This is agreeable, what do you think? This does bring up a question. Do you think it is necessary for Pastors to have formal “training” in order to “rightly” carry out the demands of the “office” which they have aspired to?
Athanasian Reformed
πππππ’π π·ππ πππππ‘ ππ πππ‘ππππ’π. ππ‘π ππ¨π«π π¨π ππ¨π π°π’π₯π₯ π₯ππ¬π ππ¨π«ππ―ππ«.
Bobby, I think the answer to your questions run both ways. No, it’s not necessary for pastors to have the “formal” training received in seminaries to be effective and carry out their duties. Many men have a combination of being trained by existing pastors in their churches and circles of associated churches and self-study, etc. They have a good experience of the faith upon which to draw and are good students of both the faith and its history. On the other hand, many men have severe handicaps placed on them because they are “yes men” to the rigid – and often wrong – thinking of their seminaries. They then bring error into their churches and systematize those errors at the expense of the flocks. This latter problem is why “seminaries” are often called “cemetaries” in jest.
Even for those who have a really good training at a fine seminary I still count that fairly low on the scale compared to what kind of personal character he has. Still, I wouldn’t necessarily count a specific seminary training against a man.
Steve,
I think you capture the balance here. Although I must say that I think “training” of some kind is really important (which is why Paul warns against “novices”). I think sometimes we think “cemetary” might preclude character building, and that “church” training includes it. I don’t think we can generalize either way . . . which I see you’re not, good points!
Bobby:
The warning against “novices” (1 Timothy 3.6) has to do with new believers (recent converts) rather than those without seminary training. One may never have gone to seminary yet be mature in faith and fruitful ministry through extensive service in churches and therefore sound to be a pastor. Timothy served along with Paul and therefore was taught sound teaching, watches sound ministry, and served himself, much like Jesus did with the apostles, for sound ministry to others. I think this same can take place in our day and, in fact, is important for healthy ministry.
Hi Ian,
True. I did use “novices” in an applied way. But my point would presuppose that having “training” or “growth” would mean that this guy is not a “new convert.” And that the “time” that seminary provides would presume that this chap is not a “new convert” but someone who has at least spent concentrated time in study and ministry and character development (ideally). That is not to say that a person coming out of seminary could not still be “childish,” but for all intents and purposes my presumption would assume that they are not (in an ideal world). Having said that, I know plenty of people who are “novices” after being Christians and “leaders” for years. In other words, isn’t being a “novice” akin to Peter’s chastisment to the diasporic church or the writer of the Hebrews; that even though they’ve been Christians for a considerable amount of time are still thinking and acting like “new converts?” In fact I would even take that to I Cor. 1:17-25 and Paul’s exhortation against those there who were still thinking and thus acting like the world; even considering the cross weak and foolish. I think the case could be made that Paul’s thinking on “new convert” has more to do with theology vs. chronology or quality vs. quanity π .
Bobby:
I think you are stretching the verse and missing that Paul has covered those others through “able to teach” and the other “character” traits (maturity) leaving “novice” for a new Christian.
Please recognize that I have been through both Bible College and Seminary in my training for pastoral ministry. But I do not believe these are necessary for one to be an apt pastor. There are other ways of training that equip one for the task.
Ian,
I don’t want to quibble with you over this, since I think we really agree, in general about all of this π .
I’ll grant you π that in the particular context you may be right in your parallels, but what I am looking at is a “theology of maturity” (or something like that in the Pauline and NT corpus). I think in principle it can be argued that there are “old converts” who think and act like “new converts,” and “new converts” (I am actually involved with someone like this) who act and think like you would think and “old convert” should think and act. My point is that this is a highly “relative” thing, and that to say that someone is a “new convert” has more involved with it beyond chronology (and I would think that this would hold true for Paul’s thinking; which I think the namesake of this book attests to, ironically, Timothy apparently was quite young in the faith when he started out in his ministry with Paul [I’m presuming a bit here]).
But, to be clear, I am not arguing for or against, per se, that being qualified to be a pastor requires a Bible College or Seminary education; but I would argue that it requires some sort of education (which again is a pretty relative statement).
