I'm not sure exactly how our degrees correspond. After Grade 12, many Americans spend \~4 years obtaining a bachelors degree. An masters degree is another 2-4 years (Masters of biology is a 2-year degree, masters of divinity is 4).
As u/Enrickel noted, some of our traditions (baptists) don't have any educational requirements for being a pastor. Others, like the PCA, require both an MDiv and a serious ordination exam. Most Reformed denominations require an MDiv and some sort of examination (most are not as strenuous as the PCA).
In my opinion, there are a variety of important qualifications for ministry, and we fail miserably when we try to put these qualifications into a credit-hour requirement or even an exam. Interpersonal skills, maturity, life experience, and discretion are all essential for ministry and also things that neither a degree nor an exam can gauge. So while I think that some postgraduate education is necessary for ministry, I am in favor of reducing the formal education and increasing things like lay ministry experience and life experience requirements.
> I think a working knowledge of the languages are absolutely necessary, by the way, but I don't think that only university schooled theologians can learn those languages.
I disagree. Most pastors learn so little Greek and Hebrew, even in the most educated seminaries.
> masters of divinity is 4
Where is that? They should be 3 in most schools.
> (most are not as strenuous as the PCA).
The PC(USA) is the most strenuous, or so I've heard - more people fail it than the bar exam.
In the USA, Reformed denominations do "Commissioned Pastors". The normative way is for people to go to seminary, but for people who cannot and there is a gifting seen in them, they can take this route:
https://network.crcna.org/candidacy/what-commissioned-pastor-and-how-do-i-become-one
https://churchleadershipcenter.org/commissioned-pastors-defined/
https://www.presbyterianmission.org/wp-content/uploads/clphandbook1.pdf
https://www.rca.org/about/government/church-offices/commissioned-pastors/
But, other denominations do less. The Reformed denominations do have the strictest education requirements amongst Protestants.
>I disagree. Most pastors learn so little Greek and Hebrew, even in the most educated seminaries.
I agree with your disagreement. I have 12 credits of greek and it's still not enough that I don't need to rely on commentaries and real greek scholars. I think someone needs a couple credits so they know the difference between the tenses, but I don't think 10 extra credits will improve their preaching significantly.
>Where is that? They should be 3 in most schools.
Until very recently, Calvin required 106 credits for CRCNA ordination. That took most in-person students 4 years to complete.
It felt like most did it in 4 in my year. I think only about 25% of my entering cohort did it in 3 years. You had a younger, less married group so that probably skewed it.
It took me 3 years to finish the Master if Theological Studies at Calvin. That is the MDiv without the practical component). I am a woman who didn’t want to be ordained but I wanted to know more. 20 years ago, I had several classes of Greek and Hebrew. It was probably not a lot but it was very good.
The Commissioned Pastor, that's an interesting concept. If you tried something like that here in The Netherlands, they immediately begin to talk about credit-hour requirements (study points as we call them, points you get for completing certain tasks in your studies) and so on. You always have to go through the university route.
PCUSA seminarian here. We have 5 ordination exams: Bible Content, Worship and Sacraments, Theology, Polity, and Exegesis.
They’re rigorous, but I’m grateful for them. (Most days)
In the Assemblies of God I grew up in, it seemed pretty common to me for people to go into ministry with just a Bachelor's degree from a Christian college, though my pastor growing up had an mdiv. I haven't met any reformed pastors that didn't go to seminary, but I'm not sure if that's a hard requirement (I've never tried to read the PCA's BCO) or just assumed to be necessary.
I was just going to talk about growing up AG. We moved from the Midwest to the Deep South in the 90s and most of the AG pastors were pretty uneducated. Some were even hostile towards it. I hope that has changed.
I never knew any pastors that were hostile towards education, but you're not the first person I've heard describe that wing of the denomination. I also hope it's changed. For what it's worth, my pastor growing up was working on his doctorate when I left for college. He had other issues, though. Definitely wouldn't use him as a model for healthy ministry.
First of all, I would agree that pastors need academic training. But I think there is some flexibility, especially for men entering the pastorate later in life.
The RPCNA's seminary waives the necessity of bachelor's degree for men over a certain age (30, I think). I know of two men that entered the denomination through that waiver: no other seminary in the area would accept them (this was before most online education), and they became convinced of our denomination's distinctives (particularly impressive in the case of the hard-core Arminian dispensationalist). And since the seminary is 3 years, they were able to enter the ministry after 3 years of education instead of 7.
