- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (02/21)
- Next Post »Codex
The Benefits of Ignorance (Part 2)
- 02/21/06
- 49
Yesterday I wrote about my inflamed duoduwhatzit and the untrained doctor who is going to be removing it for me. This was only a parable, of course, and likely not a very good one at that. Yet it stimulated some good discussion for which I am grateful. I thought I would take the opportunity this morning to clarify my feelings on seminary education. But let me begin somewhere else.
People who serve in the military will all be able to describe times that they were required to do things that seemed utterly irrelevant to their chosen career. I have read of people who spent days upon days digging ditches and then filling them back in. Hour after hour, day after day. Their joints ached and their hands developed painful blisters. And all the time they wondered, "Is this why I joined the Army?" The activity seemed to bear little resemblance to what they had imagined would be involved in a career in the military. And to a great extent they were right. Yet it is only later that they realize that this was not an empty exercise. It was a deliberate exercise. It taught them teamwork. It taught the soldiers to work together as a unit. It forged a bond between them that would drive them to take heroic measures on the battlefield. It was these exercises that created the bond that would make these soldiers become a band of brothers.
That analogy is true, at least to some degree, in almost every type of education. There are some exercises that are given as a means to a greater end. Many of the essays I wrote in college are long forgotten. They meant almost nothing to me then and mean nothing to me, or to anyone else, now. Yet they were valuable. My professor did not need to know anything more about whether the Allies overcame the Axis powers in World War II by virtue of superior numbers or by virtue of greater application of technology. Yet he forced me to write about it. I did. I don't remember what I concluded, but the exercise, and many like it, was valuable because it taught me to think critically. It taught me to do careful research. It taught me to attempt to understand both sides of an argument before forming an opinion about a particular topic. Students are constantly required to do things that seem utterly irrelevant. Yet they must have faith that somehow these things will prove useful in the end.
When I was in the eleventh grade I decided to study Latin. I don't remember what it was that compelled me to study the language, but I suspect it had something to do with the small class size. Where most classes in my high school had twenty five or thirty students, Latin usually had only seven or eight. And so it was that for a year I studied Latin. The teacher, Dr. Helder, quickly became my favorite teacher and grade eleven Latin stands out as my favorite class in all my years of high school. Dr. Helder was faced with the daunting task of making a group of teenagers enjoy Latin, a dead language. Yet he succeeded in making us not only learn the language but also in making us enjoy learning it. How did he do that? He proved to us that Latin is not dead, but in fact, is still in common use. One ongoing task throughout the year was to collect Latin words and phrases we found in books, newspapers and magazines. We were to collect all these examples and at the end of the year, part of our grade was based on how many of these we found. The more of the language we learned, the more Latin we found. As our eyes were opened to the language, suddenly we saw it all around us - in print, in law, in theology, in advertising, and just about everywhere else. And of course we also saw it in our own language and in other languages we studied. Latin brought English and French to life in a fresh way. The study of this dead language helped undergird my study of other languages and gave me a greater love and appreciation for my own language.
After I pointed to Perry Noble's article yesterday I got a nice email from him. He wrote:
I picked up several hits from your blog today. WOW-you have some awesome insight...and I love your writing style-sarcastic, yet not in an attacking sort of way.Let me be honest dude-I love what I do-I can't believe the opportunity that Jesus has given me to work in His church. He changed my life...seriously, I was an awesome PAGAN...and then He rocked my world.
You say you are putting the fun in being a fundamentalist-I love it!
However, I think you may have slightly misunderstood my post in my letter to the staff. I never meant for it to get blown out of proportion. I am not anti-seminary; however, I do think it is a calling and not a biblical mandate.
I completed 36 hours towards my Masters degree in seminary...and I dropped out. Not because I was making bad grades; in fact, I was blowing most classes out of the water. It is just that the particular seminary I was in was not teaching me anything that I could practically use to assist the people I was ministering to.
Trust me-I believe that we should all immerse ourselves in the study of Scripture. We should know and be able to defend our doctrine...AND be able to recognize and refute heresy when we see it. And trust me...I am in the word every day! I do an incredible amount of research and study...and the more I learn...the more I realize that there is even more to learn.
So...in no way was I supporting ignorance...AT ALL!
And seriously-I did really like your analogy...my wife is a doctor & so I could see where you were coming from.
Now I realized that I was taking a risk in singling out Perry in my article yesterday. However, blogging, by its very nature, invites discussion and even critical discussion, so I do not think I ought to feel remorse for pointing to his article. He intended for it to be public and thus he invited discussion. And I was glad to see that he was not at all offended.
Neumatikos had the following to say about my analogy: "Despite the fact that I'm even now going to seminary, I think Tim Challies analogy is a false one. He wants to persuade people that you shouldn't trust a minister without theological training any more than you would trust a doctor without medical training. That's not necessarily true. Religious education in general is just as likely to lead you away from the gospel as toward it." To be fair, my analogy was just that: an analogy. It was not meant to portray my full feelings on a subject but merely to make a comparison or suggestion. I do not feel that the medical field lends itself to a perfect comparison with the ministry. So let me clarify my feelings about seminary.
I do not feel that every person who desires to be a pastor or to be involved in vocational ministry must have graduated from seminary. Some of the pastors I respect most did not have a seminary education. Moody and Spurgeon are two names that spring to mind! But, while these men did not graduate from seminary, they were lifelong students. Spurgeon, especially, is known as being a voracious reader. He was reading the Puritans while still little more than an infant. He had a photographic memory and had intimate knowledge of thousands of commentaries and books. Also, to my knowledge, Spurgeon did not delight in his lack of formal education. In later years he trained thousands of pastors, affirming that he knew the importance of education. He realized that he was unique.
All this is to say that I do not feel that seminary education is always a necessity for a man who wishes to be a pastor. However, I do think a career as important as Minister of the Word is worth the time of preparation. At the very least a man can learn from and be mentored by men who are older and more advanced in sanctification than he is.
A commenter, Brian Thornton, did a good job of summarizing the purpose of my little parable. "I think Tim's whole point - if I may speak for him - is that this pastor is wrong to discount the importance and value of preparing for the ministry...or for anything else related to teaching God's people God's truth. There has to be a foundation from which to build upon. And while there are examples of extraordinary men who have been used incredibly by God without the usual preparation prior to ministry...that is the exception rather than the rule." Perry Noble does not feel that he has discounted the importance and value of preparing for the ministry, but that was certainly how I and others understood his words. This may not be what he meant, yet it is what he communicated.
