Celebrity Pastor and Seminaries

You read a lot today about the Celebrity Pastor and the problem and even how to fix it.  Opinions vary on the causes and solutions.  Sometimes it is an overhaul that includes no multisite churches, or the Evangelical Industrial Complex, or calls to humility and proper ambition, or even just simple accountability.  But I wonder if there is another factor . . . seminaries.

Today the vast majority of seminaries use “celebrity” professors as a way to lure you to their seminary.  These seminaries almost always have at least one well-liked, well published professor.  The better the finances of the seminary the more publishing by more professors, usually also equals more students.  You don’t need me to name the big names at each seminary you probably know them off the top of your head.  Besides the problem here is not in professors who write good books, but in the attraction students have to them. 

Modern seminaries also love distinctions.  You need something that sets your seminary apart.  What makes Westminster in Escondido, CA different than the rest?  What makes Mid America distinct so that you should go there?  Yes, this is promoted and encouraged.  And it is hard to blame the seminaries for doing it.  It is what businesses are supposed to do.  Carve out your place and grow that place.  And independent seminaries are no different. 

So perhaps part of the “celebrity pastor” begins with seminary.  We want future ministers to go to the seminaries with big names, but then when they get into the pastorate we don’t want them to pursuing having a big name or follow other pastors with big names. 

If we really want to fight against the cult of celebrity, we have to fight it everywhere, including in our seminaries.

Rethinking Seminaries Part 6

The Apprentice Model of the Seminary has many advantages over an academic model.  First and foremost among them is that it returns training of ministers to the church. 

Today in the Academic model most Presbyterian and Reformed churches garner graduates from many independent seminaries around the country.  Independent seminaries like Reformed Theological Seminary (insert whichever city name here), Mid America Reformed Seminary, Westminster Seminary California, Westminster Theological Seminary, New Geneva, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the list goes on.  In almost every instance the diploma serves as proof that the man is ready to at least sit for exams.  Most denominations have a program that oversees men pursuing the ministry, but it often is little more than checking up on studies at the seminary.  There a few denominations that have denominational seminaries, but they still have the problems of the academic model.  The CRC and Calvin Theological seminary exemplify the tail of the seminary wagging the dog because the academic institution was not so much under the church as over it.  The Canadian Reformed Church also has a seminary in Hamilton.  It too is on an academic model.  Even here the graduates are assumed to be ready for service in the church without really ever having been around serving the church.

The Apprentice Model gives a different kind of oversight for the denomination.  Each candidate would be intimately known, along with his family, and his gifts and abilities along with his spiritual temperament would have been assessed regularly, by both the pastor serving as the mentor, but also the elders.  The pastor would be able to train him theologically, and when he was ready, he would then begin to get his toe into ministry.  He would be able to do some guided teaching, maybe lead catechism, eventually give a sermon or two.  The elders would be able to give feedback and see all of it.  The apprentice would meet and sit in on Consistory or Session meetings and learn the value of elders up close and know how the system works.  The giftedness in teaching could actually be evaluated and not just his giftedness at writing a paper.  A paper and a sermon are not the same thing.  Being able to read Turretin and teach 1^st graders are not the same thing.  This way the church has complete oversight over both the instruction and the student.  If the student is not cut out for the ministry, he can be gently told, and the apprenticeship can stop.

This is direct oversight by the church over every area of ministerial training.  It is not mediated through an independent contractor, who may have other motivations or not share your ideals. 

It is better for the student as well because he has not had to uproot his family, quit his job, and sink thousands of dollars into something that he may not be called to do or cut out for.  He would be able to see what ministry was first hand, and see if he still felt this was his calling.  He would be able to do so at low cost and low risk, so that if either he was not cut out for it or decided he was not called to do it, an easy exit would be painless for him and his family. 

The Presbytery and Classis could then proceed to a theological exam to see if he was knowledgable enough for the ministry.  Frankly, this is the part that most denominations do well.  The exams are great to discover knowledge.  Where they are weak is in character, calling, and commitment.  These are all addressed already by the church when the church is the one actually doing the teaching and overseeing.

Sure no method is fool proof.   But a church that has tried the student, taught the student, and lived with the student for years would be able to come before the Classis or Presbytery and give an honest and open account of the spiritual character and commitment of the individual, who himself would have a better understanding of his internal calling. 

