Seminary

Before I say anything else, I want to be clear. I went to seminary. It was a three-year graduate program. It was nine quarters. Every quarter I had daily a Biblical Greek class, a daily Biblical Hebrew class, a daily Bible class, a daily Theology class. In addition our chapel worked through most of the other books not covered in Greek, Hebrew, or Bible classes. While it didn’t answer every question I had, it trained me with the tools to study God’s Word and allow God to answer those questions through His Word. So, yes, I graduated from a conservative, Bible-based seminary. I have seldom deviated from what I learned as I have found those truths to stand the test of further exegesis of God’s Word. In the years since, I have expressed my appreciation to the individual faculty members and before others for the sacrifice of their lives so I might know God’s Word better and have a foundation on which to grow spiritually and know God better.

Preaching of Paul at Ephesus
Eustache Le Sueur, 1649

Having said all this, I graduated from seminary about thirty-five years ago. I have pastored for over thirty years and worked with a campus ministry. The church in which I serve contacted me while I was 1,500 miles away. I and my family came and spent two weeks with these people. I spoke eight times, spent hours answering questions, and spent several evenings having supper or dessert with a few of the families. All this was after a lengthy, ten-page questionnaire, several phone conversations, and phone calls to references I had given. It was a great attempt to check us out as thoroughly as possible. However, even after all that, this church didn’t really know me. We were still just barely acquainted. But this has been the pastoral search model followed by many of the churches with which I have fellowshipped. Other church groups may have slightly different versions of this procedure, but it still comes down to a church asking a man to “pastor” them who they barely know, and he barely knows them.

When Paul wrote Timothy and Titus, he listed a number of qualifications for the men who could fill the office of overseer (we use pastor, but that has to do with one’s gift, not the sphere in which one serves)(1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9). In both lists, Paul begins with some idea of the man being without legitimate accusation or reproach. He then goes on to list the areas in which the man must be free of such charges and meet qualifications. He must be a one-woman-man, sober both literally and in general demeanor, an attitude that thinks in terms of our salvation, orderly, hospitable, one expressing teaching, not addicted to much wine, not given to physical fighting, but gentle, not given to fighting, not fond of money, keeping an orderly family who takes him seriously, not a spiritually young believer, having a good testimony from unbelievers.

To this list Paul also tells Titus that he must not be accused of operating without caution or recklessly, not be one who does not submit, not one who authorizes himself for whatever he wishes, is hospitable, fond of what is good or makes for well being, righteous (often expressed in love), one who is fitted for God’s work in faithfulness and kindness, and finally, one who holds to that part of God’s Word that governs our conduct so he can properly use those parts of God’s Word that do not govern our conduct.

How can we evaluate someone for all these? Paul expected Timothy and Titus to be able to do so. But, we have a different situation that has developed in the two thousand years of Church history: seminary, or at least training programs external to the local church. What seminary has done is create a situation in which men who feel they should pastor seek some place to get training so they can do this competently. This may involve moving cross country or only a few hours from home. However, having completed their education, they rarely return to where they came from, but end up in a church a long way from home and with people who don’t really know him and he really doesn’t know them. They cannot evaluate him by the list of qualifications. We’ve probably all heard stories of pastors called to a church only to find out he had a reputation of not paying bills, a fact known in the community he came from, or a man who is a bit or a lot of a flirt, a man who lacks hospitality, but his friends at the last church don’t want to besmirch him even with honest answers. I’ve known respected leaders to withhold information because they fear it will ruin a man’s chances of serving in a church, and later that withheld information creates a major problem in a church. All these and many more are issues that are very hard to discern from a distance.

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul tells Timothy to commit what he had learned from Paul to faithful men who can teach these things to others (2 Tim. 2:2). This brief statement is telling. Timothy must know whether these are faithful men. How would he know that? They are in the church where Timothy is serving. Timothy has been watching them serve. He sees their faithfulness. He recognizes in them the habit of passing on to others what they have learned. The word “others” is the Greek heteros emphasizing others who are different, in this case, the teachers teach non-teachers (I want to address this in a future post). This would also be true for others in the church; they know whether these men meet the qualifications. How would Titus know if these men held firmly to the part of Scripture that governs our conduct, that they can make such a distinction? Titus was working with a group of churches on Crete and was intimately acquainted with each group. Timothy and Titus could see these qualifications in these men because they were in the same churches. Who better to recognize qualified men than the very churches where they grew and have served?

For centuries, missionaries have recognized and trained qualified men to carry on the work.

This is my thought on the problem with seminaries, they are doing a work that should be done in our local churches. However, our local churches do not normally operate in a manner that allows the elders to train qualified men to fill their shoes one day. Yet for centuries, missionaries have recognized and trained qualified men to carry on the work. Perhaps, if a church recognizes qualified men, the church could undertake to support such men as they train in a seminary, with the requirement that they return as often as possible to help and return to work with the church upon completion of their training. I also think seminaries should consider programs that allow qualified men to train from a distance in connection with their local pastor/s. The advent of the internet has made this very possible. Perhaps a few local churches can cooperate to share a local training program.

I’m simply calling us to consider some form of training that matches the New Testament model. It is a challenging prospect but the first-century churches did it, and if it is God’s will, He will make it possible. It will require more from pastors than some churches have considered. It will also require churches to remove the unbiblical burdens often placed on pastors. It will require people in our local churches to use their spiritual gifts rather than expecting the pastor to pick up the slack. We need to encourage pastors and teachers to do the work entrusted to them. Part of that work is training the next generation.

Is there a better way to train men to serve in the Church? Yes.