be ordained?

Perhaps I've somehow misframed what I am trying to understand, but I hope the spirit of the question has come across clearly enough.

 

[Polanus1561]

A related point is that there are seminaries under the oversight of the church. PRTS is one. Protestant Reformed Theological seminary is another. Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary as well. RPTS. Erskine (?). Covenant is also a PCA institution.

I believe Reformed Baptist seminaries are very local church based as well.

But when it comes to WTS and RTS and MARS and GPTS. I do see your point. I am curious why WTS was never an OPC official seminary https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=316

(I am open to be corrected to any of the above).

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Yes

 

[Knight]

But when it comes to WTS and RTS and MARS and GPTS. I do see your point. I am curious why WTS was never an OPC official seminary https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=316

This would be one side of the question: why wouldn't a seminary put themselves under the oversight of the church?

The other side of the coin would be a question that follows by reading what you linked, which says, "the OPC does not have a denominationally-affiliated seminary and does not require attendance at any particular seminary."

Compare this to another link: "In order to fulfill that calling, the OPC requires that a minister ordinarily be a seminary graduate. (The same is not required of a ruling elder.)" (link).

The second quote suggests that the ordinary expectation is seminary graduation: should not, then, the OPC desire a "denominationally-affiliated seminary" through which those who are ordinarily ordained can be expected to have been trained by men who are themselves under the oversight of the OPC itself? I'm struggling to understand the seeming "outsourcing" (for lack of a better word) of training for prospective ministers.

I'm a member within the OPC, so I'm only trying to understand my own denomination.

 

[iainduguid]

In the case of the OPC and Westminster, the historical answer is very simple: Machen believed that it was interference from the PCUSA denomination that brought down Old Princeton and made WTS necessary. A similar case could be made for Anglican Theological colleges in England. At the very least that highlights the fact that denominational control is not always a positive feature.

In most cases, the seminaries that are under denominational control tend to be small (both the denominations and the seminaries). The advantage for smaller denominations is that it makes it easier to preserve your distinctives; the challenge is to resource a seminary adequately with excellent faculty and with the financial resources that are necessary (faculty pay, books, buildings, etc). Sometimes a denominational seminary is not as attractive an option for students outside that denomination, which makes it harder to make it viable. As a result, sometimes these seminaries rely on part-time faculty who are primarily pastors rather than being able to hire men who are able to devote their full time to teaching, research and writing. There can be some advantages to that model, but there are disadvantages as well.

Independent seminaries can draw faculty from a wider base than if a denomination insists that all faculty members have to belong to that entity. WTS and WSCAL. for example, have faculty from the OPC, PCA, ARP, IPC (UK) and URC churches, and have had presidents from the PCA, OPC and URC. It's also easier for them to draw students from a wider base, without being a significant financial burden on denominational funds (the ARP sends serveral hundred thousand dollars each year to Erskine College and Seminary; I imagine that the PCA sends far more to Covenant).

Moreover, it's not obvious that everyone in the OPC would agree on which seminary should be "theirs": WTS? WSCAL? Greenville? Not everyone in the PCA is thrilled with Covenant, nor does everyone in the ARP feel that investment in Erskine is the best use of limited finances. Yet changing a denominational seminary is a near-impossible task. Personally, I'd much rather the ARP took the money we currently send to Erskine and allocated it to the Presbyteries to fund scholarships for men under care to attend schools which those presbyteries have approved. That would provide real and immediate accountability.

In some respects, independent seminaries are far more accountable to their constituents than denominational seminaries, since they have to make the case to every student and every donor as to why they should invest there. They can attract a broader range of students and donors, providing greater resources for training than smaller schools. If you think the independent school has gone off the rails, it is easier to cut off their influence in your denomination: just don't send them students or dollars.

The bottom line is that there is no one "Biblical" model. Every model has its strengths and weaknesses in a fallen world.

 

[iainduguid]

PS: there are denominations (such as the RCUS) that maintain lists of approved seminaries for their students. I believe that the OPC considered that route and opted against it, though I could be wrong.

