Theological Training
“And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)
How Should Theological Training be Done?
Culver argues from this verse for the theological training of certain men for the teaching ministry. Most theological training is performed by staff devoted to full-time theological training. Some seminaries are non-denominational, whereas others are controlled by a church or association of churches.
Our own Synod runs the Reformed Theological College for our preachers and evangelists (which is also open to any one who wants to learn). The philosophy behind this is that the lecturers should all be pastors, so that all aspects of the theological training are grounded in pastoral experience and the needs of the congregation.
Another model is where the trainee pastors are trained on a one-to-one basis by a working pastor/ group of pastors in a local congregation.
Here are some questions to ponder:
Some seminaries are linked to secular universities. I have heard those who have attended seminaries in N.I. bemoan the dreadful classes that they’re forced to attend because of this linkage. Are these seminaries unequally yoked?
The Need for Theological Training for All Elders
Why is it that preachers usually get several years of training, but ruling elders get none, or virtually none? Is the pastoral/ teaching role of ruling elders emphasised enough? Is it valued enough? Wouldn’t ruling elders be more effective in their ministry, if they were trained?
Do Elders Have a Responsibility to Try to Find Faithful Men to Whom to Commit These Things?
So many pulpits are vacant in the Christian Church: why is this? Could it be that the elders should be actively seeking out men to commit these things to, and are not? Could it also be that because theology isn’t taught systematically to the people there is less opportunity for these men to appear?
Theology for the People!
Culver rightly looks at the necessity of theological training of men for the preaching ministry, but what about the people? One of the great needs in our day is for a systematic, theological training for all God’s people. The teaching of God’s people usually consists of either an assortment of texts, or a series on a book of the Bible or a character, or on a particular subject, which are all helpful in there own way; but what about giving the people a general grounding in all the basics of the Christian faith?
I believe passionately in the need for God’s people to get a good grounding in all the major doctrines of God’s Word (or systematic theology), in ethics, in practical Christian living (work, marriage, child-rearing, financial stewardship, etc.), in evangelism, in apologetics, in Church history, etc., etc.
Why is it that in all other departments of life teaching involves systematically training people in the whole spectrum of basic concepts, but it is so lacking in teaching Christianity? The Church would be so much stronger if this was done. In Presbyterian churches, there used to be a practice of ‘catechising’ in the afternoon (when services were in the afternoon, as opposed to the evening). This formed a method of systematic training (based on the Westminster Catechisms), even if it didn’t cover all the necessary departments.
Read the rest...
How Should Theological Training be Done?
Culver argues from this verse for the theological training of certain men for the teaching ministry. Most theological training is performed by staff devoted to full-time theological training. Some seminaries are non-denominational, whereas others are controlled by a church or association of churches.
Our own Synod runs the Reformed Theological College for our preachers and evangelists (which is also open to any one who wants to learn). The philosophy behind this is that the lecturers should all be pastors, so that all aspects of the theological training are grounded in pastoral experience and the needs of the congregation.
Another model is where the trainee pastors are trained on a one-to-one basis by a working pastor/ group of pastors in a local congregation.
Here are some questions to ponder:
- Does the Bible prescribe a particular form of theological training or is there one that is subjectively better than others?
- Should theological lecturers be full-time theologians or pastors doing it on a part-time basis?
- Where should seminaries get their authority from? Should they be controlled by the Church, or do they get their authority merely from the ordination of the individual lecturers as teachers of God’s Word and so can be independent (as a body) from church-control?
Some seminaries are linked to secular universities. I have heard those who have attended seminaries in N.I. bemoan the dreadful classes that they’re forced to attend because of this linkage. Are these seminaries unequally yoked?
The Need for Theological Training for All Elders
Why is it that preachers usually get several years of training, but ruling elders get none, or virtually none? Is the pastoral/ teaching role of ruling elders emphasised enough? Is it valued enough? Wouldn’t ruling elders be more effective in their ministry, if they were trained?