Returning training to the church in the Apprentice Model gives the church back the ability to know the men they make into ministers. 

Rethinking Seminaries Part 5

So what is the better way than seminaries?  I think it is the apprenticeship model. 

The whole world used apprenticeships for every kind of vocation for centuries.  You go and stay with a person already in the vocation.  You learn from him, are taught by him, get hands on experience that ends up helping both you and the man already in the job, and then you are ready and you go out on your own.  The same principle is easily applicable to ministry.

One could easily argue that this is the model used in the New Testament.  Jesus had twelve disciples.  They each went out and they appeared to train up men and send them out.  Paul for example always seemed to have men around him.  Timothy, Titus, Luke, and a host of others.  Barnabas could be argued to have been with Mark or maybe he started off around those at Jerusalem like Peter.  Mark would later be with Barnabas.  Mark is usually (according to tradition) with Peter too.  But at the very least we can say the Apprenticeship model fits with Titus 1:5 and 1 Timothy 4:6-16 and other verses.  I do not argue this is the only way, I just think it a better way that what we are doing now.

The basics of this model are people who desire to get into the ministry go to be with a pastor, perhaps even their local pastor, who then apprentices the man.  He takes him under his wing, teaches him, and gives him firsthand experience in the ministry.  And I think there is a big role here for elders in that church as well. 

I can hear people already complaining that this is not academic enough.  But yes, academics would be involved.  It would simply be done on the Cambridge / Oxford system, sometimes known as the Tutorial System.  The pastor would be assign readings, the student would do them on his own, and the duo would discuss.  Oral communication would be at a premium, which is the way an eventual pastorate would be.  Writing could be required to help people organize their thoughts.  I disagree that this would be a lowering of actual knowledge gained.  I simply think this would return pastoral education to a way in which people actually were trained and prepared for the pastorate.

Having ever so briefly outlined the model I recommend, I will in future posts outline some benefits of this model.

Rethinking Seminaries Part 4

Seminaries present problems because they are based on an academic model.  This means that like any graduate school, you have to pick up and move to take years of classes.  It is true that today many seminaries offer a lot of work over the internet, but that is just watering down the actual point of the seminary, class room instruction. 

Adam Parker penned a very nice letter to his wife about her wonderful labor during his five years in seminary, and I don’t want to diminish the love and care this letter shows to his wife.  I want to emphasize the problem with seminaries this letter shows. 

Adam notes that it took 17 years after his becoming convinced he had a call to ministry to get to the place where he could go to seminary.  Seventeen years!!!!  Now, it was probably lengthened by his marriage and having children, but he did not even meet his wife until two years after he had decided he was called to the ministry.  Adam knew he was called to serve God as a pastor, but took 17 years before he was able to start training for ministry and another 5 to complete it.  In other words if Adam felt called to the ministry at age 22, he is finally able to begin following that call at age 44.  The main reason for the delay is seminary.

Seminaries are expensive.  They usually have multiple professors (three at least) who need full time salaries, and probably a full time fundraiser.  Also they are going to need some part time staff like a secretary or two, maybe a janitor, and probably one professor who only teaches from time to time, but makes the catalog look better.  This does not include insurance, a building, and travel expenses, promotional material, and office supplies.  We could go on, but the point is it takes money and lots of it to run a seminary.  At least a portion of that is going to come from the student in tuition. 

Seminaries also take time.  Remember the whole model is class room based, so we have to be in a class room for classes.  You need to be in class to earn three credit hours for each class.  There are academic standards to be met, so you can’t just pretend a class earns three credit hours.  You actually have to meet enough to earn it.  Plus you need to be doing out of class work, and so many hours per every hour in class is expected (Academic standards again).  And you need to do it for at least three years so that the degree looks academically rigorous enough.  This makes full time employment during school difficult.  If you have full time employment, it makes full time school difficult, expanding the number of years you are there. 

I don’t know how old Adam is, but what I do know is that seminary has cost him 22 years of serving the church and following his calling.  Yes, he apparently has preached some while in seminary.  That is good.  The Jackson area benefits from having so many students able to help with preaching.  But, guest preaching during seminary is more like filling in than working in the church. 

