We enjoyed hosting Lyle and Marilyn for our Passing on Faith Conference back in February. Some great things have started to happen around our synod as a result. Thanks for the work the Youth and Family Institute does.

Thanks for stopping by.

I just started reading your blog and, as a fellow youth minister in a mainline church, I’m loving what I’m reading!

This post in particular really hit home because I’ve studied in two different seminaries and I think a lot of what you say is spot on.

However, I think I need to take issue with the first two points. Here’s what you wrote,

“1. Seminaries remove people from ministry contexts. The traditional seminary model has certain values that undermine local gatherings and remove people unnecessarily from their faith communities. Yes, I know that your fellow seminarians create a community, but there is a significant difference between a gathering of idealistic budding theologians and the average person in a congregation. Much discourse in academic settings is very pie-in-the-sky and not well grounded in reality.”

I’ve studied both at a fairly young and small Baptist seminary and at an old, very large, and VERY traditional Methodist seminary and I’d say that both of these – via field education programs or conscious encouragement of work within the local church – are very effective at helping students connect with local churches in ways that are both realistic and authentic. Not to contradict it’s just that my experience has been fundamentally different from what you describe in this regard.

You also wrote:

“2. The process of seminary is no longer effective in preparing for ministry. When the dominant church model was oral proclamation, reasoned argument, and apologetics, perhaps sitting in classrooms studying the minutiae of supralapsarianism, practicing speaking skills, and honing rhetoric was helpful. Today, however, we are moving past such a model and moving towards organic, relational, flat models of ecclesiology and mission, making the seminary model less relevant.”

Once again, at both seminaries I’ve attended during the course of my M.Div. program, there has been an exploration of (at the large, traditional seminary) and an outright recommendation of (at my current seminary) a more flattened ecclesiology. I’ve been an advocate of an “every member functioning” ecclesiology (a la Frank Viola and Leonard Sweet) at school and, although I’ve received lots of push-back from fellow students (some of whom are there for a “credential” that gets them a higher salary), my professors have been encouraging. So again, not all seminaries are doing all that poorly in this regard.

Again, Matt, great post(s). I’m looking forward to reading more of what you write as I think it will be inspiring and helpful to me in my own ministry.

Grace & peace to you!

Andrew Tatum

Interesting thoughts on idealism. Will need to think more on this.

Regarding home-grown pastors, I’ve seen it both succeed and fail. And I’ve seen plenty of seminarians come out with pretty whacked out and dangerous doctrine as well. One example is a spirit of sectarianism as a pastor thinks they’ve got it all right and everyone else is damned.

Again, I just really want to reiterate that I am not against rigorous education and training, but I am saying that the prevailing seminary model is not the future of the church.

Idealism propagates not by direct intervention, but by osmosis, but it has to start somewhere, and somewhat coordinated sources are important. I think not to expose seminarians to such would be a huge dis-service. Idealism fosters a higher level of thinking, and preparedness, even if not directly applicable.

Shred faith and rebuild in a local ministry context is dangerous… ones local peers can offer emotional support, but they really have zero idea as concerns the huge faith struggles that many seminarians are dealing with. I’ll also throw out consideration, that bringing those faith struggles to a local level is not without danger either. Its one thing for a sr pastor to bring meat to the congregation… to have spillings randomly fall off the truck from a seminarian, without the experience to deal with the fallout could well compound the problem for both the congregation and the seminarian.

I do agree that both spiritual and emotional support are needed, but to sacrifice spiritual support, ie your peers, professors, seminary faith community for emotional support… I think its too dangerous. Far too many enthusiastic young folks enter seminary and freak out as is, I just don’t think local ministry context can do justice in this area, of course the emotional part is pretty critical too. You may have a good argument as concerns the combo approach.

I concur with the cost… but lets be realistic. A fully burdened ft professors salary is ~$150K, classroom and direct admin overhead could be reduced to perhaps $50K. An idealistic grad school student/professor ratio is 1:10. Thats $20k/yr/student, then add in overhead, and living expenses… I know a multitude of people that would like to attend seminary, but walking out with 6 figure debt precludes that option for many.

I’ve seen cases where churches have tried to home grow pastors… Often times it leads to pretty far out and dangerous doctrines, each year shifting a little bit further off center. Granted, technology has mitigated this a bit as of late, but the danger imho far outweighs the benefits. I do very much agree the individual local church should do more, or at least make provisions for such. The combo approach again seems to be of benefit.

As to moving more toward post-denominationalism and the priesthood of all believers, I hope this will only be for the betterment of the Church.

I appreciate your thoughts, and I do agree with some points, I have trouble with a few others. Here’s what I mean:

1. Not all seminaries remove people from the ministry context. Ok, so you used the word “traditional” and I’ll give you that out. But I know several seminaries that are really of the traditional variety that are venturing out to change scheduling, provide online courses and such, so that people don’t have be in residency for the entire duration. I went to Phillips Theological Seminary in Tulsa. They went to block scheduling. So a class that would ordinarily meet 3 days/week for 1 hour was changed to 1 day/week for 3 hours. Almost all the way through I took classes 1 day a week and was able to serve in ministry the duration.

Most seminaries I know of actually require service in a ministry context. They’ll call it “Field Education” or “Supervised Ministry” and students are usually partnered with a mentor for the duration.

2. Yes and no. I found many courses very effective in training me. And of course there were some that were a total waste. I think it depends on your intended vocation and the electives you choose to take. But there were of course some major deficiencies in the curriculum.

3. Truer every day. But if not this model for preparation then who takes the reigns? Something to think about.

4. While I agree in principle, there will always be a need for training and educating the primary leaders of the priesthood. Until congregations are able to train ministers completely from within their ranks this model has some need.

5. Agreed.

6. I’ve seen this and known this. And it’s hard to explain. I think your explanation is a bit over-simplistic, though. For one, the common denominator may be participation in the seminary experience, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the cause. There could be other factors (and probably are). Could it be that seminary may actually be weeding out some people who maybe aren’t really ready to answer the call?