Can We Make Seminary More Effective?

I am one of those old-school guys who thinks that seminary could be more effective if we went back to making it about a traditional theological education—with a heavy emphasis on Hebrew and Greek, systematic theology and Bible exposition.

The author makes some good points, particularly under his final heading.

I have to admit, though, that I am growing leery of people trying to make seminary more effective, more appealing, more exciting, more within reach, etc. Are law schools doing this? Are medical schools doing this? Is the average person supposed to be capable and qualified to go through seminary just to say he or she did it?

I may be unique in this, but I am eternally grateful for the seminary experience I received at Faith (M.Div., ‘99). It was old school—there were few bells and whistles, except for the advent of week-long modules, which were new at the time and provided a feasible way for schools to offer classes with visiting professors. We were blessed to have a resident faculty that was second to none, providing an elite learning experience in an intimate atmosphere. We were exposed to such world-class visiting professors and lecturers as Drs. Whitcomb, Walvoord, Ryrie, Showers, McCune and Beale. We were trained by men who represented “old Dallas Seminary” and “old Grace Seminary”—some still in their primes and others able to share a lifetime of wisdom. This training is a part of me that I would not trade for anything—no matter how personal, practical or otherwise attractive it might be.

There is, however, one pragmatic improvement that I would like to see seminaries (and also colleges—where it is even more necessary) make.

There ought to be a time, somewhere—a special class, a series of chapel sessions, a special evening—where knowledgeable experts provide real-world counsel to ministerial students. Topics would include the following:

• “Here is what you have to know about opting out of Social Security.”
• “Here are some things you will have to do if you want to be a missionary.”
• “If you are planning to be a pastor, here are some things you have to know about housing allowance and expense reimbursement.”
• “If you are going to be in ministry, here are things you have to know before buying your first house.”
• “Here are some legal issues that you have to be aware of every time you do ministry in a new state.”
• “Here is a list of areas that you have to monitor immediately when you begin a new pastorate.”

If I were running a school, I would also require completion of Financial Peace University to allow students to graduate. When I was in college, the only such available resources of which I was aware were a few Larry Burkett books. Today, there is little excuse for failing to expose students to such needed information.

Food for thought—for what it’s worth.

Kind of depends on what we mean by “emphasis on discipleship.”

Seminary is supposed to happen at a point in ministry training and experience where the believer being trained is already mature. That is, he does not need discipling in the basic habits and attitudes of genuine Christian living. So making seminary more discipleship oriented in that sense is, would be making it more remedial… get it to fix problems that should be fixed in the local churches students come from.

On the other hand, there is definitely a tendency — in my experience — for seminary training to get too isolated from real world ministry concerns. There is often a gap between academia and practitioners. (This is also a common problem in many other fields, such as the law enforcement sector I now work in: criminoloigy and policing are two different things and much work is going into getting the two talking to each other better.)

So if by “emphasis on discipleship” we mean “better connection to real world ministry skills,” I would agree with that.

The defense that many seminary profs are part-time pastors or have pastoral experience only goes so far. Seminaries tend to exist in places where there are multiple local churches with a high percentage of Bible college and seminary graduates. So they minister to a relatively well-educated constituency. When you get further away, you find that the biblical-educational background of the folks in the pews is quite different. And ministry to them is significantly different in a number of ways.

Personally, I think it’s time to at least look at a completely different approach to training pastors, something more like an internship —> journeyman —> certification process. But I’m just brainstorming. The advent of widespread distance education means the process is going to continue to change dramatically in coming decades, regardless. So the question is, what are the best ways to depart from the traditional model.

So… from the article, yes, more personal, more emphasis on people skills.

I like the idea of required continuing education, and this might be where some kind of certification would tie in.

Also connected to certification: a strong continuing ministry ethics training component.

I have been co-teaching the master’s level RES511 Research: Writing and Communication course at Piedmont International University for three years now, usually six courses per year. While my PhD is specifically in Theology (the co-teacher has hers in Writing and Rhetoric), the RES511 course gives me an opportunity to see a variety of students pursing one of our three master’s level degrees from our seminary, including the MDiv, and also our Master of Education students, and see them write on a variety of topics (since they essentially can choose, assuming it involves research).

