I’ve really been enjoying the conversation about seminary education over the past couple of days. Thanks for joining in!
Jumping off of those threads, I’ve been thinking about how we should conceptualize seminary as a component of preparation for ministry. So here’s the question:
Should we think of seminary as preparation for ministry that happens in an academic setting? Or should we think of it as the academic preparation for a ministerial calling?
If that distinction doesn’t work for you, don’t get lost in subtleties. This is what I’m getting at: should we think of seminary as preparing people for ministry, such that an M.Div. recipient should be, generally, ready to step into a ministerial calling (the first option)? Or should we think of it as providing an academic component that will require various other components in order for someone to be pronounced ready to step into a ministerial call?
I think that this overarching question has significant bearing on some of the issues raised in the past two days’ discussions: how academic should our M.Div. be? How academic should a seminary be? Should a seminary admit non-Christians?
I suppose all of this is could be asked a little less abstractly or idealistically: what are we doing by requiring an academic degree for pastoral ministry? What does this communicate, and what does that mean for how a seminary should conceptualize its curriculum?
What do you think?
This is an interesting question. And there is a lot to sort out, even in how the question is put. I suspect that at least there are societal/cultural factors that shape the very asking of the question and how it is put. I am thinking of the mid-1800s and J.B. Lightfoot, F.B. Westcott, F.A. Hort, and others for whom a distinction between ministry and academia did not seem to exist. But, at that time (and I am no expert in academics of a previous era) I don’t think that the education for ministry was much beyond an academic education in Biblical studies and theology. Today we branch out into many related areas: classes in pastoral ministry, preaching, administrative things, worship, etc.
How academic should a seminary be? I am wondering what we mean be “academic”? Can preparation for ministry be non-academic? WHat would that entail? Just working in a church until someone thinks one is “ready”? Well, when is one “ready” for ministry? Answering these questions gets at the question of purpose and identification of different roles in the church, I think. Perhaps, with Paul in 1 Cor 12, we can agree there are a variety of services and roles in the church (we can perhaps call them “ministries” here, even though Paul does not). There are likely different purposes for these ministries, requiring different preparation–some more or less “academic” than others, whatever we mean by “academic”.
So we are back to the issue of defining “academic”. Does this mean in a classroom? Do you have to read a book? Know all of the major Bibilcal studies journals?
I suspect this discussion will be all over the map with different perspectives on what consists as “academic” and what is “ministry” and how one prepares for various ministries influencing everyone’s answers.
I guess I am pressing the question of why an academic model is the way we go for training ministers–and what are the strengths and weaknesses of this. Yes, there are lots of good, important things to learn. And, when I hear how some non-seminary-educated pastors use the Bible in their sermons, etc., I wish I could kick them out of the pulpit until they’d had a whole curriculum of biblical studies and interpretation.
But then again, when I listen to sermons from folks with seminary degrees, and I hear how some non-seminary-educated pastors use the Bible in their sermons, etc., I wish I could kick them out of the pulpit until they’d had a whole curriculum of biblical studies and interpretation.
But overall, I’m continuing to wrestle with what should we think we’re doing, where should we recognize that we can’t do everything, and how much can we “defer” to the church without copping out of our responsibilities as educators?
i have found that the church has been doing a lot more of copping out of their responsibilities than the educational institutions here. i even got luck and had an extremely good committee supporting me throughout the process, but in the church we have put nice above a lot of tough calls that need to be made (um, how could you not mention the eucharist in your statement of faith? for a minimal example…) as well as being a set of flaming hoops to jump through without care and compassion along the way.
the main thing i learned in y pastoral care and counseling, by the somewhat unrelated way, was gay marriage counseling. oh, and i also learned that i did not appreciate my professor asking in my stead if anyone in the class wanted to give me a shoulder rub. nice.
I am hoping that seminary + church can become more of a productive synergy in many places. One reason I absolutely love working in a “Regional Campus” for Fuller is that all of our students are in their normal homes, most in their normal churches, many working in churches. They tend to have many more opportunities to be running down their pastoral growth while learning things in the classroom.
In the best of times, this means that there’s a short feedback loop where I get to be asked what to do with this classroom stuff the following Sunday morning–and where it didn’t quite work!
As one who holds an MDiv, is involved in pastoral ministry, is graduating tomorrow with another advanced degree and will be pursuing full-time PhD studies in the fall, let me throw my two cents in the pot.
A seminary is an academic institution. My perspective has been that even the “practical” courses required for MDivs are academically oriented. I appreciate the emphasis over the past few years of ministry practicums or internships and spiritual formation (at least in evangelical seminaries). However, these experiences and classes are short-term. Therefore, they rarely offer a lot “real world” experience and perspectives for ministry. The long and short of this is that there’s really no way to escape the academics that a seminary provides. Perhaps the model should be to “apprentice” recent MDiv graduates for three years in churches (required by a denomination, if there is one?).
fnjd: Do you think MDiv students would be better served having a CPE rotation as part of their curriculum rather than practical theology courses?