It is amazing to think that the way we train people to work in the church so far removes them from the church.  It takes them into a setting they will never see again in church work.  And it stops them from actually being able to do what they feel called to do for something like 22 years.  There has to be a better way.

Rethinking Seminaries Part 3

One of the fundamental planks of Dr. Pipa’s defense of seminaries is the superiority of Princeton to other methods of training men for the ministry. 

There are somethings that cannot be denied about Princeton.  Princeton was a place of great learning.  There is no doubt those who graduated had a tremendous education.  Princeton made a bold and beautiful stand for orthodoxy for a little over 100 years.  That cannot be denied either.  Nor can it be denied that in 1929 Princeton Seminary went liberal. 

Yes, it is true Princeton was orthodox for more than 100 years and that is longer than every other seminary, but it still went liberal.  But, it must also be noted that remaining orthodox for 100 years is not the same as being the best way to train pastors.  The stand for orthodoxy is impressive precisely because of how liberal most seminaries are and how fast they go liberal.  This really ought to be seen as the exception that proves the rule that seminaries are not the best way to educate men for the ministry. 

But let us look beyond the fight for orthodoxy.  For here is the real key to the discussion.  Were the men who graduated from Princeton good ministers, better prepared than those who came before them being trained in a different manner? 

Think about the great graduates of Princeton Theological Seminary.  You think of men like Charles Hodge, Casper Witsar Hodge Jr., Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, and J. Gresham Machen.  You know what these men had in common?  They never served a church as pastor.  B.B. Warfield was an evangelist briefly and stated supply a couple of times, but never a full time pastor.  And these are not the only names that fit this bill either (O.T. Allis, James Moffat, and J.A. Alexander for example).  Princeton had trouble training men for ministry.  Listen to the evaluation of David Calhoun, a Princeton Seminary supporter, commenting on Princeton ignoring complaints from the student body in the early 1900’s.  “Princeton had maintained faithfully the founder’s priorities in promoting ‘solid learning’ and ‘piety of heart’, but it had lost something of Alexander’s and Miller’s ability to teach and model for the students skills of ministry” (Princeton Seminary Vol. 2 pg. 269).  Or again, Princeton faculty “concentrated their energies on fighting to maintain the legacy that they had inherited from Archibald Alexander, Samuel Miller, and Charles Hodge.  However, in Old Princeton’s desperate struggle, attention to some very good things was lessened.  Sturdy biblical exposition, great preaching, and more evangelistic and missionary zeal – along with its stalwart defense of the faith – would have strengthened the Princeton cause” (Ibid. pg. 398).  Calhoun explains why this was the case, “It was difficult to find the scholar-pastor-preacher combination to fill the need, and there was apparently some reluctance on the part of the faculty to develop this department fully, fearing that it would detract from the more “academic” work of the seminary” (Ibid., pg216). 

And there lies my chief complaint about the modern seminary.  It is based on the “academic” model, and what will always be stressed above all else is academics.  Dr. Pipa is holding Princeton out as a standard even though Princeton willingly sacrificed preaching and practical pastoral theology in favor of academics. 

Princeton did produce wonderful scholars and theologians.  Some of the best in American History without a doubt.  They produced not only replacements for themselves as professors, but also filled the chairs of other theological seminaries.  Men like William Henry Campbell (professor of languages at New Brunswick Seminary, and later President of Rutgers) who followed the Princeton theology, and some who didn’t like John Williamson Nevin (at Mercersburg Seminary), and some who were in the middle like James Petigru Boyce (founder of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).  And for the record none of those men served as a pastor for any real amount of time.  In the end, Princeton failed to produce enough solid biblical preachers and pastors to combat the worldly influence and the church’s slide toward liberalism.  And producing solid biblical preachers was the weakest part of the Seminary.  Obviously there were many other factors in the Presbyterian Church’s slide into liberalism, but Princeton’s failure in the area of pastor training cannot be overlooked or excused either. 

After all this is a discussion of the best way to train men for the ministry, training men to be pastors, not training men to be future seminary professors. 

Rethinking Seminaries Part 2

Continuing a discussion about seminaries started from Dr. Pipa’s article “Seminary Education” from the Confessional Presbyterian 2007, we move into the discussion of how seminaries came into existence historically.