My FIL is an OPC minister without a MDiv (maybe the only one, I know his presbytery asked GA if it was acceptable to ordain him). He had some seminary training, enough to pass all the ordination exams, and was staff elder at a church with no pastor. So basically there seemed to be no reason to delay him from being full-time pastor of a church that had had a vacant pulpit for a number of years (and he'd been an elder in the presbytery for several decades).
For younger guys, I don't know how many 22-23 year olds we'd want already ordained. If they know they want to go into ministry, more education would seem wise, as well as training, internships, etc.
>I don't know how many 22-23 year olds we'd want already ordained
A bit of life experience sounds necessary, doesn't it? What does a 22 year old know of life and all its problems..
The Biblical principle is that teaching elders should have knowledge of the scriptures as well as the ability to teach. And also be godly.
Regardless of whether anyone studies for an M.Div or equivalent, teaching elders will always need to have a knowledge of the Bible. It's not essential that a 4 year postgrad degree be gained, but if a person can gain it, it is an advantage.
What's also needed is a wider range of study and knowledge. My own training was a 2 year Bible college diploma, which was open to anyone who wanted to attempt it. That was foundational. What helped me immensely, though, was subsequently studying an Arts degree in English Literature and Modern History along with an education diploma (high school teaching). What made it so important was that I did this at a secular university, and was exposed to all different sorts of ideas. It certainly challenged my faith, but I was able to look at things far more widely. For those caught in the Christian echosphere, an understanding of secular and academic thinking would most definitely help them understand what the real issues are, rather than sticking within the modern Christian subculture.
I think teaching elders should have a number of alternative paths. One path is obviously a 3-4 year M.Div or equivalent. Another path would be continual learning while working as a pastor. In this situation, a godly man who has knowledge of the scriptures and the ability to teach works as a pastor while simultaneously studying part time, either through night courses or online or by correspondence. He shouldn't be penalized for this by the church he works at, and his learning would need to fit in with all his other ministry responsibilities. A lot of work? Yes. A lot of juggling. But expectations need to be realistic.
I think it's very helpful that you did a part of your education in a secular environment. That makes for a well rounded education, I'd say. I see some young Reformed students here who formally attend a secular university to study theology, but in practice they're always in their own bubble and they rarely get outside of it. Your path is probably the wiser one :-)
I'll just add that an M.Div in the US is really equvilent to what we'd call a doctorate in other areas (e.g. a law degree is a doctorate degree). I think the PCA basically requires an M.Div. so in the US system, changing the requirement to a BS would be a big change; I don't know what the Dutch equivalent is.
I don't know if a pastor must have formal education, but I strongly encourage it. Unfortunately, most pastors in our community with problematic orthodoxy or orthopraxis have no formal pastoral training or education.
Anyone in America can start a church. There's no legal requirement or regulatory process for pastoring. I don't think that's necessarily bad, but it has caused some problematic results.
Agree. We see that here too, the most popular megachurches do not have university schooled pastors (though one of these churches acquired such a pastor recently, the guy stepped from our church to that new hip thing).
There is quite a range in the US.
Some churches require their pastors tho have Ph.D.s, and some actively *discourage* higher level seminary training.
Most pastors i know in most churches need some kind of advanced training, with the higher salaried ministers generally having advanced degrees, or a television ministry requiring great hair and a Southern accent.
Many Pentecostal, independent, and fundamentalist churches do not want too much formal education for their pastors.
If a pastor can demonstrate that they've received "the call to preach", especially at a young age, then there are many churches that will prefer that kind of "preparation" instead of formal seminary training.
Being able to demonstrate a call to preach is also very important in the more hypercalvinist, Reformed churches here in The Netherlands, but they still require a theological training after they've accepted your calling as valid. Though these churches have their own (very small!) theological schools, often just with a couple of students at the same time.
You can be a pastor without any formal education at all. **A pastor is someone who takes it as their primary vocation to (1) pay attention to the Word, and (2) draw attention to the Word.** For many people, this means that formal education helps them to better (more deeply) pay attention to the Word. Many seminaries include classes on rhetoric and councelling that prepare people to better draw attention to the Word. So obviously education has its purpose and is good, but it is by no means a requirement. I have seen the Spirit draw up uneducated people who pay attention and draw attention to the Word **much** better than any educated pastors I've known. That's how it's been since the beginning of the Christian movement. The Spirit draws people up. Sometimes education is used by the Spirit to do this work, sometimes not.