While students vary, the ones that are weak (which, BTW, the Master of Education students tend to be some of my strongest), I find are weak in one or more skills of (1) logic, (2) ability to organize their thoughts, (3) and basic English grammar. All three are vital to effective communication, whether written or spoken, and so important for preaching, teaching, evangelizing, etc. (the core things a graduate from seminary should be able to do well). Unfortunately, these are things that should be gained during the undergraduate level so that they are not an issue at the graduate level.

My own training came from masters degrees (Bible Exposition and then MDiv) at Pensacola Theological Seminary and then my PhD from Piedmont. Comparing the two schools at the master’s level, Pensacola (at least at the time) did a far better job at Bible exposition, while Piedmont had better emphasis on theology and hermeneutics (the latter of which is not even offered as a course itself at Pensacola, though the Bible exposition courses do discuss Bible interpretation within them, they do not discuss the field and process of it generally like a hermeneutics course would). Pensacola also has a broader biblical languages program because they offer more exegesis electives beyond the introductory courses to the languages than Piedmont currently does.

So I state the above to just say that I agree with Paul Scharf that “a heavy emphasis on Hebrew and Greek, systematic theology and Bible exposition” (emphasis added) is critical to a good seminary training, and so a balance of those should always be the core. I see these skills as being the core “real world ministry skills” (to quote Aaron Blummer) since they are the foundation behind how other such skills should be functioning. Yet I also would agree with Aaron on the common division between academy vs. practice that needs to be corrected, and Scharf on some of those other practical points noted. But skills of how to lead a church, how to counsel those in need, how to manage finances, how to cross-culturally engage effectively, and apologetics and ethics, etc., must all be tied into the Bible to be effective, which goes back to the core. Yet these latter skills also need a contemporary cultural connection to make them relevant to where one may minister today. So really, a broad balance of training is needed in both the core and the other skills.

But that need for balance is also part of the issue. Some MDiv programs (like Piedmont’s) are reduced down to 72 credit hours from 90+ that other institutions have (mine at Pensacola was 96) or had (since some are reducing). Couple that with the fact that students these days can get a number of credit hours needed for graduation reduced for “advanced standing” from their undergraduate studies, and you can end up not having as much training in seminary as what used to be required, and so not as many credits to work with to get a “balance” of what is needed.

Now regarding the post that this discussion is about, Kevin Schaal gave three areas he felt needed attention. My comments on those:

• More Personal: I agree with Schaal that those involved with students “need to be involved in the personal life and walk of seminary students.” Seminary training should still be (a higher level of) discipleship training. This is particularly needed for all those students that go straight from their undergraduate studies into seminary, but even the most seasoned pastors can have areas of weakness, and blind spots in their lives and ministry that others (peers at that level) on the outside may see and be able to help correct. Unfortunately, this level of personal involvement is decreasing tremendously because of online education. An online teacher cannot assess accurately what is going on in the lives of the students being taught.
• Decentralize: That is too broadly put for my taste. I see value in centralization in that decentralization implies getting trained by one man (or a very small group of men). However, Schaal does say “seminary education and local church discipleship can work hand-in-hand” because of online education. Here I think is what can solve the personalization issue above for online education. Seminaries (especially online focused) need to set up active communication with a few (unrelated) people local to the student, and have some type of regular meetings between those people and the student and those people and the seminary to evaluate the “personal” walk of the student from a local perspective. Exactly how this could be and best be done, I’m not sure, but this would help decentralize the personal aspect in our online world, while maintaining a generally centralized place of growing knowledge in the seminaries.
• Continuing Education: I just agree. Some type of continued certifications in either advanced studies in areas already covered, or introductory studies in knowledge and skills missed in earlier education should be set up (and affordable).

I agree that there is need for improvement, no human system is without flaws.

However, I have some questions about continuing education. First, most continuing education I have seen is imposed by apparatchiks on the professions “for their own good” but does little to actually enhance their professionalism or actually contribute much of value to their actual field of work. This is of course an “anecdotal objection,” but for continuing education to be of value it needs to have value. Who gets to decide what this is?