Dr. Pipa begins with the catechetical school in Alexandria.  This began as a place to train new converts, but apparently at some point begins training men for the ministry too.  Dr. Pipa admits that this first seminary fails and leads the church into error because of its foundation on the allegorical approach and Greek Philosophy.  This example then seems to be as much against seminaries as for them.

The Middle Ages presents the monasteries as the equivalent of seminaries.  Here Dr. Pipa suggests the monks were often better educated than the priests, and he points to Jerome in Palestine and Cassiodorus in Italy.  The problem here is he often neglects how in the middle ages the monks were bigger problems too.  It is the monks of Egypt who kill Bishop Flavius of Constantinople at the Robber Council of Ephesus.  It is the monks who demand the reinstatement of images and the Second Council of Nicaea while many priests were opposed to the images.  Leaving out such prominent negative examples seems to cast doubt on the supremacy of this method of training men for the ministry.  One could also make the argument that training men to be monks is not the same as training men for the ministry, but we will not pursue that avenue. 

I must admit that I am a little surprised Dr. Pipa leaves out the school of Charlemagne.  Perhaps because it was not meant to be for men going into the ministry, but just people in general.  Although it seems probable that some of Charlemagne’s illegitimate children were educated here and ended up in the ministry like Hugo and Drogo.  It was here Charlemagne gathered Alcuin, Theodulf of Orleans, Einhard, and others helped create a Caroligian Renaissance.  If Dr. Pipa ought to include counter examples, so should I. 

Dr. Pipa then points to the early Universities that helped spawn the Reformation.  The University system clearly aided the rise of the Reformation with the majority of Reformation leaders coming from Universities.  However, this could also serve as a counter example.  The point of the University was to turn out men in the Roman Catholic Church, but failed miserably by letting people read the Bible and allowing criticism of the church and non-conformity.  While these university/seminaries were great for the Reformation they failed in their job to provide an educated clergy for the Roman Catholic Church.

Dr. Pipa also notes the early American colleges that were meant for training ministers.  Harvard was founded just a few years after the colony itself was founded.  It was clearly important to the Puritan men.  He goes onto say that when “Harvard began to slip, Yale was formed; when Yale began to slip, Princeton developed. (pg.225)”  This is true, but shouldn’t this be another sign of the problems with seminaries?  And if we continue to look at this trend when doctrinal divisions arise the parties often responded with their own college.  College of Delaware was Old Side to combat Princeton (New Side).  Kings and Queens college were founded by opposing sides of the Dutch Reformed church.  We could go on.  This seems to point to a controversial nature embedded in seminaries that I think is part of the problem.  More on that to come. 

But Dr. Pipa sees some of these problems.  His answer to the failing results of seminaries is found in systematic theology, classical education, and a confessionally united faculty.  This, for Dr. Pipa, protects against the slide to liberalism by demanding confessional fidelity as well as not jettisoning systematic courses for practical theology (a problem he believes many modern seminaries have pg.228).  Much of this is taken from Princeton Seminary and their founding documents and teaching with slight updating to hit modern problems and issues. 

Yet a glaring problem is that Dr. Pipa assumes the greatness and superiority of Princeton rather than actually proving it (probably for lack of space in the article).  It is however an issue that deserves closer attention.

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. 

Time to reconsider the Seminary

Perhaps the time has come for us to completely abandon the seminary model.  Don't quit reading just because of the radical nature of that comment.  Remind yourself the church existed for 1800 years without it.  Let us just look for a moment at the fruit of the seminary.

Most Reformed and Presbyterians would agree the high point of the seminary was Old Princeton.  It gave us B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, Archibald Alexander, and J. Gresham Machen just to name a few.  It was faithful for 100 years.  And we can be thankful for those great men. 

Yet, during this 100 years of faithfulness the Presbyterian Church split multiple times.  It had the Old School - New School split.  It had the Northern church and Southern Church split as even the Old School guys could not manage to stay together.  And the 100 years ended when the Liberals took over and the OPC split occurred.  Prior to the creation of Princeton Seminary the denomination split 1 time for a total of 17 years before it reunited.  And that split revolved around the proto-seminary of the "Log College" under the Tennent family. 