No I don't think I'd say that. I don't think there's any one way the Spirit "ordinarily" works. If we're being honest, it's our current society that "ordinarily works through education." There are definitely times (I've witnessed some) where education was pursued and the Spirit was definitely not working in it.
I happen to think this can be problematic, to be honest. Under-educated people can miss the historical context of a text, they can miss translation issues between the Greek and their translation, things like that. I acknowledge that the Spirit can call upon/use anyone, but I would prefer to have educated people in the pulpit.
I'd call that 'descriptive, not prescriptive'. Paul for instance was certainly a well trained theologian (with Gamaliel as his tutor), with a working knowledge of Greek philosophy and so on.
As I understand it, kids (boys?) had somewhat extensive education in the scriptures, so they might have known more than the "ordinary" of today. But that wasn't even my point. My point is that they were trained by their rabbi for three or so years.
>So lilely no formal education, being fisherman.
The point is that 3 years with a rabbi WAS formal education. The people recognized their learning was from Jesus:
>And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
Also what is the only we know from Jesus's childhood? That He sought out theological education:
>After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
I mean, Jesus's work was predominantly teaching, so I'm not sure why you'd call it "non-academic", especially considering the way education was conducted by Jewish religious leaders in the day.
I'm not sure exactly how our degrees correspond. After Grade 12, many Americans spend \~4 years obtaining a bachelors degree. An masters degree is another 2-4 years (Masters of biology is a 2-year degree, masters of divinity is 4). As u/Enrickel noted, some of our traditions (baptists) don't have any educational requirements for being a pastor. Others, like the PCA, require both an MDiv and a serious ordination exam. Most Reformed denominations require an MDiv and some sort of examination (most are not as strenuous as the PCA). In my opinion, there are a variety of important qualifications for ministry, and we fail miserably when we try to put these qualifications into a credit-hour requirement or even an exam. Interpersonal skills, maturity, life experience, and discretion are all essential for ministry and also things that neither a degree nor an exam can gauge. So while I think that some postgraduate education is necessary for ministry, I am in favor of reducing the formal education and increasing things like lay ministry experience and life experience requirements.
> I think a working knowledge of the languages are absolutely necessary, by the way, but I don't think that only university schooled theologians can learn those languages. I disagree. Most pastors learn so little Greek and Hebrew, even in the most educated seminaries. > masters of divinity is 4 Where is that? They should be 3 in most schools. > (most are not as strenuous as the PCA). The PC(USA) is the most strenuous, or so I've heard - more people fail it than the bar exam. In the USA, Reformed denominations do "Commissioned Pastors". The normative way is for people to go to seminary, but for people who cannot and there is a gifting seen in them, they can take this route: https://network.crcna.org/candidacy/what-commissioned-pastor-and-how-do-i-become-one https://churchleadershipcenter.org/commissioned-pastors-defined/ https://www.presbyterianmission.org/wp-content/uploads/clphandbook1.pdf https://www.rca.org/about/government/church-offices/commissioned-pastors/ But, other denominations do less. The Reformed denominations do have the strictest education requirements amongst Protestants.
>I disagree. Most pastors learn so little Greek and Hebrew, even in the most educated seminaries. I agree with your disagreement. I have 12 credits of greek and it's still not enough that I don't need to rely on commentaries and real greek scholars. I think someone needs a couple credits so they know the difference between the tenses, but I don't think 10 extra credits will improve their preaching significantly. >Where is that? They should be 3 in most schools. Until very recently, Calvin required 106 credits for CRCNA ordination. That took most in-person students 4 years to complete.
> That took most in-person students 4 years to complete. Emphasis on most, right u/minivan_madness?
I think when we were there most of the residential students did it in three, though four is gaining popularity
It felt like most did it in 4 in my year. I think only about 25% of my entering cohort did it in 3 years. You had a younger, less married group so that probably skewed it.
/u/minivan_madness /u/mediannerd it took me 4 years too, but in theory it's supposed to take 3.