So what I was reacting to was not so much the fact that Perry Noble has not graduated from seminary. I know nothing about his ministry and have not heard a word about him beyond what he wrote on his blog and what he subsequently told me in an email. He may be the next Charles Spurgeon for all I know! What I was reacting to was the anti-intellectual undertone in what he said. This statement was particularly alarming: "...as I look back I think that me lacking experience was a good thing because it forced me to rely on common sense rather than textbook procedure and principals." This statement completely discredits a seminary education. To borrow from the military analogy, it assumes that digging ditches is in no way relevant to a career in the military. It assumes that many of the subjects in seminary, perhaps languages, church history, or hermeneutics, is a waste of time that will generate only useless head knowledge that a pastor will have to unlearn before he can be useful and relevant. It may even assume that principles and procedures, passed down through the history of the church, are useless.
Perry is not alone in this type of sentiment. It may be that I am reading too much into his words, but I think we can all think of people who feel that seminary is a waste of time, money and effort. I would agree that some seminaries probably are. But seminary education should not be discredited or regarded as something less than useful. I admire the humility of men who, realizing their lack of knowledge and realizing the importance of a solid foundation, invest a great deal of time and effort in formal training. To those who struggle with the usefulness of a particular subject or course of study, I would encourage you to ask the professor or other member of staff to explain how and why a particular course is relevant. I suspect you will come to see that no course is without both long term and short term benefit.
I do not believe that seminary is an absolute necessity. But I do believe that in most cases it will be of great benefit to a man who wishes to be a pastor. Seminary is not mandated by Scripture. Yet if a man desires to be a pastor and to bring God's Word to His people week after week, should he not wish to ensure that he is adequately and properly prepared?
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (49)
"He changed my life...seriously, I was an awesome PAGAN...and then He rocked my world."
Somehow I don't think Isaiah (in chapter 6) was thinking "Wow, I see the Lord and he is now rocking my world"
Holy? Unknown concept. Soveriegn? Plaeeeze is that a foriegn language??
Tim I think "Pastor" Perry (and I say that loosely) made your point (which was made loud and clear yesterday)
Another thought comes to mind when reading this "pastor's" response...
If it oinks like a pig, walks like a pig, looks like a pig and smell like a pig...
It's safe to say, it's a pig!
You want my opinion, I think God led you to study Latin so you'd be prepared when it came time to switch sides of the Tiber. Just in case, as it were...
:)
On less of a pipe-dreamish note...
It seems to me that seminary is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, the more education you can gain in pastoring, the better you can serve your congregation. But on the other hand, presumably whatever seminary you choose is of a doctrinal persuasin you already subscribe to, which can lead to your preconceptions becoming canalized in your mind, which would actually stifle attempts to broaden your education. In doctrinal absolutes, that might be an advantage, but even then, it's important to understand other denominations' positions as they do, rather than just on a straw-man apologetic basis.
"You want my opinion, I think God led you to study Latin so you'd be prepared when it came time to switch sides of the Tiber. Just in case, as it were..."
Somehow I doubt that. :)
"But on the other hand, presumably whatever seminary you choose is of a doctrinal persuasin you already subscribe to, which can lead to your preconceptions becoming canalized in your mind, which would actually stifle attempts to broaden your education."
I don't know that people go to seminary for the purpose of having their preconceptions reinforced. Or I hope not. While I have never attended seminary, I haven't heard of many people who haven't faced serious challenges to their presuppositions and to their faith. I would hope that a course of study leads people to rock their foundations.
Maybe the concept of seminary is just one application of a much larger issue, which is that one of the biblical qualifications for giving counsel to people in our world is that we have to be humble enough to receive counsel ourselves. The Bible always holds the humility of listening to a high standard and commends it in all of God's children. We see it in the mentoring of TItus and Timothy and Silas by Paul, or in the repentance of David after being rebuked by the prophet Nathan. My point is that going to seminary is not a requirement, but having been taught in the Word is. The attitude that is repugnant to me is that attitude that refuses to heed instruction. Going to seminary may show how a person is willing to learn (meekness), while others may receive all of their training from a local church that does an exemplary job of teaching the Bible. In either case, there should be gratitude toward those who have gone before, and thankfulness to God for giving us good teachers. There should not be a glorying in self-sufficiency. Whether this Perry fella is really guilty of that or not I don't know, because He may have the atittude of gratefulness that God chose to use such weak vessels to do a great work for Him.
Maybe the concept of seminary is just one application of a much larger issue, which is that one of the biblical qualifications for giving counsel to people in our world is that we have to be humble enough to receive counsel ourselves. The Bible always holds the humility of listening to a high standard and commends it in all of God's children. We see it in the mentoring of TItus and Timothy and Silas by Paul, or in the repentance of David after being rebuked by the prophet Nathan. My point is that going to seminary is not a requirement, but having been taught in the Word is. The attitude that is repugnant to me is that attitude that refuses to heed instruction. Going to seminary may show how a person is willing to learn (meekness), while others may receive all of their training from a local church that does an exemplary job of teaching the Bible. In either case, there should be gratitude toward those who have gone before, and thankfulness to God for giving us good teachers. There should not be a glorying in self-sufficiency. Whether this Perry fella is really guilty of that or not I don't know, because He may have the atittude of gratefulness that God chose to use such weak vessels to do a great work for Him.
At the church I attend, the senior pastor has a doctoral degree from seminary, and his primary associate, who is our administrative pastor, doesn't have a seminary degree. So, one had a seminary education, the other didn't. The one with a seminary education, fortunately, doesn't do ministry in a merely academic way. He's a true shepherd who's gifted at real ministry among people. And the one who DIDN'T go to seminary is a superb preacher who studies the Word diligently and is very well read.
So, either way can work, as long as 1) the one who went through seminary doesn't let academics "restrict" his ability to be real with people and empathize with them, and 2) the one who didn't go to seminary is zealous in the endeavor to be a workman who handles God's truth with great care.
Maybe the concept of seminary, at least in the current structure of things, is proof of an evident failure on the part of most of western Christianity.
As one who is within the PCA, one of my first questions was regarding the requirement for the teaching elder (a false distinction biblically from the ruling elder---they're just elders, that's it) to have an M.Div. That's adding to biblical requirements. The elder is supposed to have a lot more going for them than a highly expensive degree. Futhermore, the churches are supposed to be raising up and appointing from within, at least for the most part, not finding from the particular education mills that suit them.