 

[Knight]

In the case of the OPC and Westminster, the historical answer is very simple: Machen believed that it was interference from the PCUSA denomination that brought down Old Princeton and made WTS necessary. A similar case could be made for Anglican Theological colleges in England. At the very least that highlights the fact that denominational control is not always a positive feature.

In most cases, the seminaries that are under denominational control tend to be small (both the denominations and the seminaries). The advantage for smaller denominations is that it makes it easier to preserve your distinctives; the challenge is to resource a seminary adequately with excellent faculty and with the financial resources that are necessary (faculty pay, books, buildings, etc). Sometimes a denominational seminary is not as attractive an option for students outside that denomination, which makes it harder to make it viable. As a result, sometimes these seminaries rely on part-time faculty who are primarily pastors rather than being able to hire men who are able to devote their full time to teaching, research and writing. There can be some advantages to that model, but there are disadvantages as well.

Independent seminaries can draw faculty from a wider base than if a denomination insists that all faculty members have to belong to that entity. WTS and WSCAL. for example, have faculty from the OPC, PCA, ARP, IPC (UK) and URC churches, and have had presidents from the PCA, OPC and URC. It's also easier for them to draw students from a wider base, without being a significant financial burden on denominational funds (the ARP sends serveral hundred thousand dollars each year to Erskine College and Seminary; I imagine that the PCA sends far more to Covenant).

Moreover, it's not obvious that everyone in the OPC would agree on which seminary should be "theirs": WTS? WSCAL? Greenville? Not everyone in the PCA is thrilled with Covenant, nor does everyone in the ARP feel that investment in Erskine is the best use of limited finances. Yet changing a denominational seminary is a near-impossible task. Personally, I'd much rather the ARP took the money we currently send to Erskine and allocated it to the Presbyteries to fund scholarships for men under care to attend schools which those presbyteries have approved. That would provide real and immediate accountability.

In some respects, independent seminaries are far more accountable to their constituents than denominational seminaries, since they have to make the case to every student and every donor as to why they should invest there. They can attract a broader range of students and donors, providing greater resources for training than smaller schools. If you think the independent school has gone off the rails, it is easier to cut off their influence in your denomination: just don't send them students or dollars.

The bottom line is that there is no one "Biblical" model. Every model has its strengths and weaknesses in a fallen world.

Thank you for the thoughtful answer. I will think more about your points.

 

[Polanus1561]

In the case of the OPC and Westminster, the historical answer is very simple: Machen believed that it was interference from the PCUSA denomination that brought down Old Princeton and made WTS necessary. A similar case could be made for Anglican Theological colleges in England. At the very least that highlights the fact that denominational control is not always a positive feature.

In most cases, the seminaries that are under denominational control tend to be small (both the denominations and the seminaries). The advantage for smaller denominations is that it makes it easier to preserve your distinctives; the challenge is to resource a seminary adequately with excellent faculty and with the financial resources that are necessary (faculty pay, books, buildings, etc). Sometimes a denominational seminary is not as attractive an option for students outside that denomination, which makes it harder to make it viable. As a result, sometimes these seminaries rely on part-time faculty who are primarily pastors rather than being able to hire men who are able to devote their full time to teaching, research and writing. There can be some advantages to that model, but there are disadvantages as well.

Independent seminaries can draw faculty from a wider base than if a denomination insists that all faculty members have to belong to that entity. WTS and WSCAL. for example, have faculty from the OPC, PCA, ARP, IPC (UK) and URC churches, and have had presidents from the PCA, OPC and URC. It's also easier for them to draw students from a wider base, without being a significant financial burden on denominational funds (the ARP sends serveral hundred thousand dollars each year to Erskine College and Seminary; I imagine that the PCA sends far more to Covenant).

Moreover, it's not obvious that everyone in the OPC would agree on which seminary should be "theirs": WTS? WSCAL? Greenville? Not everyone in the PCA is thrilled with Covenant, nor does everyone in the ARP feel that investment in Erskine is the best use of limited finances. Yet changing a denominational seminary is a near-impossible task. Personally, I'd much rather the ARP took the money we currently send to Erskine and allocated it to the Presbyteries to fund scholarships for men under care to attend schools which those presbyteries have approved. That would provide real and immediate accountability.