Do Elders Have a Responsibility to Try to Find Faithful Men to Whom to Commit These Things?
So many pulpits are vacant in the Christian Church: why is this? Could it be that the elders should be actively seeking out men to commit these things to, and are not? Could it also be that because theology isn’t taught systematically to the people there is less opportunity for these men to appear?
Theology for the People!
Culver rightly looks at the necessity of theological training of men for the preaching ministry, but what about the people? One of the great needs in our day is for a systematic, theological training for all God’s people. The teaching of God’s people usually consists of either an assortment of texts, or a series on a book of the Bible or a character, or on a particular subject, which are all helpful in there own way; but what about giving the people a general grounding in all the basics of the Christian faith?
I believe passionately in the need for God’s people to get a good grounding in all the major doctrines of God’s Word (or systematic theology), in ethics, in practical Christian living (work, marriage, child-rearing, financial stewardship, etc.), in evangelism, in apologetics, in Church history, etc., etc.
Why is it that in all other departments of life teaching involves systematically training people in the whole spectrum of basic concepts, but it is so lacking in teaching Christianity? The Church would be so much stronger if this was done. In Presbyterian churches, there used to be a practice of ‘catechising’ in the afternoon (when services were in the afternoon, as opposed to the evening). This formed a method of systematic training (based on the Westminster Catechisms), even if it didn’t cover all the necessary departments.
Read the rest...
posted by Timothy Davis | 6:57 AM
18 Comments:
A most thought-provoking post, Timothy -- thanks for coming back on board.
In the Continental-Reformed tradition it is customary for preachers to preach through the Heidelberg Catechism every year. This gives the people a good grounding in systematic theology and the message of the Bible as a whole. But our church would never allow it, for our church insists that all preaching/teaching must be Bible exposition.
I think that each congregation should be taught their denominational distinctives as well as basic training in Bible truths. But it could be done in such a way as the Bible is given primary emphasis, rather than a catechism. E.g., "How do we find this truth in the Bible?" Basically it's systematic theology from the pulpit, in that it's bringing ALL the relevant Scripture passages together on a particular subject such as the Trinity or the atonement!
Preaching straight through books of the Bible has its strengths and should be done as well, but not exclusively, as it is limited to the teachings of each particular book. If BOTH methods are done, I think the congregation would be getting FULL benefit from the Bible!
Obviously as an historic non-conformist I believe in the Regulative Principle and so the teaching must be from Scripture, not the Works of Daniel Hill ;) However, this is just a form of topical preaching.
A catechism could be used to provide structure, but ultimately we should be convincing people that it is true from Scripture. Personally, I would do more than merely follow the structure of a catechism, esp. as it won't cover basic apologetics, for example.
'Calvinism Today' (now called 'Christianity and Society') published an excellent chart several years ago which provided an annual course in systematics suitable for topical preaching (e.g. in an evening service or Bible class). The chart provided a synopsis of each relevant passage of the Westminster confession and catechisms, but this could easily be adapted for other confessions too.
Do you have a copy of this marvellous chart, cg? Would it be possible for you to photocopy it for me, or is it too big or subject to copyright restrictions?
Hmm! Not sure where exactly I have it! I'll take a look for it and see if I can find it - I copied it from an old magazine I found in the Evangelical Library. I've emailed the journal editor, who may be able to help us. Old issues are PDF'd at: http://kuyper.org/main/publish/journal.shtml
Old PDFs of the journal are online at http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/journal.shtml. I don't think they include the chart. I'm trying to find it but it could be anywhere! I've emailed the editor for his help. It's a great little tool.
I had a number of friends who studied at IBC with Queen's. Maybe my memory is wrong, Jim, but they had to take courses in QUB itself as well as IBC because of the affiliation, and I remember that they complained about the nature of the courses at QUB.
If I am incorrect and students at IBC don't have to study at QUB as well, then I will withdraw my remark. Can you confirm that this is not the case?
Do QUB have any control over the BTh, etc., courses?