I'm going to seminary within the next 8-10 months. I'm hoping to acquire an M.Div. in the process. I'm fully aware that it is not a biblical requirement and when a denomination adds something like that to there standard for an elder, they are simply making a new law and disparaging the God-given mandates of Scripture.
I think Tim has been trying to get across the idea that the further education is good, yet not biblically required. At least I hope so.
As for the arrogant, condemning response here about the pastor. How about grace, peace, charity and the like? Unless you know the heart of the pastor in question, how can a cheapshot at his particular choice of words be okay? Do you honestly think that what Isaiah saw wouldn't rock, and continue to rock, your world? It seems to be a wholly apt description of the affect of such a circumstance as related in a modern vernacular. A little less condmenation via ignorance would help this discussion tremendously.
Tim,
You concluded with..."should he not wish to ensure that he is adequately and properly prepared?"
Being "adequately and properly prepared" will mean different things to different people.
I have a four year degree (BA) in Biblical Studies from a Baptist College. I attended the same college for an additional year and a half to work on an MA in Biblical Studies. I then decided to transfer to a seminary and work on an MDiv. I attended seminary for an additional 2 years before quitting.
College and Seminary were extremely beneficial in my study of Scripture. I had Greek courses from my first semester until I quit - about 7 years worth - and I still count these as the highlight of my education.
However, they did nothing to prepare me for pastoring. So, was I "adequately and properly prepared?" I don't feel I was. I pastored churches for about 15 years and I don't believe I was a profitable pastor. I was told by men I respect that I was the best preacher they ever had but stunk as a pastor. I don't doubt that.
While in college and seminary, I thought that teaching and preaching the Word of God was what a pastor did. I thought a man's ministry was judged and proven by his value in the pulpit and his ability to teach. WRONG!
Say or think what you will, your readers can comment and contradict me but in my experience and from 30 years of observation, teaching and preaching have very little to do with a successful pastorate in today's world.
There are exceptions, however, most of us will never be a MacArthur or a Piper or a Swindoll. The sad part of this is, many pastors have the same abilities as these men but most "churches" don't have the same vision, hunger, desire, etc. that their churches have in allowing them to be preachers and teachers before anything else.
I've shared with you before what Mike Huckabee wrote in his book. Mike left the largest Southern Baptist Church in our area to run for Governor of Arkansas. In his book "Chararcter is the Issue" he comments that his idea of pastoring was that he was to be the captain of a battleship, leading in the good fight for the souls of lost men. His experience was that he was the captain of the love boat, in charge of maintenance and special entertainment.
The sad part about colleges and seminaries is that you can't always get the teachers you want. You may attend the Master's Seminary and the closest you'll ever come to MacArthur is hearing his welcoming address to the freshmen. Dallas Theological Seminary built it's reputation with men like Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Swindoll, Chafer, et.al. but non of these men are full time educators any more.
Seminaries are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'll get!
Great Post Tim!
I believe that the choice of WHICH seminary to attend is vital. There are only a handfull of seminaries that I can in good conscience recommend someone go to for their course of study, unless they are already very solidly grounded in the faith.
The first time I attended a meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), I was shocked at the rampant unbelief that was expressed in session, after session, after session..... And this, from the professional society of biblical scholars. It was truly an eye-opening experience!
When deciding where to go to seminary, I chose Westminster (www.wscal.edu or www.wts.edu) because of the foundation it would give me. A solid Bible-based Theology, Hermeneutic, view of church history, counseling, and preaching. I was not dissapointed. Seminary is where most pastors get their theological foundation.
Why not just study on our own? Why not just mentor under a local pastor? Because it would be a very rare thing to find a man who is qualified to teach all these subjects at this level. Not that they don't exist, but at the seminary I had the privelage of studying from men who had been gifted and blessed with the opportunity to study and teach these things full time. A local pastor does not have time to keep up with academic journals, and new archaeological finds, etc.... Much less every theological trend that comes along. The seminary professor has the time, and the calling to do so.
However what about the *practical* stuff? I think this is the question Perry was getting at in his letter to you. Conservative seminaries are constantly getting flack from their students that the curriculum isn't practical enough. I had these thoughts my first year also. However, what has been most practical to me in ministry thus far has been the theological foundation from which I'm able to work from. Yes, the counseling courses were beneficial and helpful, but only as they built upon the more fundamental theological foundation grounded in Scripture. Teach me of the fall, of God's grace, of Christ's atoning sacrifice, of his active and passive obedience imputed to me freely, of justification, adoption, and sanctification! Are these not practical?
As for the requirements in the OPC, PCA, and other conservative denominations that a ministerial candidate meet certain academic standards, normally through obtaining both a Bachelors degree and a M.Div, I agree with it. Both the quantity and quality of study in preperation for the ministry is important. It is a high calling, and one for which there is great accountability, fearfully so!
My 4 years in seminary was the most difficulty time of my life (financially, academically, and socially). However, I would not trade it for anything. It caused me to grow in unthinkable ways. It stretched me mentally and spiritually, and provided valuable time to wrestle with important issues with dear brothers. It gave me direct access to very gifted men, whose brains I was able to pick on a regular basis. It taught me more of God's grace. Seminary was extremely hard. I'd have it no other way!
As for the requirements in the OPC, PCA, and other conservative denominations that a ministerial candidate meet certain academic standards, normally through obtaining both a Bachelors degree and a M.Div, I agree with it.
Scripture doesn't. The qualifications for an elder do not require specific academic degrees. Those things can be helpful, but are not biblically necessary. To impose those standards is to add to Scripture which is indeed a very dangerous thing.
I thought your posts from yesterday and today made interesting comparison pieces to the T4G blog. I especially appreciate the way Dr. Mohler humbly gets to the heart of why pastors, and any of the rest of us should be studying doctine and theology.
I've had my fair share of "backwoods bible preachin'!" Being perfectly aware that there are pillars of God-gifted intellegence in every bunch, It only takes one sincere, fiery, and doctrinely messed up sermon to drive the scholarly point home. I'll reference a small church once visited where the "preacher" talked in great length about the "Bomb of Gilead". Hmmm... something seems wrong with that phrase... I'd love to hear his exegetical explaination for the word "BOMB"!!!
