Are Seminaries Legitimate

by Eric Svendsen
The very title of this article will no doubt cause consternation among many of our readers. What, after all, could be wrong with the concept of a seminary? Thousands of men and women enroll each year in seminaries of their choice, hoping to become equipped to do the work of the ministry. There they are taught the Word of God and every related subject imaginable. There they are instructed on how to interpret the Scriptures, how to formulate a theological framework, and how to "do ministry." Everything from church history to homiletics to hermeneutics is available to anyone who wishes to enhance his or her effectiveness in ministering the Word of God. How then can one ask, Are seminaries legitimate?

It will become evident to the reader by the end of this article that I am not opposed to making certain that church leaders are well trained. On the contrary, I am going to argue that leaders do indeed need to be trained, but that the seminary is an inefficient tool to use in reaching this goal. Having spent four years earning a Bachelors degree in Biblical Studies and another two years toward earning a Masters degree in New Testament Studies, I write this from an insider's point of view. I am hesitant even to mention these "credentials" because such mention lends unwarranted credence to the seminary system and implies that someone without seminary training is unqualified to write on these matters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, I know many seminary trained men who, for example when confronted by a cultist, are not able to defend even something as central as the deity of Christ. On the other hand, I know men, trained apart from the seminary, who would have no problem at all defending the Faith from that same cultist. Be that as it may, it is a sad fact that there are times (as even Paul acknowledged) when one must lower himself to boasting about his accomplishments so that others will deem him credible. Paul had to do this in 2 Cor 11 to win the ear of the Corinthians and to direct them away from false apostles who nevertheless were well-trained in knowledge (seminary-trained, if you will). To the Corinthians Paul wrote: "What anyone else dares to boast about--I am speaking as a fool--I will also boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I (11:21-22). . . . I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it (12:11)." To Paul's words I would add, "Are they seminary trained--I speak as a fool--so am I."

Before I propose what I believe is the biblical model for training elders, let me first lay out a typical scenario that one encounters after making a decision to go to seminary. First, since in most cases the would-be seminarian does not live near a seminary, he must relocate to an area where there is a seminary. Second, the would-be seminarian must be certain that he has the financial means not only to set up house in this new location but also to pay tuition and fees. These expenses typically add up to upwards of $2,000 per quarter (sometimes even more than that). The would-be seminarian is expected to pay these fees before the actual training begins. This usually means that the seminarian must work a full-time job while completing his education. Of course, he may opt to take fewer classes and prolong the number of years it takes to earn the degree. This however is considered undesirable since, ideally, the seminarian wants to begin his professional ministry as soon as possible. Any delay means more time in the secular work force instead of in the "Lord's work." Naturally this puts much stress on the seminarian's family, and especially his wife who, in some cases, is expected to support her husband financially. This is even more of a burden if there are children involved. Finally, after three or four years of hard work under the direction of university trained Ph.D.'s, the seminarian is given a Master of Divinity degree (M.Div.) and is ordained by his denomination on the basis of his accomplishments.

It seems to me that there are at least four major problems with the scenario given above. Let me first list these problems and then flesh them out a bit. The first problem is that the seminarian must leave his local church to receive this kind of training. Second, university-trained professors (not church leaders) are doing the training. Third, the seminarian must pay exorbitant amounts of money to learn the Word of God. And fourth, the seminarian's newly acquired degree is somehow seen as qualifying him to be a church leader. Let me address these in the order that I've given them.

In the New Testament it is quite clear that training men for leadership positions is the responsibility of each individual church. A man who senses that he has been gifted by God in the areas of leadership and teaching is to be permitted to exercise these gifts so long as he meets certain qualifications which we will examine later. Moreover, such a man has the right to be trained in these areas by those leaders within his own local church. In apostolic times there were no seminaries to attend. Instead, when an apostle was sent to a city to organize those who had come to believe, it was he that was responsible for training men to be leaders in that church. We have several examples of this in the NT. In Acts 11, after the good news was proclaimed to those in Antioch, Luke records that the Jerusalem church sent Barnabas there to strengthen them. Barnabas in turn found Paul and "so for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people" (11:22-26). Acts 13:1 indicates that in addition to Paul and Barnabas there were more "prophets and teachers" who had been sent to Antioch, presumably to train men at the Antioch church. After their initial evangelistic visits to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, Paul and Barnabas returned to these cities and appointed elders in each church (14:21-23). We must assume here that Paul was consistent with his own policy of appointing only qualified elders, which qualifications he lays down elsewhere (1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9). Another instance of this training pattern is found in Acts 19. Here Luke says that Paul held daily discussions in a lecture hall for a period of two years (vv. 9-10).

The purpose for calling attention to all of these passages is to show the apostolic pattern of training elders. Far from insisting that a prospective elder uproot and move his family to a new location to receive this training from the apostles, the reverse is true--the apostles went to the prospective elder. This pattern is by no means confined to the book of Acts but is also found in the pastoral epistles. Paul left both Timothy (in Ephesus, 1 Tim 1:3) and Titus (in Crete, Tit 1:5) for the purpose of setting the churches in order. A major part of this responsibility entailed the selection and training of elders (1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5). Notice again that this training takes place within the church and by church leaders.

This leads me to my second point; namely, that church elders (not university professors) are responsible for training other potential elders. Paul makes this clear in 2 Tim 2:2 where he commands Timothy, "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others." Paul seems to be setting a pattern here for training elders. Timothy was to train reliable men, and they in turn were to train others. There was to be an unbroken chain, as it were, of trained leaders. Three points may be made about Paul's statement. First, an apostle's stay in any city was only temporary and was meant to wean a newly formed church so that it could stand on its own. Paul tells Timothy in 2 Tim 4:21 that after Timothy's ministry was completed in Ephesus he should do his best to go back to Paul before Winter; he gives Titus similar instructions in Tit 3:12, hence their temporary stay. Second, the men that were trained by Timothy and Titus were members of the church in which they were trained. There was no such thing as the current practice of calling an unfamiliar pastor from afar to lead a church. The men who were so trained became leaders in that church. Third, once there were trained men in a church all subsequent training was to be done by these newly trained men. Since the apostles' stay was only temporary, the only way Paul could ensure that the Faith would remain pure and alive was to command Timothy to "entrust it to reliable men who will also teach it to others" (2 Tim 2:2). In other words, after Timothy and Titus were gone, it was up to those who had been trained by them to follow their example and train other qualified men. Indeed, they were not only responsible, they were in fact obligated to find other qualified men whom they could train. This flies in the face of the current practice of the church wherein a would-be church leader is assured that he first must spend several years in a seminary; and even then it is more likely that he will end up with a church of his own elsewhere rather than go back to the church from which he was sent. It is those who are currently in charge of the church who are responsible for this man's training.

This leaves us with several unanswered questions. Who is at fault for the perpetuation of such a system? Is it ever wrong to be involved in the seminary, whether as a teacher or as a student? What is the alternative to the seminary system? It is to these and other questions that we will turn in our next issue.