One more quick point, I think that there might be some “synthetic parallelism” in Paul’s points within this context; so that the character traits and “new convert” points build upon each other. Otherwise, I have a really hard time understanding the parameters Paul would be appealing to relative to “new convert.” What does that mean? When does one cease being a “new convert”? Is it after 6mos. 1 yr, 2 yrs; I mean w/o the “maturity” or “character” presupposition, the “new convert” point almost seems meaningless contextually (let alone w/o considering the rest of Paul’s theology relative to Christian “character” and wisdom).
I’m not trying to unnecessarily belabor this, Ian; but you’ve pressed me to think further, so thank you π !
I would think one who is not bible college, or seminary trained, should have been severely tested on every front. Even the seminarians have often fallen, and great was their fall. But we have known ministries where the leader was a mail-order pastor, who may have been a much more faithful car salesman, and was about as mature as… well, he was pretty big on himself. Certainly, it is the Spirit who calls pastors, but they must not be picked before they are ripe, and a pastoral “apprenticeship” would be an option in my opinion.
As I listen to Horton, I agree with his point that leaders need to be sound but disagree that is must come through seminary training as he presupposes through his comments at the conclusion of the video. Paul was training in Jerusalem for his life as a Pharisee and Timothy learned in an apprenticeship with Paul: Paul taugh him, demonstrated ministry, had Timothy engagement in ministry, etc. Also advantageous are the books and online tools to supplement advancement in biblical and historical knowledge. At our church I plan to have various ways to train others for ministry, especially church planting, equipping them in a sound ministry. Demonstration of sound doctrine, godliness, good reputation with non-Christians, ministry effectiveness and fulness of the Spirit will be key indicators that one is able to lead.
Bobby:
I agree that maturity is key and that in Paul’s view, he is saying that one who is a recent convert is not mature enough to be an elder for the reasons given in 1 Ti 3.7. It is also true that one may be a believer for many years yet lack the qualities to be a leader.
I appreciate your love for the Lord and His people, stimulating thought and conversation through your articles and comment section. I also appreciate your love for our family and son.
God bless.
I think our culture places too much emphasis on the academic and licensure aspects of vocation and too little on practical training and apprenticeship. As a personal example, I’m a college drop-out in engineering who enjoyed a 20 year career in architecture without a single unit of schooling or a professional license in the field. I held a senior level position with a major firm, who despite my “formal” deficiencies, kept giving me promotions and raises. There were young people we hired w/ masters degrees who needed years of ground-up training (all of them, actually) despite their formal training and licensure. I see all this as a direct analogy to theology and church pastorship. People who are going to be pastors will be getting experience in church/the body regardless of seminary training, but seminary training doesn’t always equate to pastoral ability.
@Duane,
I agree with you, there does need to be some sort of training and standard involved. In the “Free” church there obviously is much more liberty vs. the Presbyterian or Episcopalian church gvts.
@Ian,
Great points. I think the next question, really, behind the one I originally asked is: “What constitutes a “seminary”? Is it accreditation, or is it something associated with the “Church” itself?” I don’t see what Paul did or what you’re doing in your church any different than what the intention of seminaries “should” be. It’s probably good to recognize the context in which Horton is speaking; it’s a public relations vid. to attract students to WTS (California) π .
I continue to pray for you and your family (Benjamin)! Thank you for your good words, Ian!
@Steve,
My mom is in a similar situation to yours (in the “corporate” world). She works for a big credit union in California, and has advanced over and again to “upper-management” (one level below “executive”); w/o any “formal” training. In line with what Ian said, I do think that pastoral “training” can and should take place in the context of the church. The way that I see seminaries, really, are as “para-church;” filling a hole that “free churches” (esp.) have vacated to the Bible Colleges and Seminaries. Which is problematic for some of us (in the Free church); since it is so loose, you’re on your own in trying to find a pastoral position (it’s like the corporate world in that instance) — which is troubling!
I’ve also seen it happen with existing pastors being sent by their churches to a seminary. Refresh my memory here, are *you* desiring the office? or do you just want further training in theology?
PS I hope I didn’t make it sound like I was still employed. Lost that last year. Hey, pastors can be hired and fired. How about laid off? π
I have “desired” the office, and nothing has happened in that direction yet. I also see my area of gifting in the area of “teaching,” which is why I am going to pursue the PhD . . . also just to be of greater service for the body of Christ (in re. to working on “right teaching” or orthodoxy within the body of Christ π ).
Oh no, I knew you were laid off; have you found anything else yet?