Perhaps a seminary education isn't for everyone. I'll give you that. But there are a lot of vivid examples in my mind why the majority of bible teachers need a good education. Until then, we'll go back to searching our concordances for BOMB and other mishaps.
Greatestmanalive,
Scripture doesn't lay out the rules for how a Session meeting or a Presbytery meeting, or a General Assembly should be governed. These are areas where Scriptural principles are applied with wisdom by the brethren.
I know several OPC pastors who have been ordained without a seminary degree. They will be the first to tell you that this isn't the best way to do it. We allow for it, because it isn't a hard and fast biblical requirement, however, these men must meet the same standards, and perform equally as well on their Presbytery exams to be ordained.
No on has ever said it is a requirement directly from Scripture. However, the principle of ordaining only those able to teach and defend the faith stands firm!
You might benefit from looking at the OPC's recommended curriculum for ministerial preperation:http://www.opc.org/BCO/Curriculum.html
Also the Form of Governments XXI.33. It is highly reproachful to religion and dangerous to the church to entrust the preaching of the gospel to weak and ignorant men. The presbytery shall therefore license a candidate only if he has received a bachelor of arts degree, or its academic equivalent, from a college or university of reputable academic standing, and has completed an adequate course of study lasting at least one year and a half in a theological seminary.
http://www.opc.org/BCO/FG_XXI-XXIII.html#Chapter_XXI
That being said, I find the accusatory nature of your tone to be offensive. The Reformed Faith champions proper Christian Liberty. To suggest that denominations such as the OPC and PCA are improperly requiring academic instruction contrary to Scripture is a most serious accusation. I believe their requirements to be a proper application of biblical principles that add to the protection of the flock.
I think the best thing about a good seminary education is that it humbles you. Learn a little Hebrew and Greek... and you'll be humbled. Defend your systematic theology... and you'll be humbled. And the list could go on!Perry Noble wrote: "I do an incredible amount of research and study...and the more I learn...the more I realize that there is even more to learn."I agree. But, if that is the case, why not tap into the wealth available to you at a seminary that is grounded in the Word? Rather than spin your wheels "discovering" what others have known for centuries, you could get a great head start and the training on how to find the answers you will need in the future.
We have to be careful with "professionalism" in the Church.
Professionalism is often linked to excellence. Unfortunately, excellence has a way of excluding the not excellent. Do that long enough and you'll find that no one ever gets a chance to become excellent. We all start out far less than that. With no way to do better, people give up. The business world isn't the only one with a glass ceiling.
Sometimes we have to try things to know where we fit. The kid who goes on the short-term mission trip may never have had any love for missions, yet that two week trip lights a God-given fire. For all we know that pimply-faced kid could be the next Hudson Taylor. But how do we know unless we allow him to be "less than professional" until that day that he decides to become a "professional"?
If the Church is not a place that we can allow people to explore their God-given gifts, where else can it be done? Sadly, I think many people today look at the Church as a stifling influence rather than an encouraging one. Try being a Christian painter and see what kind of respect that brings within the average church.
I would guess that many ministers started off teaching a class at the church they grew up in. They probably did a horrid job as they learned inside the role. We have to allow people that luxury because the world will not give it to them. We can take "professionalism" too far and stifle the next generation of leaders.
Tim,
The whole seminary discussion is, I think, only a subset of the real problem which your parable highlights. As men like Tozer or Spurgeon or Moody show us, it's not the degree that makes a man a great preacher or pastor.
Don't forget, there are plenty of guys out there who DO have degrees but are teaching false doctrines.
What is shown in your parable is that there is a serious problem among many of today's young pastors... they are unwilling to sit and learn at the feet of the elders.
Throughout the Bible, leaders were bred through close teaching relationships with their elders... Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, Paul and Timothy, etc. Today, though, many young pastors are not only eschewing seminary, they are writing off the value of learning from their elders altogether. They teach what THEY think the Bible says, they share how God has spoken to THEM. They suggest that wrinkly skin and a fondness for the good old days are equal to spiritual irrelevance.
The Bible is clear, though, that wisdom and guidance from God aren't ONLY impressions on your mind, or suddenly seeing a bible passage in a new way (though that can be part of it). Instead, much of God's leading and wisdom begins with learning from those who have spent their entire lives seeking and loving him. They provide perspective, experience, and a range of knowledge that young people simply haven't had the time to compile yet.
The danger isn't merely that some young pastors didn't go to seminary... it's that their REASON for avoiding seminary was believing that older pastors and church leaders have nothing to say to us now. The prevalence of this type of thinking will be a serious detriment to the Church.
We say that Spurgeon is an example of someone who didn't need seminary... but didn't he begin his own Pastor's College?
An interesting question that really seems to penetrate to the heart of the issue is "Is Theology Practical?"
If it is practical, then a Seminary that constantly teaches solid Theology would be immensely practical.
If it is practical, then we can forever rid ourselves of this false dichotomy between Theology and Practical teaching for the Church.
If, however, we dare make the suggestion that Theology is not practical, then we have missed the picture entirely. Our view of God, the church, and our role as ministers, are all terribly wrong.
If one wants to make the claim that Seminary isn't necessary because Peter, Paul, Spurgeon, or Moody didn't attend seminary, then so be it. I'd encourage you to ask if you have the biblical knowledge and discernment of those fellows and if not if you are doing all that is possible to persue it. Nevertheless, feel free to make that arguement.But, please, lets stop with the horrid insinuation that Theology, an understanding of the very Word of God, is not practical.
In Christ alone,mike
Julian:
What exactly do you find edifying about your derisive comment regarding Swindoll? Have you sacrificed as much he has? Influenced as many? How good does a man have to be to be spared your caustic remarks?
Dan:
I think you are very good at creating straw men and dismantling them. Your point or argument, if I understand it correctly, is that if Point A is allowed to exist, then Points B-Z must of necessity follow. Who is that stupid? Or, perhaps I should ask, do you think we're all that stupid that we need to beware lest we make excellence impossible?
How do you get from "professionalism" (a connotatively loaded word) to not allowing people to develop and grow in a church? That's a huge leap. How about using "expertise" instead of "professionalism"? Do you want a pastor with expertise in a variety of areas, or will just any old person with "a heart on fire for Jesus" qualify? Is it enough to have zeal, or does it need to be according to knowledge?