The RCUS had a similar experience splitting for the first time when they created a seminary and required men to go there.  What would become Mercersburg Theological Seminary started off an entire generation of warfare in the RCUS ending with liberalism in control.

And let us not forget that these seminaries feuded with each other.  Princeton feuded with Union Theological Seminary over Scripture.  Princeton and Mercersburg feuded over the Lord's Supper.  And we could go on and on.

Today the situation is even worse.  Westminster Seminary California feuds with Mid America Reformed Seminary over Two Kingdoms.  Reformed Theological Seminary fires a professor for his creation views, and Knox is right there to hire him.  Covenant Seminary is in the middle of fights for the PCA putting it occasionally at odds with Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  Westminster Theological Seminary cut ties with Westminster Seminary California because they are not the same, and Knox cut ties with its western campus, which becomes New Geneva Theological Seminary, because they are not compatible.  And these debates/arguments do not stay at seminary, they are brought into the church.  If you disagree, go tell a recent MARS graduate you are Two Kingdoms and just see how the conversation goes. 

And should I even get started on the "Academic Freedom" issues?  This issue comes up any time we get a Norman Shepherd or Peter Enns, and it is brought up because the seminary is modeled after academia where academic freedom is deemed an important thing.  The seminary model is the academic graduate school model.  You go to class, pass class, and get your higher degree.  Professors are encouraged to publish, and need to be a drawing point for the seminary. 

The problem with this is of course ministry is not an academic pursuit.  I am not saying people should not be educated or smart.  By no means!  But there are other ways to get an educated ministry.  And one is the old mentorship model or even the Oxford model that is mostly reading based.  Even a return to the Log College or Swamp College days would be preferred.  The academic model has been tried now for 200 years, and it seems to be failing. 

The academic model has brought us the "celebrity" pastor culture.  It has brought on a multiplication of independent seminaries, which are not the church.  The very nature of the independent seminary beast seems to require a quarreling about words in order to draw out a niche group of students so that the seminary can make money, which will also lead those seminaries to give degrees to men who are not gifted nor qualified for ministerial office.  Telling a passing student "you are not cut out for this job" is something that probably never happens at seminaries because 1) its the church's job and 2) they need the tuition.  Does this cross the line of I Timothy concerning "godliness for gain" and needless "quarreling about words"?  It is worth thinking about. 

At the very least it is time to stop and give honest assessment to how we are training men for the ministry.  The seminary model has serious problems that the church cannot afford to ignore. 

Scholar Pastors and the decline of Conservative Presbyterianism

I want to interact for a moment with William Evans's article about the Decline of Conservative Presbyterianism.  I want to interact with it because I think it has missed the boat entirely by misplacing where the influence flows.

You should read the article, but in summary he has 5 reasons for the supposed decline: declining prominence of conservative scholarship, intramural squabbles, unfinished theological business, tenuous situation of Presbyterian seminaries, splintering of the Presbyterian and Reformed presence into denominational locations.  

Do you notice anything about these complaints?  Let me help.  They all revolve around the academic world.  If one can draw conclusions from his list of problems the solution to greater Presbyterian and Reformed influence is fewer seminaries with greater cooperation among denominations in order to produce great scholars who focus on finishing the Reformation rather than petty debates.  Is this really the way churches grow?  I hate to break it to Dr. Evans, but the days of the Princeton Review are gone, and the days of people reading that review are not coming back.  The culture is not drifting away from Christianity because we do not have a strong intellectual arguments.  Churches are not going away from the Reformed Faith because we lack a new Calvin.  

Let me quote a sentence from his article.  "Concurrent with this we see the rise of the "scholar-pastor" model in Presbyterian circles".  While I was at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary they often talked of the importance of the "scholar-pastor", so I agree with him that this model is on the rise and in the ascendency in Reformed and Presbyterian circles.  However, unlike Dr. Evans, I see it as the problem.  

The scholar-pastor breeds the intramural squabbles (though I disagree that some of the things he has listed are intramural, some are quite fundamental).  It also leads to the breeding of Presbyterian Seminaries.  If I am a scholar, then I am able to teach at the seminary level.  And if no seminary currently supports my view, I can start my own.  It is really quite logical.  And thanks to rose colored glasses we use to look at Princeton Seminary, we all think a good seminary can do great things.  

