Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Thursday April 20, 2006

Training For The Ministry

The first job I ever had was delivering the Markham Economist & Sun, a small newspaper headquartered in a suburb of Toronto. I received no training, nor did I need any. On the day I began the job I was given a canvas bag, a large stack of newspapers and a list of houses that subscribed to the paper. I put the papers in the sack, consulted the list and left one newspaper in the mailbox of each house. It was that easy. As I got older and experienced greater financial needs, I sought a job that would earn me more money and found myself working at a gas station. I received only minimal training. I arrived on the first day clothed in my still-clean uniform and was told the following by the manager: “Go and serve that car. When you’re done I’ll tell you everything you did wrong.” So I went to the car, asked how much gas the person wanted to buy, turned on the pump, added the correct amount of fuel, took his money and bid him a good day. That was the end of my training.

As my life went on I had other jobs. I worked at Starbucks, a job which required three days of training. After graduating from college I entered the computer field which required a year of intensive training. And the learning and training continues to this day.

What I see as I look back on my two or three decades of work experience is that different vocations require different levels of expertise and thus different levels of training. Surely we would hope and expect that a man who intends to be a brain surgeon receive longer and more intensive training than one who wishes to be a cabinetmaker. Is one job inately superior to another? Not necessarily. But as the degree of difficulty and specialization varies, so too does the training required. And more accurately, the greater the collection of skills required for a particular job, the longer and more intense the training must be. A brain surgeon requires a vast collection of skills, ranging from the knowledge of human anatomy down to the ability to operate machinery and the ability to respond quickly, decisively and correctly in situations of extreme stress and delicacy. The skillset required is far more varied and exhaustive than that required to be a paperboy, a gas station attendant, a barista or a web designer.

There is no job that requires a greater collection of skills than the ministry. The Bible does not list the skills and qualifications necessary for many vocations. Yet the Scriptures dedicate a great deal of attention to providing God’s requirements for those who will labor in the gospel ministry.

The ministry is a special vocation. It involves a particular combination of talents, gifts and abilities. It is available only to men of upstanding character and ability. We affirm the importance and uniqueness of this vocation when we speak of the call to ministry. The church teaches and believes that those who are set apart by God for the ministry of the gospel are given a special calling by God so that they know and believe that they must answer this call and minister the Word. Those who labor in this ministry do so under direct orders from God. It has often been said that preachers are born, not made. That is to say that desire and training alone cannot produce a preacher, for the office is dependent upon particular gifts that are given by God only to some. Charles Spurgeon insisted that his college for pastors “receives no man in order to make him a preacher.” Martyn Lloyd-Jones was as emphatic, stating that “no college, or any other institution, can ever product a preacher.” God makes preachers; men train them.

Despite the difficulty of the vocation of pastoral ministry, we live in a time when pastoral training is regarded by many as being optional. There are some who eschew all manner of formal training, proclaiming that seminary training is a waste of time and effort—time and effort that could be dedicated to preaching the gospel. Not too long ago I wrote a brief article I entitled The Benefits of Ignorance in which I provided a silly parable about this type of person. I wrote about only one example, but I can think of many, and I am sure that each of my readers can as well. I don’t think we could successfully find a time in the history of the church when adequate preparation for gospel ministry has been valued less.

Even since I wrote that article, just a couple of months ago, I have come to a better understanding of why people minimize adequate training for the ministry. Before this time I think I have put the cart before the horse, so to speak, believing that the multitudes of pastors who have not been adequately trained for ministry have blinded the church to the distinct quality of the vocation. But I have since come to understand that minimizing the necessity of training for the ministry—thorough, deep, lengthy, intensive training—is a symptom of minimizing or overlooking the set-apartness of the calling of pastor. When we believe in and affirm the distinctive calling to the ministry of the gospel we will also believe in and affirm the importance of thorough preparation. And in our day, far too many evangelicals have lost sight of the set-apartness of this vocation.

A man who wishes to be a pastor and who understands the distinctiveness of this vocation will understand the necessity of adequate preparation. A man who wishes to spend a lifetime laboring within the local church and providing leadership within the body of Christ will understand that to do this most effectively he must be prepared.