Excellent point, Ben. I have a forthcoming book review that relates to this. The book is entitled Love Your God With All Your Mind and it speaks directly to the Church. We (the church as a whole) have taken incremental steps back from the intellectual arena so much so that we have largely become ineffective in the cultural debate. I would recommend that every Pastor and/or serious Bible student and Christian read this book. Not only does it deal with the anti-intellectual aspect that defines modern evangelicals, but is also very helpful in gaining a Biblical understanding of the mind and the soul and how the two interrelate. It sheds great light on Romans 12:1!
Mike
I thought I would just throw this into the discussion.
My nephew was raised in a Southern Baptist home and spent a summer as a "Summer Missionary" at a youth camp. He was a "Counselor".
This led him to pursue "Missions" at college.
He just graduated from some SBC college in Texas with a degree in "Missions".
He is not a minister. He does not work with a church. He has no idea where he can use his degree or who would want someone with a degree that he holds. Could anyone claim to be a professional in the world of "Missions" who has never been to a mission field?He is presently a cook at a Mexican Food Restaurant. Christian Colleges and Seminaries are like secular schools. They have to increase their curriculum to qualify for grants and assistance. They'll offer degree packages that won't help you get a job as a garbage collector.
Formal education is about making more money....period. If you simply want an education, go to the library and check out a book. Why spend the money earning a degree that you can't use to improve your lot in life?
Then there is the vanity involved with where you get the degree. If you don't think this is an issue just ask Charles Stanley about his mail order doctorate!
I'm in my second semester of seminary, and I've wrestled with this very question myself. It's very easy for me to sacrifice at the altar of academics and forget that the field white unto harvest is not always found in the classroom.
I think, as has been posted above, there must be a balance of theology and ethics. I believe that the pulpit has focused on ethics (do this, this, and this; do NOT do that, that, or that) for too long at the expense of theology (why we do this, this, and this and why we don't do that, that, or that). An analogy I think of is one of a car: ethics are the tires and theology is the engine. Four tires by themselves aren't good (legalism); an engine by itself isn't good either (intellectualism, academics). When the tires are driven by the engine, then you can actually get somewhere.
It's important to have both good tires and a good engine. Seminary can give you a better engine and somewhat better tires. A local pastor/elder serving as a mentor is a great way to get better tires and every so often tweak your engine, too.
Why should we choose between seminary or not? Why not have some of both in balance? I'm not saying a degree is absolutely necessary, but some of the classes there are indeed valuable.
That being said, I find the accusatory nature of your tone to be offensive. The Reformed Faith champions proper Christian Liberty. To suggest that denominations such as the OPC and PCA are improperly requiring academic instruction contrary to Scripture is a most serious accusation. I believe their requirements to be a proper application of biblical principles that add to the protection of the flock.
I wasn't intending to be offensive. I'm just trying to point out the danger of requiring more than what the Word itself does.
The fact still remains that Scripture does not require the academic degree. Having a standard, based on Scripture, of being able to teach is one thing. Having a standard of being required to have an M.Div. is quite another. I don't doubt the reasoning behind it, but the requirement itself is extrabiblical.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with the need for a deep, growing understanding of the Word for any elder, but my disagreement comes when we start making artificial standards equal to truly biblical ones. Even my PCA church has a majority within the elders who see the standard as being unbiblical, but see the wisdom in having it as a guideline to weigh amongst other things.
It's the step from "it would be a good thing to have" to "you must have it" that is the problem. I'm sure that we cannot legitimately make new standards for eldership that go above the biblical mandates.
That Spurgeon wouldn't qualify for teaching elder in the PCA should be worrysome to somebody.
If you simply want an education, go to the library and check out a book.
If a person was disciplined enough to get an equal education this way then I might be inclined to suggest that. However, there are a couple problems:
First - Theology is best done in a community. Simply reading in a library does not give you the community necessary for successful learning.
Second - Often a person does not even know what they should read. The untrained person can spend hours upon hours reading bad books or irrelevant books. There is only so much time.
Third - Most people are not disciplined enough to do this. This may be a sad reality - but it is a reality.
Lastly,Formal education is about making more money....period.
I'd be careful before making statements like this. Is this the case for some? I'm sure it is. To make this the sole end of Formal Education is a rather naive position.
In Christ alone,mike
"Formal education is about making more money....period. If you simply want an education, go to the library and check out a book. Why spend the money earning a degree that you can't use to improve your lot in life?"
Jabbok, This sounds very sarcastic...but I don't know whether you meant it that way, or if you were serious with this comment. It truly is difficult to know how to take a broadsweeping generalization such as this. Do you REALLY believe that formal education is about NOTHING but making more money?
I am not in full-time ministry...I have been a teacher and discipler and aspire to be a lay elder someday. I have, for the last couple of years, seriously considered continuing my education with a Master's of Divinity or Theology, but for no other reason than I see it strengthening my understanding of theology and the truth of God's word. I do NOT see it improving my "lot" in life...at least, not financially anyway. I DO see it improving my ability to grasp many of the deep truths of Scripture, and I see it aiding in my discernment and insight into God's truth.
Is that wrong? Should someone like me stop thinking about furthering my education if I do not plan to use it in a "professional" sense? I know this is a little different than whether or not someone should pursue higher education in preparation for the ministry...but if those looking to go into full-time ministry shouldn't worry about formal preparation, then surely someone such as me needs to get this crazy desire out of his head.
I would welcome anyone's thoughts on this.
"most of us will never be a MacArthur or a Piper or a Swindoll. The sad part of this is..." that you just used Swindoll in the same sentence as Piper and MacArthur.
The trouble with the internet is that people will write things that they would never say in person. This kind of off-hand insult is unbecoming and pointless... and deleted.
"He is not a minister. He does not work with a church. He has no idea where he can use his degree or who would want someone with a degree that he holds. Could anyone claim to be a professional in the world of "Missions" who has never been to a mission field?He is presently a cook at a Mexican Food Restaurant. "
Could it be that many individuals who persue careers like missions or the ministry are very likely dreamers/idealists who see the end result but don't know how to do the steps along the way to get to the end? Therefore, whether they pursue a formal education or not, they often lack the motivation or just the practical foresight to do the unromantic "dirty work" to get where they want to go and thus, therefore, they do not get there?
I guess this goes along with Tim's trench digging story from the military. I also think that this could perhaps be a big reason why people like Jakkob's nephew seemingly fail in their persuits...serving God, like everything else, takes a drive to have a game plan, work and be diligent, to walk the different steps as mundane as they may seem.
