Before I delve into this topic, let me preface this by saying I do not believe that it is necessary for a man to
attend seminary in order to be qualified for ministry/preaching. Those who are
called to preach must be qualified to preach and the qualification process will
include some form of training. Please consider the Apostle Paul. Even though he
had received training from a prominent Rabbi, he still was in need of
instruction before beginning his preaching ministry. This training may be
formal or informal. Those called to preach may have the blessing of receiving
training from their church, by a mentor or they may have to study alone. Others
will have the ability to receive formal training through Bible colleges or
seminaries. All will require some instruction or training in order to be more
effective in ministry.
Certainly
there is room for criticism in everything we attempt in Christ. And no
individual organization is above correction. However, the intent of this
article is to come to the defense of the concept
of seminaries, not to defend any one or group of institutions. I will limit my
response to criticisms that I personally have heard (either as a direct quote
or a paraphrase).
1) “The supremacy of the Church negates any secondary
organization. Men should be trained by their church.” Who could deny that
Christ died for the church and that it is the church that is the supreme
institution of God upon the earth? But does this mean that any other
organization is forbidden? If so then the Church will need to rethink its
support of many institutions outside of the church (such as Christmas &
benevolence organizations, mission societies, etc.).
What
about the “regulative principle of worship” because we do not find seminaries
in the Bible? My fist response might be to point out that the “regulative”
principle applies to “worship” in the church. Secondly, those who use this
argument (universal application that the Church has no freedom to do anything
that is not listed in the New Testament) must also immediately cease and desist
from Sunday school classes, mid-week meetings, discipleship training, dismiss
the treasurer, etc. because these are not in the NT either. My point is that
this is a misapplication of the principle.
But is
there an example in the Bible of training for ministers? We should consider the
“school of prophets” in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 10:5-6, 10-13, 19:19-24,
etc.).Of course, this was not a “seminary” but the principle of establishing a
form of training is present in verses like these.
(b) “Men should be trained by the church.” – Again, who
could argue with the logic of this statement? Certainly, this is the ideal
situation but is it realistic? This assumes that the pastor has the ability to
teach/train and has the knowledge himself to impart. It further assumes that
the pastor or some other staff/elder is able to train. How much time does the
average pastor have to prepare lessons and teach men? Do most pastors have time
to spend with men? I think not. I would say that any time a pastor would spend
with men recently called to ministry could be very valuable but is this
training going to be on the level of training that the same man would receive
at seminary? I doubt it. Direct mentorship
is certainly needed and can augment formal training but cannot replace it.
I have
no doubt that men called into the ministry have spiritual gifts that empower
them to minister and God can use those gifts to teach other men. I also have no
doubt that there is no replacement for experience in ministry and the sharing
of wisdom gained from experience would be highly beneficial for men called into
mnistry. But realistically, there is no way that one pastor can be as
knowledgeable as a faculty of men. What pastor is qualified to teach OT/NT
surveys, church history, missions, apologetics, NT Greek, etc.? I further doubt
that any church would have sufficient staff to teach in all the areas that
seminary can.
(2) “Seminary will mess your head up. Men go off to seminary
and they get all messed about the Bible.”
This
phrase makes the assumption that the man who went to seminary had correct
theology before attending. The second assumption is that the person making the
accusation has correct theology. Granted, there are “bad” seminaries- even
heretical ones, but that is no reason to disdain the concept of formal training.
There are also very good, solid, Biblical seminaries.
(3) “The Bible says knowledge ‘puffs up.’” Yes the Bible
does say that. But the Bible also says “study to show yourself approved…”
Perhaps if the person who would snatch a single phrase out of context and try
to build a doctrine around that phrase had taken a hermeneutics class and they
would have known better. Maybe they would have known that “text without context
is a pretext.” Maybe they would have learnt that the context of that phrase was
referring to Christian liberty and weakness of conscience of other brothers in
relationship to idols.
But,
context aside, we can see that there could be application to the principle that
one who receives knowledge could have a tendency to be prideful. What is the
answer to this potential problem of pride? The implication of the accusation
that “knowledge puffs up” in relationship to the discussion of seminaries,
seems to be: “ignorance is to be preferred to education.” I doubt that any
would admit that this was the intention of what they are saying but that is the
implication. Consider the logic:
a) Seminary provides knowledge.
b) Knowledge “puffs up.”
c) A person being “puffed up” is
bad.
Conclusion: Don’t go to seminary.
This is
really flawed logic. If we take this premise (that knowledge should be avoided
because it makes us proud) to the logical conclusion, then all study- even
reading the Bible should be avoided because such actions might impart
“knowledge.” I really don’t think ignorance is the answer to avoid pride. In
fact, Paul says that it is love that tempers the one with knowledge to humility
and consideration of others.
(4) “Seminary will kill your spirit. People who go to
‘cemetery’ have a fat head and a thin soul/heart.”
“If you can do but one, let your studies
alone. I would throw by all the Libraries
of the World rather than be guilty of the
Loss of one Soul.”~ Bishop Francis Asbury (Quoted in Nathan Hatch, The
Democratization of American Christianity, p. 89)
Here again
we have an assumed premise. The premise is that seminary will “kill” the
soul/spirit. This premise is without proof. Certainly we could find men who
have been to seminary who are not active or passionate about ministry and we
could also find men who are active and very passionate about ministry and
Christ. Further, we could find men who have no formal training who are also
cold and dead. And we could find men who are very active and very passionate
who are ignorant and/or heretical. So the idea of formal training cooling zeal
is not provable. This is a false antagonism. I would say that “if” a person is
truly converted then the more that they know of God the more motivated they
will be in their service and worship. The issue then is not knowledge or
seminary but a converted heart and a right view of God. And I would further say
that historically this has not been true.
We can
look at men like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen and Martin Luther to
see that God has used men who were very well educated and very “academic” to
bring about reformation and even revival. I would not deny that God has also
used men who were not formally educated but the point is that the claim that education
will kill zeal and harm usefulness is simply not true. Knowledge of God drives
passion. True theology will fuel not quench zeal. God redeems the heart and the
head.
(5)”The disciples did not go to seminary.”
This is
true. The disciples were trained by the Master Himself, but we do not have that
opportunity today. It should also be noted that while the Canon is closed God
has continued to reveal Himself in the history of the church. We know far more
about the church than the disciples did. There have been controversies that
arose after the disciples’ lives that have forced the church to hone her
theology and practice. We can learn very much from those who have walked in the
faith before us.
(6) “Seminaries cost a lot of money.” Amen! This is true.
And I believe this is a valid criticism. However, I don’t know of many pastors
who have volunteered to skip their pay. I have never heard a pastor tell his
congregation that they should labor at their job for free. Why then do they
expect those who labor at teaching others to work for free? This seems like a
double-standard.
We
should be critical of learning institutions that charge hundreds of dollars per
semester hour to support unnecessary buildings, unnecessary administration
costs and fat pay checks. Much can be done (and should be) to reduce the costs
of seminary and even provide free or discounted training for those who cannot
afford to pay. But to demand that all education is free and all educators labor
without compensation is unrealistic, duplicitous and over-simplistic. There are
no “free lunches”- somebody will have to pay.
We
(Christians) should critically examine everything we do. We should question the
way we do things, why we do them and look for the best means to accomplish the
desired results. At the same time, it might appear super-spiritual to criticize
seminaries but the reality is that the more training a man of God has the more
potential he has to be effective in ministry. The church cannot supply the same
level of training that an institution can and probably will not be able to any
time soon.