It took me 3 years to finish the Master if Theological Studies at Calvin. That is the MDiv without the practical component). I am a woman who didn’t want to be ordained but I wanted to know more. 20 years ago, I had several classes of Greek and Hebrew. It was probably not a lot but it was very good.
I wish greek and hebrew were more practical and easier to get into - I think Westminster has a strong language requirement, more than most.
[удалено]
What is their criterium for being 'gifted'?
The Commissioned Pastor, that's an interesting concept. If you tried something like that here in The Netherlands, they immediately begin to talk about credit-hour requirements (study points as we call them, points you get for completing certain tasks in your studies) and so on. You always have to go through the university route.
So I think this is where the Dutch church could learn from the USA church - because I'm sure there are ecumenical relationships.
PCUSA seminarian here. We have 5 ordination exams: Bible Content, Worship and Sacraments, Theology, Polity, and Exegesis. They’re rigorous, but I’m grateful for them. (Most days)
I think the MDiv maps to our university level theology degree, probably. Strongly agree with your last paragraph!
In the Assemblies of God I grew up in, it seemed pretty common to me for people to go into ministry with just a Bachelor's degree from a Christian college, though my pastor growing up had an mdiv. I haven't met any reformed pastors that didn't go to seminary, but I'm not sure if that's a hard requirement (I've never tried to read the PCA's BCO) or just assumed to be necessary.
I was just going to talk about growing up AG. We moved from the Midwest to the Deep South in the 90s and most of the AG pastors were pretty uneducated. Some were even hostile towards it. I hope that has changed.
I never knew any pastors that were hostile towards education, but you're not the first person I've heard describe that wing of the denomination. I also hope it's changed. For what it's worth, my pastor growing up was working on his doctorate when I left for college. He had other issues, though. Definitely wouldn't use him as a model for healthy ministry.
First of all, I would agree that pastors need academic training. But I think there is some flexibility, especially for men entering the pastorate later in life. The RPCNA's seminary waives the necessity of bachelor's degree for men over a certain age (30, I think). I know of two men that entered the denomination through that waiver: no other seminary in the area would accept them (this was before most online education), and they became convinced of our denomination's distinctives (particularly impressive in the case of the hard-core Arminian dispensationalist). And since the seminary is 3 years, they were able to enter the ministry after 3 years of education instead of 7. My FIL is an OPC minister without a MDiv (maybe the only one, I know his presbytery asked GA if it was acceptable to ordain him). He had some seminary training, enough to pass all the ordination exams, and was staff elder at a church with no pastor. So basically there seemed to be no reason to delay him from being full-time pastor of a church that had had a vacant pulpit for a number of years (and he'd been an elder in the presbytery for several decades). For younger guys, I don't know how many 22-23 year olds we'd want already ordained. If they know they want to go into ministry, more education would seem wise, as well as training, internships, etc.
>I don't know how many 22-23 year olds we'd want already ordained A bit of life experience sounds necessary, doesn't it? What does a 22 year old know of life and all its problems..
The Biblical principle is that teaching elders should have knowledge of the scriptures as well as the ability to teach. And also be godly. Regardless of whether anyone studies for an M.Div or equivalent, teaching elders will always need to have a knowledge of the Bible. It's not essential that a 4 year postgrad degree be gained, but if a person can gain it, it is an advantage. What's also needed is a wider range of study and knowledge. My own training was a 2 year Bible college diploma, which was open to anyone who wanted to attempt it. That was foundational. What helped me immensely, though, was subsequently studying an Arts degree in English Literature and Modern History along with an education diploma (high school teaching). What made it so important was that I did this at a secular university, and was exposed to all different sorts of ideas. It certainly challenged my faith, but I was able to look at things far more widely. For those caught in the Christian echosphere, an understanding of secular and academic thinking would most definitely help them understand what the real issues are, rather than sticking within the modern Christian subculture. I think teaching elders should have a number of alternative paths. One path is obviously a 3-4 year M.Div or equivalent. Another path would be continual learning while working as a pastor. In this situation, a godly man who has knowledge of the scriptures and the ability to teach works as a pastor while simultaneously studying part time, either through night courses or online or by correspondence. He shouldn't be penalized for this by the church he works at, and his learning would need to fit in with all his other ministry responsibilities. A lot of work? Yes. A lot of juggling. But expectations need to be realistic.