Second, how does one require continuing education without drastically changing our ecclesiology? Will we move to a denominational model? I doubt Kevin would suggest that given our shared commitment to the FBFI. Is the local church to become the authority to whom the preacher is accountable? If yes, how then is he a “pastor” and not just a “hired preacher?” I think more needs to be discussed here before I would accept this kind of standard.

As for Paul Scharf’s suggestion of Financial Peace University, I have long advocated for preachers to have a bit of a clue about how money works, but I think Dave Ramsay is self-serving and legalistic. I would think wisdom can be gained from many other sources rather than pointing anyone in his direction.

Second, how does one require continuing education without drastically changing our ecclesiology? Will we move to a denominational model?

Probably the only way would be for individual pastors and/or churches to voluntarily commit to it as part of some kind of certification/other credential program.

What if there was an entity sort of like the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors but with the aim of overall pastoral excellence rather than a focus on a particular skill set (counseling)?

Aaron, Great idea! I love it.

Don, Am I missing something, or is the local church not already “the authority to whom the preacher is accountable”—at least on some level? They are, after all, paying his salary, are they not?

[Aaron Blumer]

Second, how does one require continuing education without drastically changing our ecclesiology? Will we move to a denominational model?

Probably the only way would be for individual pastors and/or churches to voluntarily commit to it as part of some kind of certification/other credential program.

What if there was an entity sort of like the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors but with the aim of overall pastoral excellence rather than a focus on a particular skill set (counseling)?

So would this Association have any clout if the pastor missed his class? What if he didn’t pass the exam/test? If it has clout, it seems the local church relinquishes some authority, if it has no clout, what is the point?

In any case, like I said, it would involve a change in ecclesiology, which would meet with resistance by many.

[Paul J. Scharf]

Aaron, Great idea! I love it.

Don, Am I missing something, or is the local church not already “the authority to whom the preacher is accountable”—at least on some level? They are, after all, paying his salary, are they not?

No, the pastor is under the authority of Christ. He serves the congregation within parameters set down by Scripture. Granted, the local church can dismiss the pastor, but not without cause. However, that power is not exactly the same as accountability.

I have the impression that many churches view the pastor as a hireling. I think that is an unbiblical ecclesiology. A church calls a pastor, it doesn’t hire a preacher. There is a huge difference between the two phrases.

I don’t think you need to add a bunch of discipleship classes or decrease other requirements in order to get an effective balance. Eat lunch with your profs, chat with the librarian, do a research project with a prof for a journal article. Meet and talk with people outside of class. Those things used to be a given with graduate school, but have fallen by the wayside. Students, faculty, and staff can make current programs effective by doing those things rather than tinkering with the curriculum.

I was blessed with faculty and staff in seminary who were happy to talk and spent time with me outside of class. And I think most seminaries are full of people like that, but most students don’t take advantage of the opportunity. If you are taking online classes you need to find local people to talk to. And it doesn’t take hours on end, just half an hour to an hour every once in a while.

So would this Association have any clout if the pastor missed his class? What if he didn’t pass the exam/test? If it has clout, it seems the local church relinquishes some authority, if it has no clout, what is the point?

In any case, like I said, it would involve a change in ecclesiology, which would meet with resistance by many.

It could work just like ACBC and other certifying bodies do: the only clout is that you lose your certification or perhaps become “inactive.” (I’m not sure what you have to do to lose ACBC certification, if you even can — maybe someone familiar can fill in that gap.) Given that we’re talking about independent Baptist and similar baptistic groups, it would have to be very respectful of both individual liberty and local church liberty.

But it really wouldn’t have to threaten autonomy any more than, say, GARBC or FBFI or IFCA do. You can get kicked out of these groups if you stray — from their point of view — in certain ways.

The idea first came to me a few weeks ago reflecting on the problem of church leaders who don’t handle reported abuse properly. This is, as we all know, a separate topic, but to the extent that we have that problem in independent Baptist/baptistic ministries, it seems to me that a big part of it is a faulty understanding of pastoral leadership and/or ignorance of how to properly comply with state and federal law.