It could be both/and. It’s not that practical theology courses are worthless compared to practical experience. Both have their place. But a practical ministries course cannot serve the needs of every student in his/her ministry context – small/large church, urban/rural, ethnic, etc. There will be principles to apply, but that’s up to the student.
What if a student could tailor assignments in courses to his/her ministry context?
I hope I am not off on a tangent here, but I have a few thoughts in this respect.
1. Seminaries need to address the reality that high tuition costs will invariably exclude many pastoral options in favour of more highly funded ones. In other words, too many pastors need to go to larger suburban churches in order to pay off their debts. The dependency on wages can also influences the prophetic aspects of pastoral ministry, too often softening the blow (so to speak) when challenging those same communities. Too few pastors are going to communities in crisis, as those community churches often require bi-vocational pastors (or are commuter churches that are not reflective of the local neighbourhood).
Further, there needs to be far more hands on, experiential training from early on in the process. While by NO means anti-academic, there can be a very big gap between the academic aspects of seminary education and the practical workings of ministry. By doing this the academic content will also inevitably be challenged to respond better to the current, contextual realities of ministry, rather than perpetuating models that are often irrelevant in the wider culture.
2. Similar to the previous question, I value hands-on, experiential, relational opportunities to serve as a central aspect of ministry preparation during & as part of seminary education. In addition to testing our own skills, gifts, etc., it exposes us to the (often messy) realities of ministry and life. Preparation should also have a degree of flexibility and adaptability that allows the individual student to more clearly explore and define the direction their training might head.
3. The skill sets that have been important to me have been largely defined by my convictions on the nature of the community we are seeking to build. The question must be asked, “What kind of church does this approach produce?”. For example, the community I pastor is Anabaptist, therefore developing a community hermeneutic requires a very unique set of skills. In addition to this, other aspects of community-based spiritual and missional formation are critical. Too much of our training and too many of our models are primarily (sometimes exclusively) focused on “individual discipleship”.
4. I think too many people are being prepared for models of church and community too deeply defined by a Christendom identity, which is having a decreasingly effective impact on our culture. The resulting attractional models seem to perpetuate growth of a very specific and narrow kind, often dependent on accommodating cultural failings to do so (i.e. consumerism, individualism, etc.) I believe that people need to be prepared for ministry that calls people to deep community, active missionality and sacrificial lifestyles relevant to, but often in contrast with, the surrounding culture.
ok i’m presbyterian (and not of the cumberland variety), so i’m pretty skewed on this. i like your second option (academic option), and i need a nap. badly.
also? i found CPE to pretty much just be psycotherapy. i did mine for 9 months at the veterans hospital there in menlo park, btw. even though it was good for me i hated cpe but do love the theology, so there ya go.
JRDK said: “Or should we think of it as providing an academic component that will require various other components in order for someone to be pronounced ready to step into a ministerial call?”
A little long winded below. Hopefully helpful.
My answer is an emphatic “YES” to your seond option above. From my experience and my perspective and my ECCLESIOLOGY. When I originally went to Trinity (TEDS), I briefly thought about the option of doing my church-network’s based curriculum (unaccredited) which was similar to, but not nearly developed as the Sovereign Grace Ministries (Mahaney/Harris/Purswell) Pastor’s College. I already knew I didn’t want to have the academic portion of my pursuit of professional ministry be that narrow/loosy-goosy. So, I opted to start out at RTS, due to cost factor via the virtual campus. When I realized that the systematic courses were not stretching me at all there, I knew I needed to be stretched in a bit more of an academic environment with a broader range of professors/backgrounds. TEDS was good for that. Not great, but what I expected.
Many students on campus were decrying the “lack of community”, etc. in the Seminary environment and I never understood that. I was at TEDS to learn and for the academics (and I did develop a few good friendships) and saw my local church there to serve, be served, live in comunity, learn practically.
On my preaching classes: they were very helpful getting me from not-having-a-clue-how-to-deliver-a-monologue to being able to present a coherent sermon. My experience monlogue preaching (pulpit) in my church community sharpened what I learned in those classes. The dialogue preaching (small group) was learned wholly under a pastor at my church. Bottom line: the practical preaching classes were helpful. They got me from nothing to something.
I can count two professors who inspired me (I’ll name them: Grant Osborne (NT) and Scott Manetch (History)), two who sharpened me (Grant Osborne, Greg Scharf (Preaching Prof.)), and one who “shepherded” me (Grant Osborne). Being shepherded was to me, an added bonus, based on my expectations. Not a requirement.
This long-winded comment is to say that the seminary environment was helpful for me to have a place to get from nowhere to somewhere in terms of critical thinking about studying the Bible. The time there (full-time) gave me time to think, to re-evaluate some theological positions. Joining a church there quickly helped keep me involved in community life where I believe at least 2/3 of a pastor’s “training” should come – over time.