Just because it is the Lord's work in a very literal way, every job a Christian is involved in can be the Lord's work and who says a teacher for example can get away with not having a degree (in most cases anyways:)?
Mail order or whatever, it seems an aspiring minister should desire a degree if at all possible and also, I think that it is in those years of study that he will know for sure that this is what he is supposed to be doing. If God showed him that ministry(as in being a head pastor) is not his calling, the education could be valuable in many other areas as well such as campus ministry, counseling, teaching at a seminary etc, etc, etc.
Brian,
I told my son and my son's friends this very thing last year when they graduated from high school.
Formal education should be about improving your lot in life. If you just want an education, go to the library and check out a book.
I don't say this to be sarcastic but to be practicle. Especially if you are going to be spending your parents hard earned money to go to college or seminary. If you're going to be spending your own money then more power to you but why wouldn't you invest that money in something that will bring a financial return?
Here is how you can tell that it's about money and not ethics....
Any education that you receive from a Christian college or Seminary you should be able to receive for free through a local church. Does the Greek professor at Seminary teach a class in N.T. Greek at his church? No? Why not? Because there isn't enough interest in it? Really? No, he doesn't teach it for free because he gets paid to teach it at the Seminary. While I was in college and Seminary I was always a member of a church where one of my professors was the pastor. They never taught classes at church that were offered at the schools.
Mike was right when he spoke about discipline. Most of us won't go to the library and read a book. Most of us wouldn't attend college and seminary classes if we weren't paying the tuition.
Even though I've had seven years of formal training in N.T. Greek and have translated most of the N.T. from the Greek text in the classes I've taken, and even though I believe I'm qualified to teach beginning Greek, no one would come to a class I offered because I don't have "Dr" in front of my name and I'm not associated with a college or seminary.
If I had it to do over again I would major in a field that would improve my lot in life and minor in the Biblical Studies that I wanted to take. Or, get a BA in a practical field and then go to Seminary.
"If you're going to be spending your own money then more power to you but why wouldn't you invest that money in something that will bring a financial return?"
Jabbok,Again I must say that I am not sure if you are being serious or if you are trying to bait myself or others by a comment such as this.
If this is how you truly weigh the value of anything - by whether or not it will provide financial improvement - then I am saddened by your idolatry.
Everything does NOT boil down to money, but your comments indicate that that is what you use to determine the worth of any given pursuit in life. You try to disguise your philosophy behind a thin veil of being "practical", but I fear you have given your son and your son's friend bad advice as they begin to enter the real world.
I hope you don't really judge everything by a material standard...I would be surprised if you do. But, your comments here all point to a way of thinking that says, "If the pursuit you are considering cannot improve your standing in this life in a physically tangible way, then don't pursue it."
If I have misunderstood you, please accept my apologies.
Now I'm really having trouble following Jabbok.
On the one hand we have the sharp rebuke regarding those who supposedly go to Seminary only for the money (yep - because Pastors get paid tons!).
However, on the other hand we have statements like this:
If you're going to be spending your own money then more power to you but why wouldn't you invest that money in something that will bring a financial return?
If I had it to do over again I would major in a field that would improve my lot in life
Well then Jabbok, please tell me, ought one to persue formal education for money or not?
And also, since you have repeatedly made us aware of your 7 years of Greek training, excellent translating skills, etc., I do wonder if you teach a course at your local church.
You are quick to make this claim:Does the Greek professor at Seminary teach a class in N.T. Greek at his church? No? Why not? Because there isn't enough interest in it? Really? No, he doesn't teach it for free because he gets paid to teach it at the Seminary.
but I wonder if you are teaching a course at your church.
And you do mention this:and even though I believe I'm qualified to teach beginning Greek, no one would come to a class I offered because I don't have "Dr" in front of my name and I'm not associated with a college or seminary.
I wonder if you actually have a reason to believe that or if it is a mere excuse. Have you approached your elders about you teaching a beginning Greek program at your church? If so, how did they respond? Luckily, at a church (unlike most seminaries), you are not required to have a Ph.D. to teach.
And lastly, allow me to suggest, it is probably not wise to suggest that if nobody comes it is because you don't have Dr. in front of your name. There could be a plethora of other reasons that pride will often not allow us to consider.
In Christ alone,mike
If someone's pursuit is that of "education". If they want to improve their knowledge and understanding. They can do this without spending thousands of dollars.
That's all I'm saying.
If you're going to spend thousands of dollars pursuing an education, why not invest it in a field of study that will bring you a return. Is this idolatry? I thought it was stewardship. Even the Master expected a return on his investment!
Mike,
I used Greek and my example because I was too lazy to type out Systematic Theology over and over!
And, I've taught many classes through the churches I've been involved with on various subjects that I learned in college and Seminary. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't have taught them if I hadn't gone to college or seminary.
I don't recall rebuking anyone for going to Seminary only for the money so I didn't follow your complaint on that one.
I know it sounds noble to say that we're going to seminary for knowledge's sake in order to be a better or more equipped servant of the Lord but since the Lord hasn't required seminary or this type of sacrifice then our nobility is simply the glossy side of our vanity.
I don't know that people go to seminary for the purpose of having their preconceptions reinforced. Or I hope not.
I wasn't thinking of the purpose so much as the potential effect. But judging from the comments made here by guys who (unlike me) have actually been to seminary, I suspect I was wrong.
And, I've taught many classes through the churches I've been involved with on various subjects that I learned in college and Seminary. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't have taught them if I hadn't gone to college or seminary.
Okay, so evidently you went to Seminary and you have taught classes at the local church. Several Seminary Profs at our church teach classes for free.
So then, I wonder how you make statements like:
Any education that you receive from a Christian college or Seminary you should be able to receive for free through a local church. Does the Greek professor at Seminary teach a class in N.T. Greek at his church? No? Why not? Because there isn't enough interest in it? Really? No, he doesn't teach it for free because he gets paid to teach it at the Seminary.
I'd imagine from your past experiences:
While I was in college and Seminary I was always a member of a church where one of my professors was the pastor. They never taught classes at church that were offered at the schools.
I am legitimately sorry if you have had bad experiences but I must deeply caution you against these all-inclusive, stereotypical statements that you have made on the issue.