Then you have all the other ethics problems like embezzlement, unilateral discipline, etc. So a certifying body that focuses on these gaps and tries to ensure that trainees embrace biblical servant-leadership, transparent and accountable (to the congregation) financial practices, handling of reported domestic and sexual abuse, etc., might be able to help mitigate some of these problems. Churches could look for certified men to be their pastors. Seminaries could, to some extent, provide some of the curriculum. Some schools might want to dive in fully and produce certified graduates.

I’m a realist though. If it was actually possible to prevent 100% of ministerial malfeasance by any method, it would have been done a long, long time ago. You can’t control the choices humans (sinners) make in moments of temptation. It’s just an idea to help do something constructive about these problems (vs. making social media noise and calling that doing something).

So, to clarify: I agree with Don (and Paul also on this point, I’m pretty sure) that the pastor is accountable to the local congregation. He isn’t a hired preacher: he’s part of the body. What a certifying body could do is help with educational (some of which are totally theological) gaps, helping make both pastors and churches be more aware of certain things. The ongoing education part of it is organic to that, really, because we all need to keep growing and keep certain principles front-of-mind.

(Edit to add: If I was retired and/or financially independent, I’d be seriously inclined to start organizing this as a nonprofit. As it is, I can’t drop everything and do that… not for several years at the very least. But maybe someone can.)

Well, I understand why you suggest it. It just won’t wash with independent Baptists. There is a reason for our ecclesiastical position, and we won’t cede that authority to anyone outside our congregations.

BTW, there is a difference between the GARBC and the FBFI. The GARBC is a fellowship of churches, the FBFI of individuals. No church is accountable to the FBFI, whereas there is some church accountability to the GARBC.

That difference illustrates why I say to create a body as you suggest would either require a change in ecclesiology or would be toothless and meaningless.

With Scott S., I am a huge proponent of language and logic study, but I would concede that this alone does not ensure an accountable pastorate. How could I argue otherwise after learning of the old European practice of sending the otherwise intelligent but lazy sons of elite families to theology school to gain a sinecure? They were all university educated in the ancient languages, logic, and the like, after all.

What might do a lot of good—and of course the implementation is easier said than done—would be if pastors would make a point of teaching their congregations, and key men in their congregations, how to think theologically and not just what to think theologically. In other words, if a pastor sees it as important to train men to think for themselves, a great portion of the potential for pastoral abuse diminishes.

Or, to be even more blunt about the matter, I would dare guess that when a pastor even starts to try to teach congregants how to theologically, competently or otherwise, a huge portion of the potential for abuse diminishes. The simple act of trying tells people “it’s OK to disagree on certain things.”

BTW, there is a difference between the GARBC and the FBFI. The GARBC is a fellowship of churches, the FBFI of individuals. No church is accountable to the FBFI, whereas there is some church accountability to the GARBC.

That difference illustrates why I say to create a body as you suggest would either require a change in ecclesiology or would be toothless and meaningless.

I’m not seeing why that would be the case. There are many professional organizations that function as I have described without any violation of the autonomy of the businesses involved. Using ACBC again as a ministry-oriented reference model, is it toothless and meaningless?

I do think this certification would make more sense as an individual “membership” rather than church membership, though I also don’t see why a church version couldn’t also exist for any congregations that would opt to participate. Like any of the gazillion independent church fellowships, churches could withdraw any time they like.

Does participation in these fellowships require a reworked ecclesiology?

Aaron, you’re right - it wouldn’t require anything of the sort. For example, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners is a voluntary association that offers training and credentials to fraud investigators. Nobody assumes that, if a fraud investigator decides to join and obtain this credential and maintain it with CE requirements, he’s abdicating some measure of autonomy. Neither is the agency he works for.

well, I guess we will just keep talking past each other. So suppose a pastor decides to be certified as you suggest. What happens then? Suppose he:

1. decides to let the certification lapse. Is it reported? To whom? What are the consequences?
2. fails at some continuing education class? Same questions
3. maintains the certification but breaches the code of ethics in some way? Who polices the breaches? How?

we could go on, but maybe that will help you see what I am saying