Does everyone need to go the academic route? Depends on the system they’re in. I’ve intentionally gone away from the professional route of ministry to a “flatter”/Simple-er church model. So, I have the seminary education, but my two other co-leaders in our Gospel community have a “good enough” Scripture interpretation grid, years of wisdom in following Christ, and our lives are shared together so that together we are shepherding/pastoring our community. We’re not perfect at it, but this is my long-winded-processing-out-loud-on-your-blog-post way of saying: 1.) the church “system” I’m part of does not, in my view, require every “pastoral” person to be equipped via academic education/credentials, but 2.) it’s helful that I have the academic grid (for lack of a better word) to work from for our mutual benefit. I know better than to think that my academic background makes me a better pastor. It makes me a different pastor than my fellow pastors. I’m not the head and they’re the hands. We don’t try to figure out what body part we are, we just assume we’re all necessary parts of the body in the role of shepherds. Would I be called upon to “monologue preach” more often. Yes. Are my fellow shepherds as capable or more capable than I in “dialogue preaching” (small group setting)? Yes.
Thanks, Daniel, for the interesting questions. This is something I’ve struggled with for a while. I have an MA, MDiv, and a PhD from different seminaries, but I feel that they have prepared me very little for pastoral ministry.
In fact, I am about to start working part-time at my church as the assistant pastor, and one of the reservations of church board members is that I don’t have enough “pastoral/practical” experience–despite the fact that (1) I’ve earned three seminary degrees and (2) I’ve been a professor at a seminary for three years training pastors! If I’ve not prepared, then what in the world is the point of seminary!
I always tell my students that my seminary education trained me to be a professor, not a pastor. I’ll have to learn the latter the old fashioned way–by apprenticing myself to my senior pastor and by learning through experience. I will be very prepared for this as a result of my seminary education in some ways–teaching, preaching, and administrating–but not in other key areas: counseling, leading funerals/weddings, and so forth. Whatever happens, it will definitely add to my teaching at seminary–and hopefully allow me to integrate these things better!
I’m no pastor or seminarian (though I’ve got one class at RTS to my credit)–though I’d love to pursue an M. Div. at Gor-Con focusing on Educational Ministries–but I’ll throw in my few cents.
I do really agree with the sentiment that pastors need to be well-educated in hermeneutics, biblical theology, law-gospel (aka hermeneutics derived from biblical theology), homiletics/expository preaching, teaching, etc. I cannot believe how much bad theology I hear on the radio, chiefly a failure to pastorally apply law and gospel appropriately. I recently heard from a seminarian in my own denomination, “What is credobaptism?” Seriously? As a called servant of the Word, pastors are first and foremost shepherds whose role is to guide their flock to the pasture of God’s Word, namely, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If they do not know that Word, forget everything else they do. They have no foundation (1 Cor. 3:10-15).
But a good pastor knows how to use that Word to counsel people considering divorce, backsliding into sin, dying from cancer, and the like. They need kind words and warm hearts–the “wisdom from above” (James 3:17). They need to be models of prayer and worship. They need to have people skills, really. And those are forged in practice. Despite being in one of the top Teacher Education programs in the country at MSU, it was all useless until I began teaching and putting it into practice. And while I might have a degree in Biology, I’ve learned that so much other knowledge is necessary to actually get my students to learn and find meaning in the content. Seminary education, particularly an M. Div. or D. Div., cannot neglect this.
I like the idea of this being a component of the total preparation for ministry. One thing I have become increasingly interested in is the ministerial residency programs, much like the one done in Wilshire Baptist in Dallas. After completing their MDIv, ministry candidates go through a two year residency program much like a medical residency. Frankly, I think this seems a much better approach than sending new graduates into church settings with little or no experience under a seasoned minister.
This is a good discussion. The comments are really great. I’ve got a seminary M.Div. Part of my career was helping to train partly illiterate Haitian pastors. I pastor a small church and I train church leaders in an alternative to seminary educational program. I regularly work with pastors with more education than I do, and pastors with a lot less. What I’ve seen is that God has a way of using the diversity of gifts AND diversity of preparation tracks to yield different church communities often appropriate to their contexts. Part of the complexity of this question is the complexity of the ecosystem of Christian communities.
In my 13 years now in NA pastoral ministry I’ve had the experience more than once to find that people I’ve discipled, and continue to disciple get help and even find community in places I could never offer. In one example a man has had a rough life in gangs, on the streets, in dysfunctional serial relationships, etc. An uneducated Pentecostal minister with a variety of things that are pretty shady and twisted in my book but who has had a similar “education” in some ways has been more effective in helping this man get on a track of Christian discipleship. At the same time many of the people in my congregation couldn’t tolerate this other pastor’s ministry very long at all.
Education is never a neutral thing. Education is always being educated BY something and INTO something. The ex-gang-banger Pentecostal pastor, that according to me is too controlling, too proof-texty, etc. has been educated into some things I’ll never know and therefore is useful to a very large and important community in a way I will never be with my middle class, literate, Northern European theological tradition education. Seminaries are creatures of their environment and history. As our cultural environment changes seminaries are trying to keep up and alternative modes of church leadership training are emerging.
Thanks for the good blog and hosting the productive discussion. pvk
Paul, great insight. Education is always an “into” and “out of”–something that simultaneously opens doors, ushering us into certain brave new worlds, and closes doors, ushering us out of others.
Sounds like you’ve got a good vision for a multi-form pastoral ministry.