Don't get me wrong, I am not against a strong academic rigor to our theology.  But, I think it is time we split the "scholar-pastor" back into "scholar" and "pastor".  Or at least get the order right and be "pastor" first because ultimately that is where the influence is best applied.  It is the pastor not the academic who is on the ground fighting the fight.  it is the church planter who is out in the field gathering the harvest.  It is the church to which Christ has entrusted the Word of God, not the seminary.  

Too often we forget this important fact.  We forget it everywhere.  Take for example our great love for Calvin.  And love him we should.  But do we realize that Calvin never took a city from Romanism to Reformed.  Geneva had already declared for the Reformation long before Calvin came to town.  Does anyone even know who the pastor was who helped led Schaffhausen into the Reformation?  The Reformation happened not led by a seminary or a scholar from afar, but rather pastors on the ground, often working together, to transform the world for Christ by the gospel.  And that is the hope for the future too.

If it were up to me, I would encourage less small seminaries, and instead use Log College models or better yet Swamp College models, and return to the mentorship model of educating men for the ministry.  Sure there would always be a few of those grand professional educational institutions, and they play a role, but not THE role.  No, that is done on Sunday mornings from the pulpit and by the members of the body Christ "equipped for the work of the ministry" not by reading scholarly works but by the "pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11-16).  

A Response to the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Tim Challies is a well known and very good blogger. So, I hesitate to cross swords with this master, but he recently blogged something I felt compelled to debunk. It was a blog about Homeschooling as a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to Public Schools. Mr. Challies was commenting on a new book by Al Mohler who calls for Christians to get an exit strategy from public schools, and then goes on to talk about how godless they are and give examples. Mr. Challies asks the question of whether or not withdrawing the godly from the schools will help with the problem of the schools being godless and wonders out loud if the homeschooling movement has helped create or at least worsen the problem they complain about.

Before I get going on this critique, I should just let you know where I stand on homeschooling. I am homeschooling my kids, but I don’t consider myself a rabid homeschooler. I agree wholeheartedly with a recent report my denomination did on the subject. The Bible clearly places the parents responsible and accountable for their kids education. However, we can go no further in binding consciences than that. The parents are responsible, and if they see fit to delegate the act of educating to others, then it is biblically allowable. It does not remove responsibility or accountability, but it is not anti-Christian to send kids to public school, or private school, or a Christian school. It is about each parent making what they think is the best choice for their kids. For me, I choose homeschooling. You may want to choose something else.

Now, Mr. Challies makes this biblical suggestion about leaving kids in the public school. After mentioning that Canadian schools are not as bad off as American schools and thinking that might be because homeschooling is not as big in Canada, he goes to the bible for support of his reasoning.

I wonder sometimes about a “Genesis 18” principle. In Genesis 18 we read of Abraham interceding for Sodom and for his people in that city. “Then Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’” Abraham asks God, pesters God even, whether God will preserve the city for the sake of the righteous. Will God preserve the city because His people are in it? God answers in the affirmative. And is it possible, I wonder, that the Canadian system has been preserved more than its American counterpart because God’s people have remained there? Perhaps this is a long shot; perhaps I am abusing the text and the principle it teaches; but I can’t help but wonder. Would we not expect God to preserve an institution where His people are present and are attempting to make inroads for His glory?

It is this argument that I think needs to be discussed because I do believe Mr. Challies is wrong on this point. Very wrong, in fact.

First, I do think he is misusing the passage a little and making it say something that I do not believe it is saying. In Genesis 18 God does agree that for 10 righteous souls he will not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but alas 10 righteous cannot be found. This passage, however, does not say that 10 righteous souls would prevent Sodom from being so sinful in the first place. It seems to me the principle of Genesis 18 is that God will be generous with mercy for the sake of the righteous. It does not say that God will allow 10 righteous to influence a corrupt system for the good.