In some respects, independent seminaries are far more accountable to their constituents than denominational seminaries, since they have to make the case to every student and every donor as to why they should invest there. They can attract a broader range of students and donors, providing greater resources for training than smaller schools. If you think the independent school has gone off the rails, it is easier to cut off their influence in your denomination: just don't send them students or dollars.

The bottom line is that there is no one "Biblical" model. Every model has its strengths and weaknesses in a fallen world.

I do not see how denominational control — WTS under OPC, would be a greater negative than not having denominational control (I know you are not strictly implying that). RPTS shows how denominational control can be and is a positive. But I do think that for the OPC, the road is too far down for suddenly adopting one seminary as their own.

But I do think in principle, if say WTS was under the OPC from the start, then I do not think it will struggle to maintain its faculty and other costs. The OPC church funds the running. Funds the scholarships by vetting the men called to ministry.

There is also another issue of PhDs being offered in seminary which does increase costs. That is another issue to consider. But I do think the idea of a denominational seminary that offers MDivs only that has 5-6 faculty to cover the MDiv curriculum is quite appeasing to me.

 

[Polanus1561]

When I see WTS, WSCAL, MARS, GPTS who all have mainly a mix of URC/PCA/OPC faculty generally, I am wondering in an ideal world , would it not be better to have 3 big denominational seminaries out of these seminaries with denominational faculty and students? Again, not advocating for a change but thinking in principle. If the seminary is solid enough, those from microdenominations would still go there (where else could they go to).

 

[iainduguid]

I do not see how denominational control — WTS under OPC, would be a greater negative than not having denominational control (I know you are not strictly implying that). RPTS shows how denominational control can be and is a positive. But I do think that for the OPC, the road is too far down for suddenly adopting one seminary as their own.

But I do think in principle, if say WTS was under the OPC from the start, then I do not think it will struggle to maintain its faculty and other costs. The OPC church funds the running. Funds the scholarships by vetting the men called to ministry.

There is also another issue of PhDs being offered in seminary which does increase costs. That is another issue to consider. But I do think the idea of a denominational seminary that offers MDivs only that has 5-6 faculty to cover the MDiv curriculum is quite appeasing to me.

In the past, PhD's have certainly been expensive to offer. In recent years, we have insisted at WTS that every program has to pay its own way, and the PhD, as now configured, does that. PhD courses provide rich elective options for MDiv students, something I benefitted enormously from as a student.

WTS's MDiv is 111 hours; that's 19 semester hours of teaching each year for six faculty members (one each in OT, NT, CH, ST, 2 PT? ). Few electives, no opportunity for faculty to specialize in anything , and you still have to find an additional half a million dollars or so out of your denominational central funds each year to fund this poorly resourced new venture that will have to compete with the far greater resources of WTS/WSCAL/MARS/Covenant/ Greenville/RTS. It's not impossible, as RPTS shows (6 professors but their MDiv is only 90 semester hours; 25% less), but it's a lot of investment for relatively few students (how much per RPTS graduate does the denomination invest each year?). All of your classes in any field with the same professor. I see the attraction of denominational control, but it comes with a cost. As a seminary professor, it's far from ideal, in my view. A student certainly wouldn't receive the same kind of education there as they would get at a bigger school.

I should mention that the OPC tries to bridge the gap with its Ministerial Training Institute, to provide some add-on education designed to inculcate the OPC perspective in students trained at a variety of seminaries.

 

[iainduguid]

When I see WTS, WSCAL, MARS, GPTS who all have mainly a mix of URC/PCA/OPC faculty generally, I am wondering in an ideal world , would it not be better to have 3 big denominational seminaries out of these seminaries with denominational faculty and students? Again, not advocating for a change but thinking in principle. If the seminary is solid enough, those from microdenominations would still go there (where else could they go to).

I wouldn't want to be part of the General Assembly in any of these denominations where we tried to figure out which seminary we wanted to own...