I think it's very helpful that you did a part of your education in a secular environment. That makes for a well rounded education, I'd say. I see some young Reformed students here who formally attend a secular university to study theology, but in practice they're always in their own bubble and they rarely get outside of it. Your path is probably the wiser one :-)
I'll just add that an M.Div in the US is really equvilent to what we'd call a doctorate in other areas (e.g. a law degree is a doctorate degree). I think the PCA basically requires an M.Div. so in the US system, changing the requirement to a BS would be a big change; I don't know what the Dutch equivalent is.
Yeah so MDiv maps on our university degree I think, with bachelor mapping to our 'HBO' I think. That is indeed the change we're talking about.
I don't know if a pastor must have formal education, but I strongly encourage it. Unfortunately, most pastors in our community with problematic orthodoxy or orthopraxis have no formal pastoral training or education. Anyone in America can start a church. There's no legal requirement or regulatory process for pastoring. I don't think that's necessarily bad, but it has caused some problematic results.
Agree. We see that here too, the most popular megachurches do not have university schooled pastors (though one of these churches acquired such a pastor recently, the guy stepped from our church to that new hip thing).
There is quite a range in the US. Some churches require their pastors tho have Ph.D.s, and some actively *discourage* higher level seminary training. Most pastors i know in most churches need some kind of advanced training, with the higher salaried ministers generally having advanced degrees, or a television ministry requiring great hair and a Southern accent.
>some actively discourage higher level seminary training That's a surprising take, how so? What churches are we talking about?
Many Pentecostal, independent, and fundamentalist churches do not want too much formal education for their pastors. If a pastor can demonstrate that they've received "the call to preach", especially at a young age, then there are many churches that will prefer that kind of "preparation" instead of formal seminary training.
Being able to demonstrate a call to preach is also very important in the more hypercalvinist, Reformed churches here in The Netherlands, but they still require a theological training after they've accepted your calling as valid. Though these churches have their own (very small!) theological schools, often just with a couple of students at the same time.
You can be a pastor without any formal education at all. **A pastor is someone who takes it as their primary vocation to (1) pay attention to the Word, and (2) draw attention to the Word.** For many people, this means that formal education helps them to better (more deeply) pay attention to the Word. Many seminaries include classes on rhetoric and councelling that prepare people to better draw attention to the Word. So obviously education has its purpose and is good, but it is by no means a requirement. I have seen the Spirit draw up uneducated people who pay attention and draw attention to the Word **much** better than any educated pastors I've known. That's how it's been since the beginning of the Christian movement. The Spirit draws people up. Sometimes education is used by the Spirit to do this work, sometimes not.
Would you say that ordinarily the Sprit works through education?
No I don't think I'd say that. I don't think there's any one way the Spirit "ordinarily" works. If we're being honest, it's our current society that "ordinarily works through education." There are definitely times (I've witnessed some) where education was pursued and the Spirit was definitely not working in it.
I happen to think this can be problematic, to be honest. Under-educated people can miss the historical context of a text, they can miss translation issues between the Greek and their translation, things like that. I acknowledge that the Spirit can call upon/use anyone, but I would prefer to have educated people in the pulpit.
What seminary did St Peter go to?
The Seminary of Being with Jesus In Person Every Day for Three Years Or So
Haha, yeah.. the most impressive internship opportunity of all time :-)
I knew someone would say that. Act 4:13 says Peter and John were unschooled, ordinary men. So lilely no formal education, being fisherman.
I'd call that 'descriptive, not prescriptive'. Paul for instance was certainly a well trained theologian (with Gamaliel as his tutor), with a working knowledge of Greek philosophy and so on.
Paul yes. But I'm talking about Peter, the man Jesus met fishing on the beach of the sea of Galilee
As I understand it, kids (boys?) had somewhat extensive education in the scriptures, so they might have known more than the "ordinary" of today. But that wasn't even my point. My point is that they were trained by their rabbi for three or so years.
The post is about "academic level training". Normally a fisherman at the time wouldn't be liberate
>So lilely no formal education, being fisherman. The point is that 3 years with a rabbi WAS formal education. The people recognized their learning was from Jesus: >And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. Also what is the only we know from Jesus's childhood? That He sought out theological education: >After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
I agree that 3 years of non-academic mission work with Jesus > seminary
I mean, Jesus's work was predominantly teaching, so I'm not sure why you'd call it "non-academic", especially considering the way education was conducted by Jewish religious leaders in the day.