Second, I think the passage actually goes on to teach exactly the opposite of what Mr. Challies argues. If we look we find Lot’s family living in a place of degenerate sinfulness. Does the passage show Lot influencing the city for good or does the passage show Lot being influenced by the city. Well, we see Lot offer his daughter in place of the angel visiting him. A morally questionable motive. We see Lot’s wife look back with longing in her heart for the sinful life of Sodom. We see Lot’s daughter sleeping with him after Lot is drunk. It seems to me that one of the principles of Genesis 18 is exactly what many homeschoolers are stating, ‘Bad company corrupts good morals.’ One cannot be immersed in Sodom and remain unscathed.

What makes Canadian schools have less anti-christian rage than American public schools? I don’t know. It could be that Canada is farther along in removing Christian influence from the society at large (see hate speech laws and other such things). Maybe the churches there are not as active in politics, or maybe the educational elite do not want to create a mass exodus of the system and thus do not push their anti-christian worldview. Who knows? I am just fairly sure there is a better explanation than Christians in the schools creates a better influence. At the very least that argument runs counter to Genesis 18 and other similar examples found in Scripture.

Random Thoughts

My favorite team in the NBA, the Denver Nuggets, have recently acquired my least favorite player and the embodiment of all that is wrong in basketball, Allan Iverson. Ever since the rumors began to float about a trade to the Nuggets, I was sure the end of my favorite team was around the corner. However, I must admit that I think the Nuggets made a decent deal, if they had to make it. While I still think making the trade at all was bad for the long run, I can see a benefit for the playoffs by adding someone else who can score, especially from the outside. Better yet, they did not have to trade future star, Nene. By only giving away a mediocre starter who could not hit long jumpers and a bench player who is worthless, the team avoided killing the franchise. I wish they could have kept at least one of the first round picks, but I guess they are willing to bet the team they have now is going to win the West. Anyway, the trade was still a bad idea, but at least I still have hope for the team overall.

On a more serious note, The video a Girl Like Me repeats the doll test of Brown v Board of Education with results that have cause a bit of a stir. It has made many think that racism and stereotypes are still rampant in this country. I want to state up front that segregation was an evil most foul, lest anyone try to twist my next words. I think ABC and those reacting to this test are overreacting and failing to ask a basic question. What everyone would be saying if those kids in Harlem had picked the white doll as the bad doll and black doll as the good doll? Would that indicate that people were being taught to hate those who have different skin color than themselves? Perhaps it is time we realized that this test has no right answer because it demands a value judgment based on skin color. Both answers are racist answers. I do pray for the day when racism ends, but this test means little to nothing.

English Only

Lately I have been thinking a bit about immigration and English as the official language of America. I have heard the arguments on both sides. Some say that English is the language of the American culture and if you want to be a part, you need to speak the language. I know people who cannot get jobs as teachers because they are not bi-lingual and that seems unfair. Others claim that it is not merciful to make old men learn new languages, and that one culture is not necessarily better than another. Both make some good points.

I do believe that I am in favor of making English the official language and requiring those who wish to immigrate here learn English. The reason is because multiculturalism is dangerous. Do not mistake what I am saying. I am not trying to say there is something superior about cultures that speak English, but rather any time two cultures try to exist side by side, they eventually war. Language is very related to that subject. Different languages prohibit one from entering the culture. A non-Spanish speaker can never really be a part of a Spanish speaking culture until he learns the language. The same goes for any language. Different cultures with differing languages or even dialects have tried to exist side by side before, and it has not worked. Take Quebec and Canada for example. Quebec has always tried to separate from Canada because it has its own language and its own culture, and it does not like being part of Canada’s English speaking culture, and the feeling goes both ways. In fact, that problem can be traced all the way back to the American Revolution and the ‘Intolerable Acts’. One of the Intolerable Acts was allowing the newly acquired Quebec to remain French speaking and Roman Catholic. The colonists hated this idea, and during the revolution tried to invade Quebec. Even here in America the Southern accent is still viewed with disdain because at one time it was the sign of a completely different culture, a culture that the Civil War wiped out. The Southern and the Northern cultures could not exist because they were radically different. The same can be said for Ireland, and their they speak the same language. One need not look past modern Israel in this debate either. Two separate cultures cannot exist together in peace. Requiring the learning of English has worked to assimilate many different cultures already. American has always been the great melting pot. America does not have as big a problem with Islamic radicalism because we do a much better job of giving them access to American culture. England and France stand as very recent examples of violence that was homegrown. Thus, I believe it is more merciful to make that old immigrant learn English than to let his children or grandchildren die in a great deal of violence because we did not.