 

[Edward]

For those who might think seminaries with denominational ties as a good thing, let's look at Covenant. And we shouldn't forget the very public issues at Esrkine a a few years ago. Or just take a gander at Columbia in Atlanta starting in the 1960s, or any of the seminaries associated with the Northern Presbyterian bodies. As for a seminary that was largely church controlled, anybody remember Redeemer in Dallas?

 

[Polanus1561]

For those who might think seminaries with denominational ties as a good thing, let's look at Covenant. And we shouldn't forget the very public issues at Esrkine a a few years ago. Or just take a gander at Columbia in Atlanta starting in the 1960s, or any of the seminaries associated with the Northern Presbyterian bodies. As for a seminary that was largely church controlled, anybody remember Redeemer in Dallas?

And then I put forward denominational seminaries I listed. At the very least, historically we can say it has seen good and bad examples.

With regard to the examples you mention, are they not due to errors within men and not so much the system of denominational oversight?

 

[Knight]

For those who might think seminaries with denominational ties as a good thing, let's look at Covenant. And we shouldn't forget the very public issues at Esrkine a a few years ago. Or just take a gander at Columbia in Atlanta starting in the 1960s, or any of the seminaries associated with the Northern Presbyterian bodies. As for a seminary that was largely church controlled, anybody remember Redeemer in Dallas?

Can you give a little direction toward some good summaries of these occurrences? I can do my own research if needed, but if you have anything in mind I would like to read about them.

Certainly, there appear to be practical matters involved. My question was written from the perspective of a search for an a priori reason for a connection between seminaries and (specifically) denominations which ordinarily require seminary training. I understand the nervousness of the more a posteriori oriented replies thus far (i.e. look at what history has shown us).

That is helpful, but does anyone have an a priori reason why a connection would be unwise? I'm not saying there needs to be an a priori reason against ties between seminaries and denominations which ordinarily require seminary training, but I would be interested in one.

I would also like to make it clear I'm not trying to suggest that there is any "one Biblical model," as Professor Duguid puts it. Perhaps one could argue from an analogy to synagogues, but I'm certainly not prepared to do that. It could nevertheless be a matter of prudence or wisdom, as I saw a few posters in another thread express it.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I don't know if it should be a requirement that the seminary be directly under the oversight of the presbytery, but the individual professors certainly should be accountable to the Church for what they teach.

 

[iainduguid]

It's a fair question. For example, the EPCEW in England recently started their own seminary, in competition to other Reformed seminaries in the UK (e.g. Edinburgh Theological Seminary - formerly Free Church College; Wales Evangelical School of Theology; London Theological Seminary). Presumably the rationale was that they wanted a Reformed and Presbyterian seminary in England, and viewed the alternatives as having too many drawbacks (culturally and theologically sufficiently different etc). But I'm not sure if their new seminary actually has any full-time faculty; it seems that it is largely dependent upon men who are in full time pastoral ministry (again that has both advantages and disadvantages, both for the seminary and for their churches).

The primary advantage of a denominational seminary would be control. If you insist that all the professors and the President have to be ordained in your denomination, that is one aspect of control. You could (in principle) dictate what was taught in the worship class, what kind of apologetics was pursued, view of Creation days etc. It could take a fair amount of denominational effort to micromanage at this level, not to mention the challenge of enforcing discipline when necessary. It also assumes your denomination is all of the same page on these issues, which is why generally it works best with smaller, more theologically uniform denominations.

The primary drawback is the cost required to resource a seminary properly. Even six faculty members is not cheap, when you add library books, support staff, and building cost, pretty soon a significant amount of your denomination's central fund is going to be swallowed up. If you took that same amount of money and fully funded your students at a seminary you respect, you could put a lot of students through seminary at no cost to them.

 

[Polanus1561]

My presupposition is this: the nett students are not changing. So too are donations from third parties. Students and Funds are not changed in the scenario. It is just a re arrangement of seminaries with denominational professors.

I don’t see how funding is cut down because of my denominational seminary reality.