Rethinking Seminaries Part 1

In the 2007 edition of the Confessional Presbyterian (vol. 3), Dr. Pipa has an article entitled “Seminary Education”.  And it is a defense of seminaries as the way to educate our future pastors.  I would like to challenge that article because I am no longer convinced seminaries are the way to go. 

Dr. Pipa begins by admitting that formerly Presbyterian ministers were the best educated men in town, and that is no longer true.  He admits that this may be the worse trained generation of ministers ever and points not just to not being the best educated, but also to the state preaching and churchmanship as proof.  He also freely admits the high cost of maintaining seminaries serves as another strike against seminaries, but he continues to believe it the best idea. 

Dr. Pipa then goes into a biblical defense of seminaries.  The main biblical support for seminaries is the “sons of the prophets” found in places 1 Samuel 10:5.  Dr. Pipa’s main argument appears to be that there was a group of people called “sons of the prophets” who appear during the time of Samuel and continue and appear to dwell with prophets and serve them.  Dr. Pipa argues that from these men are drawn future prophets, so they are sort of a prophet in training.  His proof for the assertion that most prophets came from the school of the prophets comes from Amos 7:14 where Amos denies being a sons of the prophet, but rather a man who shepherded.  He claims they studied and became the historians of the divided kingdom and he points to verses like 2 Chronicles 12:15 as proof.  Although those verses speak of Iddo the Seer and names prophets, it never says the person was from the Sons of the Prophets.  Dr. Pipa also assumes that bible training would have taken place as well as musical training and poetry readying them for life as a prophet.  Dr. Pipa concludes then the Sons of the Prophets were OT seminaries. 

Now, I think this is shaky proof at best.  We don’t really have an example of an attender of the “sons of the prophets” becoming a prophet.  Amos specifically says he was not one.  Elisha is not one despite the Sons of the Prophets being around.  Isaiah is not one.  Jeremiah is not one.  Ezekiel is not one.  Thoes three were priests.  Daniel does not appear to be one.  Neither does Zephaniah, who may also have been a priest.  These are a lot of exceptions.  The best picture of someone who was a son of the prophet being a prophet himself is in 1 Kings 20:35 where a certain man of the sons of the prophets commanded someone to strike him and he died when he did not, and that son of the prophet then delivered a prophetic message to Ahab.  Dr. Pipa is assuming that the rest of the prophets came from the sons of the prophets. 

But let me put forth an alternative suggestion.  Perhaps these sons of the prophets are the source for the 400 false prophets of 1 Kings 22.  Here there are four hundred men who are pretending to be prophets of God, but are accepted by the king and many others as legitimate prophets.  I have read some who suggest these are the 400 prophets of Ashoreth that are not mentioned as being killed by Elijah on Mt. Carmel, but how would they be accepted as legitimate if they all switched from Ashoreth to Jehovah?  Something has happened to make people believe these prophets are legitimate.  And what of the false prophets like Hananiah opposing Jeremiah in places like Jeremiah 28?  Could they not be products of the sons of the prophets?  It might help us understand why so many listened to the wrong voices.  Would this not mean that the Bible is really telling us seminaries are dangerous and should be avoided at all costs because they will lead the church astray?  This seems to fit a bit better with more modern historical evidence like Calvin Seminary and the CRC or the Mercersburg Seminary and the RCUS. 

But in the end, the Bible is not saying either what I just put forth or what Dr. Pipa puts forth.  We are both drawing conclusions through assumptions.  The Bible in the end is not saying anything about seminaries.  Yes, it teaches we should have an educated clergy (see 1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 2).  But, the how of that education is really not spelled out.  This gives the church freedom to do what they deem best to educate men for the ministry. 

Next I will look at some of Dr. Pipa’s historical points. 

Trump, Evangelicals, and the Mega-church

Donald Trump.  He is the front runner to be the next President of the United States.  And he is doing so with large evangelical support.  This has many baffled and searching for explanations.  Is it pent up rage?  Is it an anti-establishment mood?  People are desperately searching for an answer to the question how could evangelicals vote for Donald Trump?

I have my own theory.  Mega-Churches. 

I don’t think we should be all that surprised that Donald Trump is winning evangelical votes.  The surprise is based off the premise that evangelicals care about spiritual issues, and thus they are not only going to pay attention to issues like abortion, but also pay attention to the content of one’s character.  This I think is no longer true.  The new model evangelical is a mega-church evangelical.  And this model is different. 

According to some studies at least 10% of Protestants today attend a mega-church each Sunday.  The number is probably a little higher when we limit it to evangelicals and remove the liberal mainline Protestants from the equation.  The number is even bigger if you count the churches that are imitating mega-churches, but have not achieved the actual magic number to be a mega-church (which is 2,000).  This is a significant number of evangelicals attending mega-churches or mega-churches-lite.  What is it then that makes this group so different? 

The answer is the mega-churches and mega-church attender are generally personality driven not doctrinally driven.  The day of the evangelical choosing based on beliefs is long gone.  Today churches are chosen based on the personality behind the pulpit (personality should not be confused with character).  Evangelicals choose their church based on names like Andy Stanley, Mark Driscoll, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and Craig Groschel.  Evangelicals are not choosing churches based on names like United Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Reformed Church in the United States.  And these mega-church pastors for the most part are not stopping at one church.  No, they have multi-site churches today so that even more people can choose to come to their church even if they are in Seattle and the worshiper is in Phoenix.  These mega-church pastors have larger than life personalities, and it comes across in person or through the TV screen worship broadcast.  The mega-church is at its base a personality driven phenome. 

Just in case you disagree let us just review some facts.  Crystal Cathedral evaporated into bankruptcy once Robert Schuller left the pulpit.  His own son could not do anything about it.  Now the church has been sold.  Bill Hybels saw attendance at his church plummet when he stepped back to be the “international minister”.  Jimmy Swaggart had 7,000 worshippers on a Sunday before his scandal.  After his second scandal the church dropped to about 500 on a Sunday.  Now that he is back on airwaves again, the church is back up to about 5,000.  Mars Hill did not survive Mark Driscoll’s departure.  In fact at least a couple of the satellite locations completely closed as well.  One could go on. 

So if this is how many evangelicals choose church, why are we surprised this is how they choose a President?  Evangelicals are voting for Trump because they are attracted to big personalities and beliefs are not so important any more.  Trump is easily the biggest personality of the bunch, and the fact he had his own TV show doesn’t hurt either. 

This is the new reality for the evangelical movement.  Gone are the days of beliefs, standards, and fundamentals.  Here are the days of personalities, controversies, and bombast.  The church always leads the way for culture and this disappointing trend is no different.