Jim,
I'm glad to hear that things have changed so that BTh students are now able to study all their modules at the colleges themselves, and that the Roman Catholic St. Mary's College takes no part in any of the subject board meetings.
Do you think that there are any downsides to the relationship with Queen's? Do you think that you are unequally yoked in any way? Do you even think that the spiritual side suffers because of the need to meet the academic criteria to get accreditation? As a Baptist (and presumably independent), do you think that others have control over the content of IBC courses?
These are brotherly enquiries and not accusations.
Jim,
Just to clarify on the academic vs. spiritual question...
What I was really asking was whether the spiritual nature of all the courses was impacted by 'the demand for academic rigor' associated with the accreditation, e.g. are the courses 'drier', and less spiritually warm and less focused on spirtual needs?
Folks, I now have my copy of Culver - so, I'll be able to read and contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion - I'm really excited about this. I think I am the only person who is a full time theology student (at a seminary too) this year - so, I may be a bit emotional and biased when I write my comments.
In general, I have mixed feelings and mixed thoughts about theological training. So far, my experience here in the US suggests that seminary education (in theology) may not be 'better' than university education (in theology). What really matters is the practical 'field' work you get - and, I think all kinds of churches have major problems applying their confessional or theological foundation to ministry 'on the ground'.
One extreme conclusion might be - away with seminaries, they are rubbish! But, then, I'd miss out on all the fun of a Th.M at Princeton... :-)
As stated in the post, RTC has working pastors as lecturers so that (theoretically) the education is grounded in 'ministry on the ground'. Annual placement work with pastors or evangelists is also integral to the course.
You must have a very broad range of experience to state that "all kinds of churches have major problems applying their confessional or theological foundation to ministry 'on the ground'."
Well, I have met ministry students from many Protestant backgrounds - and most of them are sent to seminary or university, or whatever, for two or three years to study. And, many of them complain about the irrelevance of what they study, and the shock of ending up as pastors and ministers in a 'full time' capacity after that study.
I believe that no-one should become sole pastor / minister of a church without three years full time work as an assistant pastor/elder/minister. In Korea, you don't become a missionary until you have planted 3 churches. How come I will become a minister without ever having worked as a minister!? Daft, but real...
David,
I went to a "traditional" seminary doing my M.Div. and Th.M. I hardly found the work irrelevant. How could a thorough knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, Theology, Church History, and Pastoral Theology not be relevant for the ministry? I have benefited greatly from it and would never have done it a different way.
Now, my one corrective regarding the lack of consistency regarding applying their theology on the ground, would be to have you all become Baptists and become local church minded! LOL :) My seminary was an arm of the local church and all of our theological studies was worked out, "on the ground."
Now, it was not perfect. It would have been greater to get some other experience. But simply, why must one serve as an associate before they go into the ministry for 3 years. That is only a plausible case if you think your training was not adaquate for the ministry, and I hardly feel my training was inadaquate. No amount of "field work" can supplant the rigorous study of the Word of God in it's orginal langauges and study of the theology gained from the Word.
I would add that many denominations ease their pastors into the ministry through assistant positions/ internships/ curacies, e.g. PCI, C of I/ C of E, PCA. I know also that teh PCI has a certain amount of integration of 'field work' into their seminary training.
The original verse indicates that it is teachers, ordained and responsible to the Church, who are to pass on the faith to next generation of Bible teachers. I'm glad to hear that Detroit is an arm of the Church itself, rather than a para-church work. I think this is more in keeping with what the verse says.
David, I have no doubt that there are seminaries that overemphasise the academic, to the detriment of the practical. I was concerned that your statement was too universal. It is no surprise that less Bible-based/ 'broad church' seminaries would be like this. Whether there are Reformed seminaries (not C of S) like this, I don't know. What are the various Free Churches (inc. FPs) in Scotland like in this regard?
Interesting discussion.
CG -
If you locate those charts, I'd like to get a copy. Send to:
blw777 ("at-sign") gmail ("dot") com
Thanks!!
Post a Comment
<< Home