There are, of course, many exceptions to this rule. It is not difficult to find examples of those who have had long and fruitful ministries without first attending seminary. Yet many of those men, men such as Charles Spurgeon, realized that they were the exception rather than the rule. Many of these men devoted themselves to preparing other men for the ministry through training programs and seminaries. I do not know of any notable Christian leaders who were both untrained and who advocated lack of serious preparation in others. Rather, they uniformly acknowledged and affirmed the importance of preparation. When we examine the history of such men we find that the exception proves the rule.

The logic is inescapable. If we believe in the special and distinct ministry of the Word, we must also be willing to deal with the fact that such a high calling requires a period of training and preparation. It is only when we lose sight of the distinctiveness of the calling that we will allow ourselves to minimize the importance of adequate preparation.

Comments (18) »


1. AWHall
April 20, 2006
11:13 AM

Tim - great thoughts to encourage me today after a meeting last night where I heard these types of comments. I live in a rural area where planning is eschewed, especially when it comes to anything spiritual. People respond to any planning or training by saying, “We don’t need to plan or train for that - God is more than able to do it by his Spirit. ” It is as though spontaneity is spiritual but planning and training is unspiritual. I wonder if this is really our way of saying that we want God to do the work for us, not through us.


2. Andrew Moody
April 20, 2006
11:20 AM

Well said Tim. I graduated from college with a B.A. in Theology. Many of my classmates went right into the ministry, while I went back to school for another 4 years for more training. Now, nearly 5 years after graduating from college, I’m about 2/3 through my pastoral internship (my 4th internship) and preparing for ordination. You know what? I still feel utterly inadequate for the task! I feel strongly called, and all who are around me strongly affirm it externally as well, however, I still feel inadequate given the high calling and responsibility of ministering the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And yet, I feel I cannot do anything else and be at peace. Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!

One problem/issue is that seminary is quite expensive. We lived in poverty for 4 years, and received no direct support from our home church. My parents helped a great great great deal! However, many churches don’t see the calling to help men through seminary, only to reap the benefits after they graduate! I’m thankful that my church makes it the norm for men being ordained to be seminary trained. If I hadn’t been prodded in that direction, I wonder where I might have ended up?


3. Jim Vellenga
April 20, 2006
11:31 AM

Although C.H. Spurgeon may not have went to seminary, he was self-trained through the extensive reading of the Puritans from a young age. I would guess that if a young man started to read the great theologians of the past and study the Bible in depth from a young age, by the time he was old enough to go to seminary, he would know most of what they would teach him, and in some areas more. Having said that, most people are not that dilegent unless they are in a school setting, and most of us don’t have a library full of Puritan works in their house, and the very fact that Spurgeon was trained this way, even if it was on his own, supports your view (one I share by the way) that ministry requires good training.


4. Jacob Hantla
April 20, 2006
11:54 AM

Tim-
Good article. I agree wholeheartedly with your statements regarding the need for training. You, however, made an immediate jump from the word “training” to “seminary”. When you were talking about those who might consider seminary a waste of time you assumed, I think, that they therefore think of training as a waste of time. I think that one can hold training in very high esteem and at the same time determine that seminary is not the most efficient or effective way to receive that training (therefore a relative waste of time). Nevertheless I agree wholeheartedly with your statements regarding preparation and training as a necessity for ministry. I pray that as more and more churches understand this necessity, training within the church in the context of ministry will occur. Sometimes this on-the-job, within-the-body training can be more effective and effecient than a seminary-type preparation. In other situations I’m certain that seminary will be more effective.
-Jacob


5. DAS
April 20, 2006
1:31 PM

I agree. I took a position as an associate pastor at a church after receiving my B.S. in Bible/Theology. I will say I received a good education with 2 full years of Greek and Hebrew (2 years each) and some great theology training.

I was married with a child at the time and it was a strain on the family. Our desire was that my wife remain at home with our daughter, so I worked full time and went to school full time. I am still not sure how I did it all (clearly by God’s grace).

With that said I still regret not taking another 4 years for seminary. I met with a friend of mine who is a prof at the Seminary I would have attended and he told me then that it was possible to equip oneself with a seminary-like education but it would require a tremendous amount of reading and self study.

I have devoted myself to that and it has paid off but I am planning to enroll in Seminary this fall. I will take some distance courses and some on campus modules. I don’t know as a person can ever be fully prepared for the role of pastor.

As you said God makes the pastor, and it is a lifelong learning experience. That is why I am so often baffled by pastors who downplay the need for education, or even flaunt the lack of education as a virtue.

