Are Seminaries Legitimate

by Eric Svendsen
Last issue I briefly listed four reasons why the seminary system falls short of the biblical model for training elders. That article elaborated on two of those reasons; namely, that the would-be elder must leave his local church for this kind of training, and that the responsibility for training the would-be elder has been abdicated by the church and has shifted to the university. This article will address the other two reasons, the first of which deals with the financial aspect of the seminary.

In a recent essay on the church, one writer has concluded: "theological seminaries and divinity schools equip pastor-teachers and others to instruct people in the Word. This is a fulfillment of Paul's command to Timothy: 'And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also' (2 Tim. 2:2)," (John P. Newport, "The Purpose of the Church," The People of God: Essays on the Believers' Church. [Ed. by P. Basden and D. Dockery. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991], 31-32). Indeed! Are Paul's words to Timothy really fulfilled by the seminary? We have already seen that Paul's words assume that it is the church elder who is to do the training, not the university professor (see last issue). Any attempt, therefore, to justify the seminary via Paul's statement in 2 Tim 2:2 is ludicrous. We are simply forced to admit, however sadly, that the church has abdicated its responsibility in this area. But perhaps even more abhorrent than the church's negligence in training its own leaders is the fact that the would-be church leader's only recourse is to pay thousands of dollars to receive training that he is supposed to be receiving free of charge. Paul warned against men who require money to teach the Scriptures ("who think that godliness is a means of financial gain," 1 Tim 6:5), and he made a clear distinction between what they do and what Christians are supposed to do ("Unlike so many, we do not peddle the Word of God for profit," 2 Cor 2:17). What does it mean to "peddle the Word of God" if not to require payment for teaching it? Yet this is precisely what occurs in the seminary system--and Christianity as a whole has not only tolerated this practice, but has embraced and perpetuated it! When Jesus sent out the twelve he told them "freely you have received, freely give" (Mt 10:8). Surely this principle applies across the board, whether the issue is the gospel message or the content of the Faith. Is it likely that Jesus or Paul would have commended the current seminary practice of financially bilking would-be elders? Not if we are to limit ourselves to their recorded statements about such matters. In addition to the passages above we may add Paul's statement to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20. There Paul insists that while he was with them (three years according to v. 31) he did not hesitate to proclaim to them "anything that would be helpful," but taught them from house to house (v. 20); he did not hesitate to proclaim to them "the whole will of God" (v. 27); and he did all this without coveting "anyone's silver or gold or clothing" (v. 33). In fact, everything that Paul needed was "supplied by [his] own hands" (v. 34).

What, someone may ask, of all the statements in the NT which seem to indicate that the teacher is to be paid (e.g., Gal 6:6)? Without even addressing just what it is that the disciple is supposed to "share" with the teacher, of this much we may be certain: it is one thing to give voluntarily to those who are teaching the Word of God; it is quite another thing to compel the disciple to give money and withhold the Word of God from him unless he pays up! The question is, Which one of these two cases more closely resembles the seminary system? The answer of course is the latter. It's as though in Paul's list of qualifications for an elder (1 Tim 3) tucked somewhere between "not given to much wine" and "not a novice, lest he be conceited" there is the statement "and not a poor man, lest he can't afford to pay his teacher"! There can be little doubt that Paul's response would have been nothing short of outrage had anything resembling this current practice been attempted in his day.