Lastly,you state:I know it sounds noble to say that we're going to seminary for knowledge's sake in order to be a better or more equipped servant of the Lord but since the Lord hasn't required seminary or this type of sacrifice then our nobility is simply the glossy side of our vanity.
That is an interesting comment. I have found that reality is almost exactly opposite. It has often been those (especially in the context of 2006) who boast of their LACK of seminary training. There is no vanity in sitting under those who know much more than you and to learn from them. If you went to Seminary for purposes other than to better serve God then I do hope that you see your error. But simply because you may have or have seen this prove true in the lives of others, does not in anyway make you able to judge the alleged vanity of Seminary attendees.
In Christ alone,mike
Mike,
I would hope that anyone, taking any classes, in any field of study, would be pursuing their degree or education for the purpose of serving God.
This is exactly why, from my experience and in my thinking, I believe it would be wiser and more beneficial to pursue a degree in some other field before pursuing a Seminary degree.
Place yourself in a position where you will be better equiped to serve the Lord. A dentist, who minored in Biblical studies or spent a couple of extra years at a seminary, might be able to get into a third world country where a preacher couldn't.
The pastor of the church I attend has a doctor's degree. He reminded us of it last week when he told us he took a $30,000.00 a year cut in pay to come pastor our church.
Okay.
If that is all that you are saying then I can agree. In fact, it is my position (which finds strong support in the Bible) that not many should be teachers. Most Christians should persue formal education in some field and supplement that learning with Biblical teaching (whether in the form of a Bible Minor or a MA Theology).
We do need dentists, businessmen, farmers, musicians, ESL teachers, doctors, etc. who are solid Christians and informed in the word of God.
You are right that they would be able to get into third world countries, but they can also serve in the states. We must never get the idea that Elders and Deacons are "ministers" and laypeople are not. We all function in various roles as ministers of the Gospel.
Now, that is not (to my understanding) the discussion of this thread or the original. We are talking about those select few who should be Pastors/Elders. The question is how they should go about their training. My answer would be (and I believe Tim's would be) "The Same as a Christian Doctor". A Christian Doctor would train rigorously in a University (and Grad school) and then use the skills there to serve as a Doctor. According, the would-be Pastor should train rigorously at a University and Grad-School (seminary) and use the skills to serve as a Pastor.
Now, the course material of the Doctor and the Pastor will be different, but both ought to be seeking a way to best serve Jesus in their field. Ultimately, this will require extended study and learning in a community of other people persuing the same path. Accordingly, we have Med-School and we have Seminary.
Hopefully that clarifies my view.
In Christ alone,mike
greatestmanintheworld
I think you missed my point. It's not an aboslute requirement, but it is the norm. I know that the OPC does allow for exceptions to the rule of having an M.Div.
You should know that Spurgeon wouldn't be admitted as a TE into a NAPARC church, not because of his lack of education, but because of his inability to subscribe to the WCF, especially regarding infant baptism (a covenant view of children).
I certainly do not believe that one needs to go to seminary to be trained to be a pastor---but Noble is one example who should have gone and finished.
"I don't know that people go to seminary for the purpose of having their preconceptions reinforced. Or I hope not. While I have never attended seminary, I haven't heard of many people who haven't faced serious challenges to their presuppositions and to their faith. I would hope that a course of study leads people to rock their foundations."
(Disclaimer: Sorry, Tim, you are receiving the bulk of pent up frustration, and I know you probably didn't have this intention in mind when you wrote this comment.)
Allow me to build my straw man, but I really do tire of the "rock your foundations" statements. I have switched from an Atheistic University to a Neo-Orthodox/Liberal University, and I sure am exhausted from always having to double-check/triple-check my foundations. What do you do when you continually find your foundations to be correct? Do I have to keep looking for "rockers"?
Is there something wrong with wanting to go to a seminary to be "nurtured" or even "mentored"? Is it really necessary for me to go to the most arminian/Neo-Orthodox/liberal/emergent school I can find so I can have my "foundations rocked"?
So, I have a question: People are always getting annoyed with reformed folk for being so "arrogant" about their theology. But as I told my wife once, "Life is too short to go digging through the trash for pieces of silver when we have gold at our fingertips." Perhaps I do rejoice in someday going to a seminary that has presuppositions such as inerrancy, Christ-centeredness, focus on the glory of God, calvinistic, etc.
Is that so wrong?
"To whom much is given, much is required." We live in a country with many opportunities for seminary training. Scholarships are available at many. Most cities have a decent job market. I guess the question for me is not "why go to seminary?" but "why not?"
The only thing worse than spending a few years in seminary is spending a decade in the ministry, with no real theological education, and then realizing you have wasted 10 years spewing falsehood from your own pulpit.
Ouch.
greatestmanintheworld I tend to agree with you. One of the concerns I have not only about this discussion but my own experience of ministry is what is not being said in what qualifies one to be in ministry. And that is the issue of character in the life of the man, not just whether he has academic degrees and intellectual prowess. This, in my opinion is not a small issue. In all my years of seminary training, licensure exams and ordination exams before presbyteries on the east coast and midwest, I never was asked once a question about my own relationship with the Lord nor was I ever befriended by any of the brethren in the presbteries at the level of acquaintance where any of them would know me well enough to care about what my personal life was about. Should that have been their concern? yes, Was my morality a "problem"? no. It was just an ongoing lack of concern on anyone's part in spite of my seeking to establish friendships or suggest that I was something more than what my two masters degrees represented. AndrewI would say with all humility intended, that your several references to the Book of church government in the OPC are an exact example of what I am talking about. I am thankful for what God has given me in the many degrees I have from a seminary that you obviously are very famaliar with. But I have sat at so many presbytery meetings and General Assemblies and watched brothers pick at each other and quote from their little OPC black book to the point where I became physically sick, over and over and over again. So after many years I left and minister elsewhere.
Greetings Ron,I only have experience with 2 presbyteries in the OPC, and every exam I've witnessed, or taken part of have included a faith and life portion which seeks to get at what you were referring to in your post. So, not having experience in the Presbyteries you did, I can't say whether it was a lack of brotherly love and concern on their part or a lack of perception on yours.
I quoted only a couple small portions of the "black book." If you are familiar with it, which it sounds like you are, you know that is concerned with far more than those couple of paragraphs which themselves focus on academics. It sounds like you've left the OPC with a bitter attitude and some sort of resentment. I do urge you to either follow your issues through with Matt 18, or cover them with love.