I actually had a person brag to me once about their pastor’s lack of formal education because he didn’t have all those “doctrine hangups” so he could just “love” the people, as if love and doctrine don’t mix.

One of my friends attended a pastor’s conference at Saddleback about 8 years ago and he told me that Rick Warren told the guys that Greek and Hebrew are a waste of time for pastors because you will never use them in real life. Crazy! I begin with them for every sermon I prepare.

I agree with you. A lack of preparation often represents a lack of respect or reverence for the office.

Anyway, thanks for the great post!


6. ryan
April 20, 2006
2:04 PM

Tim,
Thanks for the great post and encouragement. I am currently a seminary student and find my time here is well spent on being prepared for ministry. I doubt that even when I am done in two years that I will be really ready for what God has in store I know that my time here is paying amazing dividends not only with my theology, and ministry skills but even in developing a pastoral heart that yearns to say “I must work” just as Jesus did in John 9.


7. psimpson
April 20, 2006
2:30 PM

I agree wholeheartedly about the necessity of training for the ministry vs. the lazy approach of bypassing formal training. However, seminaries seem most suitable for young men in their 20s. It is hard for a man with school-aged children to afford seminary, even part-time, and even harder to uproot the family and go full-time (either risking neglect of the family by working and studying, or relying on his wife to support him, taking her out of the home). I know it can be and is being done, but it seems that seminaries may actually discourage older, more mature men from considering the ministry. It also seems that someone living in a town with a seminary may have an advantage over those who live far from one. Am I wrong?


8. s. zeilenga
April 20, 2006
2:37 PM

Tim-
Somewhere back in the archives you have the post about being mentored and mention the Josh Harris situation. Wouldn’t that kind of intense lengthy mentoring be another kind of training? Just as effective as seminary? (actually, I would argue perhaps more effective because you throw in a personal relationship with the mentor that you probably wouldn’t get in some of the bigger seminaries)

I don’t know. Just a thought I bring to the table.

z.


9. david
April 20, 2006
5:36 PM

The kind of mentorship and experience Josh Harris received is important. I think pastors who miss that suffer for it, along with their churches.

However, it’s no substitute for the specialized training given in seminaries. What a seminary has that few churches can provide is the teaching of professors who are experts in specific, vital fields such as Hebrew & Greek, hermeneutics & exegesis, etc. No single pastor can be an expert in all fields and provide exhaustive training for ministry.


10. Frank Martens
April 21, 2006
12:11 AM

I think the reason why there is such a huge deal from people who think that training for ministry is miniscule is because of this passage (because I’ve heard it quoted before for this reason)… Phillipians 3:2-11

I’m not saying it’s the right thinking, I’m just saying it’s a terrible misinterpretation of that passage.


11. James Hakim
April 21, 2006
7:01 AM


12. Paul Brunning
April 21, 2006
3:14 PM

Jim Vellenga makes a good point about Spurgeon - he already had extensive biblical knowledge before his conversion - very much like the Apostle Paul (whose time under Gamaliel was effectively a seminary education). At conversion these men had an amazing fount of head-knowledge that suddenly became heart-knowledge. But I guess that this is a rarity these days, so seminary education will usually be a great help. (Just remembered about A.W. Pink, who went to seminary but left after a few months because his bibilcal knowledge was already superior to his teachers… but that’s another rarity.)

However, seminary is not always possible, especially in developing countries where in many cases the church is growing rapidly in size although maybe not in depth. There are a number of organisations that try to support pastors in those situations, such as http://www.pastor-training.org >Pastor Training International. For many pastors, particularly in very poor or rural areas, the only ministry training they’ll ever get is a few short term conferences and a dozen books.


13. dcypl
April 21, 2006
10:18 PM

I have to agree with you Paul, seminary is a luxury not afforded by most Christian ministers throughout the world, I feel that there are lots of people who go to seminary/bible college and do NOTHING with it, (aside from being a bit more knowledgable in the pews). In these instances, either its a club who’s membership is to be attained, (for status or knowledge - both are weaknesess) or they have lost their original youthful enthusiasm that spurred them to go to seminary. The other class of people are those who sensibly realized that despite all their training, it is not what GOd has called them to be/do.

Not intending to offend anyone, just confused about the perceived need to gain knowledge from an “accredited institution” whatever your flavour. What is the current direction within the emerging church? Are trainees involved in mentorship at the church level, (possibly via a number of churches) rather than in an “institution”?