My final objection to the seminary system has to do with the unhealthy emphasis that is given to a degree program when determining who is to be appointed an elder in the church. I personally have sat through an ordination and have many friends who have gone through the same process. Every one of them has confirmed my suspicion that the major concern of the ordination board is what the ordainee believes and where he obtained his degree rather than whether he meets the moral requirements set forth by Paul in 1 Tim 3 and Tit 1. In most cases, if the ordainee has his seminary degree he's a shoo-in. There is no serious consideration given to the lifestyle of the ordainee or whether he has proven his ability to have charge over the church of God by an examination of his family life. How could there be? None of the men on the ordination board actually knows the ordainee in any intimate way. None of them has ever made it a point to spend several months with the ordainee on an intimate basis so that the board could know for certain whether or not this man is really qualified. The most they can go by is what the ordainee says about himself--not exactly a full-proof method for determining the qualifications of a would-be elder. Again, we are forced to take a look at the apostolic pattern. When Paul did leadership training he stayed with them (as we have already seen) for two or three years. No doubt he instructed Timothy and Titus to do the same. The reason Paul had no problem emphasizing moral character as the main ingredient for an elder is because in such an intimate, one on one discipling of potential elders it would become increasingly evident who was qualified and who was not. Paul was not so much interested in mass production of elders (as seems to be the emphasis of the seminary) as he was in pouring his own life into a few "faithful" men who in turn would do the same with others. In today's seminary system it is virtually impossible to have this kind of "life-style" discipleship. The attempt by some seminaries to form fellowship groups that meet weekly with a seminary professor for one hour does little toward developing intimate relationships between mentor and prot,g,. But then that is not so surprising when one considers that the seminary is merely a product of the church, which has its own problems with accountability and intimacy.

The overall inadequacy of the seminary raises several pertinent questions. Is it wrong for someone to go to seminary? Is it wrong for seminary professors to perpetuate the seminary system by continuing to teach there? Can someone legitimately be involved in the seminary system and at the same time oppose it? Just where is the blame for all of this to be placed?

Perhaps the blame that this article seems to place upon seminaries is in fact misplaced. Perhaps the seminary is nothing more than a necessary evil. The church has abdicated its responsibility (indeed, its obligation) to train her own potential leaders. If the church won't do it then of course it is better that the seminary do it rather than it not be done at all. So, in answer to the last question, the blame ultimately falls upon those leaders in the church who refuse to heed Paul's injunction to Timothy to train other elders. I think also that it is indeed possible for someone to be involved with the seminary system and still oppose it, both for the seminarian and for the seminary professor. In the case of the seminarian, if there is no leader within his church who is willing to train him, then what is his alternative? He is not so much perpetuating the system as he is begrudgingly conforming to the system's requirements so that a greater goal may be reached--that of becoming trained so that he can train others. I include myself in this group. In the case of the seminary professor, if he is using his expertise (or at least offering to do so) to train free of charge those outside the seminary who desire to become elders, then it seems to me that he is operating within the confines of Scripture.

Another question remains, If the seminary is inadequate then what is the alternative? The alternative of course is the NT pattern of elders training other elders--and this is exactly what I am proposing. It cannot be argued that this "just won't work" because I have already seen it work. I personally have been involved with this kind of training for the past couple of years and the results have been phenomenal. One of the other editors of this newsletter (Steve Atkerson) is also currently involved in training elders in his church and he has had similar results. All of our training is based on current seminary curriculum and standard textbooks and we cover the full gamut of theological training (including biblical languages) so that nothing essential is left out. Yet we have the added advantage of knowing personally those whom we are training. We have contact with them not only during the training sessions but in the church as well. Knowing whether or not these men meet the moral requirements set forth for elders by Paul is no problem since we as a church make it a practice of holding each other personally accountable for the way we conduct our lives.

Are seminaries legitimate? Not if legitimacy is measured by the New Testament record. Seminaries undermine the method of training elders that Paul handed down to Timothy in three areas: (1) that which is supposed to be given free of charge (namely, the Word of God) is, in effect, being sold ("peddled" to use Paul's word); (2) that which is the responsibility (more, obligation) of the church (or rather, church elders--namely, the training of other elders) has been abdicated and handed over to the university; (3) the training that is received in the seminary is seen somehow as having primary importance for ordination with little or no consideration given to the moral character of the would-be elder.

Pastors and elders are in assembly line fashion being mass-produced at break-neck speeds. With such practices as these, is it any wonder that the institutional church is plagued by lack of integrity in many of her so-called leaders? Is it any wonder that so many high profile "Christian leaders" are being exposed (primarily by the unbelieving media) with sexual immorality and financial scandal? There can be little doubt that the institutional church and her sister institution, the seminary system, have acted as accomplices in the current state of affairs in the church; the former abdicates its responsibility, while the latter trivializes its responsibility. Neither of them, regardless of what is claimed, has fulfilled Paul's words to Timothy: "And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim 2:2).