I look forward to some discussion on this topic.

PCA GA Results

The PCA general assembly is over, and one can begin to evaluate it though many more eye witness accounts must be gathered before a final opinion can be reached about this years GA. The big issue of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report and its distribution met with a bitter defeat. Admittedly it was a silly overture. It probably should have failed, but what worries me is that a substitute motion to create a committee to study the issue failed. The PCA is racked with these divisions of significant differences, and no one is even going to study the problem? Seems odd to me. There is a mention in the blog linked about the Standing Judicial Commission. I hope that mean there actually will be some judicial cases about this, but we will see. Somehow I doubt it.
The ‘papist’ overture failed because there is no method in place to annotate the Westminster. Probably a good thing.
They failed to condemn public schools. I am not sure where I would have stood on this issue, but I think it is important for one reason. You will note that this is a motion brought by several individuals, not a presbytery. One of the individuals is Dr. Kennedy, a very influential man. In fact, I think he is the motivating force behind that Justice Sunday thing. Anyway, his motion failed. I just think it is interesting that Dr. Kennedy could not get a presbytery to move on his motion, and now can’t get the GA to act on it either.
The overture requiring people to explain their exceptions to the WCF, and when they teach them make it known to the congregation they are not in line with the WCF on that point, failed. One would like to think that this was because of how troublesome it would be to police, but it failed because exceptions to the WCF are not that big a deal in the PCA.
The Value of Human Life is now under consideration by the PCA. I have hope that they will come back with a good statement, but it just seems odd that they have never dealt with this before, and that they had to a make a committee to study the issue. A second overture asking the GA to make a statement on the Schavio case was turned down because they now had a committee to study such things.

I have to say it was interesting to be able to sit down one night at my computer and read blogs by people attending the GA. The PCA is nothing if not market savvy. One wonders how much longer the PCA can go on ignoring its internal differences. One presbytery condemns men in other presbyteries without trying to have trials, and then the home presbytery clears them without a trial. Everything done in Ad Hoc committees. These differences will soon rend the denomination or carry it into liberalism.

Blog #2 - Culture War

World Magazine’s April 2nd issue had an interesting article about another right to life issue in South Carolina. Mr. McClanahan, a patient at the Medical University of SC, was declared unlikely to live or to recover, and, despite the fact that he regained consciousness, obviously felt pain, could move some limbs, blink answers to questions, breath without a respirator for 11 hours, and had a wife (legal guardian) who wanted everything done to save him, MUSC is trying to kill him. His heart monitor was removed, and against the wishes of the patient and the legal guardian, a DNR order was placed on his chart, which is illegal, by the way. Nurses are refusing to treat him, and no follow-up on his progress is being made. More evidence of a culture war in America.

This has gotten me to thinking about how one can actually win the culture war. If you looked solely at politics, you would think that the culture war is going well, as conservatives are being swept into office. However, a quick look around the real world will show you the falsehood of trusting in politics. Why then does the ‘other side’ seem to be winning all of the battles in this culture war? What is the answer?

First, let me state that preaching the gospel is a must, but it should be accompanied by serious effort on all our parts. More evangelism leading to more conversions is required. Amen. I am all for evangelism. But, I think that there is something else that we must do. Education. It strikes me that while there is a significant homeschooling movement, it is not enough. For even if we educate our own through homeschooling and Christian schools, people still have to go to secular institutions for higher education to prepare for a job. I have good Christian friends who were trained in medicine at MUSC. I have a brother who was trained to be lawyer at UVA. I have friends who learned architecture, art, and the principles of beauty from a secular state-sponsored school. It is hard to learn a Christian worldview of medicine, the law, or architecture if God is left out of the classroom. I am not trying to imply anything about my friends here, they are all godly men. I am simply pointing out the fact that they, and we ourselves, would all be wiser if churches, denominations, and the like returned to the business of training men and women for life via education, and higher education at that. There was a time when there was only one secular school in the nation, the University of Pennsylvania, and all of the teachers there were Anglican priests or Presbyterian pastors.

I am becoming firmly convinced that if the church does not return to the work of education, then the church will not win the culture war.