14. DavidR
April 22, 2006
8:17 AM

IMO, [and in partial response to “dcypl’s” comment above] the point is not so much seminary as it is training. I believe that one of the reasons the church is becoming impoverished is that it is abnegating the role of biblical and theological training to the “professionals”, the colleges and seminaries.

The “mentor” model mentioned above deserves a little more thought. In earlier times (I’m thinking of the 17th, 18th, possibly 19th centuries—even 20th, now I think about it [see Iain Murray on John Murray, in vol. 3 of the latter’s Works, p. 15]), one pastor would take under his wing a small number to teach biblical languages, church history and doctrine, and so on. Of course, in some cases this was a precursor to institutionalization of theological education.

I think something has been lost with the passing of this model, and not just for ministerial training. Think of how much preaching/teaching used to go in churches — perhaps usurped not only by professionalization and institutionalization, but probably by TV and a very differnt notion about social/domestic life, too.

Or maybe I’m just getting old.


15. James Hakim
April 22, 2006
11:40 AM

dcypl brings up a good point, though it is exactly the opposite of his: the priceless value of training.

After we returned from holidays between semesters one morning, my Hebrew professor was thoroughly disgusted with our lack of effort, zeal, and attentiveness. We hadn’t been doing any worse than usual; in fact, we had that “beginning of the semester, and this is going to be the one where I read and master everything by mid-term” effort going on.

Why was he disgusted?

He had just been teaching Hebrew for a few days in the former Soviet block, and pastors who for decades hadn’t had much opportunity for training had come hundreds and thousands of miles by train, bus, horseback, carriage, and on foot.

They had learned with hunger and pressed him for more with urgency, and many nearly mastered the language in a week’s time. Oh the value of training to these dear ones who have been deprived!

No wonder he was disgusted with our comparative indolence when he returned.

Other examples of this abound. African Bible College, under O. Palmer Robertson (fantastic institution and servant of God, btw), keeps opening up new campuses and expanding because they have to turn away the great majority of pastors who come to be trained.

Compare that with the need for marketing to fill up chairs at some of our best seminaries, resulting in ridiculous, pandering ads in many Christian magazines.


16. dcypl
April 24, 2006
5:04 AM

James,

I still feel that my comment was particularly relevant in the western church, and especially in “young, hip, urban churches where everyone has a degree” (to paraphrase Mark Driscoll), its almost like we hold too much knowledge outside of the gospel and ministry.

But you make a good point :-)


17. James Hakim
April 24, 2006
10:00 AM

dcypl, I agree with your final sentence wholeheartedly. That’s one reason why the selection of a seminary in the first place and then very careful selection of the right books for one’s reading and study plan while in the pastorate is so important.

To use your language, if coming to this school or reading this book builds knowledge that is outside of the gospel and ministry, then it’s the wrong school or ought not to be a top-priority book.

That’s why I love reading Calvins, the Puritans, some of the great Scotch Presbyterians, and others in that mold of thought. These are books that if you squeeze them, they ooze Scripture; if you fan them out, they give off the perfume of the gospel; and if you put them on the scale, you find them weighty with pastoral wisdom.

There are levels of ability with exegetical skill, theological understanding, and many practical and pastoral exercises thereof that I just don’t see available outside the seminary except in a few rare instances. Before seminaries (to take American protestantism as an example), ministers who had learned to discipline themselves in study and were profoundly gifted with these would sometimes take 3 or 4 young candidates on as students in the pastorate. That’s not a bad way to do it; but, it’s really not readily available anymore. The skills must be obtained somewhere, if they can, and at the moment, “where they can” is good seminaries.

As far as the emergents go, I have not read them as well as I maybe should have (not on my top-priority book list, by the standards above), but from what I have read so far, I’d be surprised to find out that any of them cared anything about real exegetical or theological skill, let alone pastoral (in my opinion, as in Tim’s article, the latter does not genuinely exist without the former). I’m not even sure their “conversation” has room for the ministerial office. Of just what would he be an officer? Starbucks?


18. Ray Van Neste
April 27, 2006
2:57 PM

In his book, An Earnest Ministry, John Angell James quotes another man, approvingly, saying:
“If God hath no need of our learning, he can have still less of your ignorance.”