Yes, the arguments over points of order, etc. can be very tedious and tiresome. However, I much rather prefer that to stifled debate (PCA general assembly) or some sort of congregational free for all. What system of orderly conduct would you suggest Presbyteries and General Assemblies follow in order to do things in good and decent order?
AndrewIts been years since I left. I honestly don't think it had to do with resentment. I just didn't see the point in all the stuff that centered so heavily on "proper order" , does this follow the book etc. I think back on that and other things and try to do what you suggest, cover it with love. I have moved on. As to your question about what order orconduct should be followed in order to do things in good and decent order...I am hesitant to say much because of the haste of the moment. My wife and I will leave very shortly to be with our youngest daughter who is having a baby. I would say, once again from my own experience, that such meetings could be and should be covered with prayer, filled with prayer...however you should say that. And I'm not talking about opening with prayer, ending with prayer. I believe that in the important business of governing the church at any level, there should be the kind of spiritual humility and brokeness where men are on their knees or faces before God constantly in all they do, especially when at some point of impasse, disagreement etc. I don't know exactly what that looks like in terms of conducting a presbytery meeting but I have seen enough arguments and debates and personality manueverings at these meetings which would not have ever been the case if such a posture were taken before the Lord as men would have stopped to pray and seek the Lord's wisdom,worked things out together, considering the other as greater than themselves. This would have surely led to the Holy Spirit leading and directing the "order" of what was taking place and not men's agendas or point of argument no matter how well supported by the black book. Did I ever suggest or ask that this happen in a given situation? once. I certainly made sure that it happened at our local church session meetings and any church meetings. I certainly practised this in my home with my wife and children. I think that's where it all starts. The larger church probably reflects what is happening in other levels and sub levels within the family of God. But I don't mean to say or accuse these men of not praying or doing such things in their sessions or in their homes. I know that I, having not been raised in that particular denomination, was dumbfounded by what I observed. I never saw christians gather and spend so much energy and focus on a book of government policy and bureaucratic concerns about whose leading what and whose right or wrong about what, not about what are we doing to demonstrate the preeminence of Christ in the business of this meeting and in our lives. My first granddaugher awaits her grandpa, adios
No one seriously questions the need for biblical training and education. At least no one serious about the ministry and the task before him.
But shouldn't we push for that training to take place in the context of a local church, as the Scriptures themselves indicate. I realize that this is not possible in many situations. Many people come from churches where there are no capable men. But if your church does in fact have men able to do this sort of thing, then by all means, don't continue to support a system that is simply a less than ideal way to prepare men for the ministry.
Also, I sat down with Walter Chantry a few years back and asked him some questions about seminary, etc. along with questions about body life. Mr. Chantry was extremely reluctant to give any teaching role whatsoever to someone who had not been seminary trained. This sounds an awful lot like the error of clergy/laity classes. Anyway, I could not believe my ears, so later in the discussion I deliberately asked him which men God used the most in his life. He mentinoed Lloyd-Jones, Tozer, Ravenhill, and I honestly don't remember the other one. But my thoughts at the time were this: not one of those men attended seminary, and yet these are the men that God had raised up in his life. It is sad that he would then make seminary a prerequisite for teaching the Bible.
One other question we could ask is: are seminaries training men for the work of a pastor, or for the work of teaching in a seminary? How much experience in shepherding do seminary professors have? Do you realize that the great majority of the men God has used so mightily in the past could not qualify to pastor our floundering churches today, simply because they will not be considered without a seminary degree?
I am not against seminary, but there are certainly better alternatives. Within the framework of a young man who is eager to learn and who is diligent in study in his own right: Sit under godly men and if God has gifted you, then in the context of that church, you will begin to have opportunity to teach and to counsel. If it is further evident that God has gifted you, then the elders would take you in alongside of them as another elder. Through the course of sharing the burden of pastoring with other experienced men, you would learn how it is done. You would gain wisdom. A few years of this and you may well move out somewhere else.
CT
Chad wrote: One other question we could ask is: are seminaries training men for the work of a pastor, or for the work of teaching in a seminary? How much experience in shepherding do seminary professors have?
What a fascinating question! That got me to thinking about my own profession - computing. I have a BS in Computer Science, and I also work with universities occasionally to help them create curricula for teaching mainframe computing. These experiences led me to the same conclusion - universities teach computer science, but the subject matter is often so "academic" that a graduate would not really have adequate training to work in a business - they would be able to teach theory, but with little ability to "practice the trade". There are "trade schools" and "applied computer science" programs in universities that DO teach students how to "do".
Maybe we need a "seminary trade school" to teach pastors. But then again, I thought that was the difference between an M.Div and a degree in theology.
----bill
Bill wrote: Maybe we need a "seminary trade school" to teach pastors.
This is called 'church' God raises up elders within this context. The body of believers recognizes men with the giftedness, and then those men, if they desire to do so, begin taking steps in that direction, but under the leadership and counsel of the elders already in place.
Really, the NT is a sufficient guide in these matters.
CT
Think what kind of personal library you could build if you took the dollars you would put into just two years of seminary, and instead purchased only the best books.
Then take those same two years you would have been in seminary and invest in reading those books. Now you would still have 1-2 years left at a seminary, so that gives you 4 years total to get through those books.
Now, picture a man doing that, but also within the context of a church in which he is being counselled by several elders and learning by experience what it is to shepherd by example first and word second.
Such a man is far more qualified than a man who goes to seminary and gets his degree, having little or no experience or practical theology.
CT
In all humility, I wish to add some thoughts.
Please consider the men that Jesus chose to be his disciples. Were they seminary trained?
And please consider the one who came before Christ to show the way to Him.
In John 5, Christ speaks to the Pharisees directly about their attitude concerning the testimony of John the Baptist. In verse 33 to 35.
Verse 35 "John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light."
Then He speaks to them of their arrogance in where they put "their importance"; in their own knowledge of the scriptures.
Verse 39 "You diligently study the scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are not the scriptures that testify of Me, verse 40 yet you refuse to come to Me to have life."
My point is this. Even satan knows the scriptures. It is what you do with THE WORD and WHAT IT IT DOES THROUGH YOU, by the Power of the Holy Spirit that truly matters.
Degrees are not to be held up as a standard.
God can use simple fishermen and locust eaters, as well as well educated men.
I know a few sad stories of men who fell away even after being seminarian trained. Their families know even more of the pain. And so do congregations.