Increasing morale problems of ministers, departures from the ministry and the beginning of a new independent Reformed seminary in Iowa are some of the factors which have focussed the attention of our churches on the question of what kind of training should be given to prepare for service in the gospel ministry.
Should It Be Practical or Academic?
The suggestion has been made that whereas churches establish seminaries to train for practical service in the gospel ministry of those churches, such schools in their development have only too often succumbed to the temptation of seeking academic status and so trained students to be scientific theologians instead of gospel ministers.
There is a certain plausibility about this suggestion to anyone who is familiar with the academic world. One of the most common complaints about universities is that while their practical business is supposed to be to teach students, the professor’s status and honors do not depend upon his teaching efforts and ability but upon his earned degrees, research and getting his scientific studies into print so as to gain the recognition of his peers. Accordingly, the teaching and education of his students is neglected. It does not seem unreasonable that the same criticism should apply to theological seminaries.
In the theological seminaries that kind of development can get an even more subversive kind of twist in working against the continuing orthodoxy of the churches which depend upon the seminaries to train their ministers. The accrediting organization established by the various seminaries tends to be liberal in theology and can readily use its influence to promote that kind of development in the curriculum which it approves. When the Missouri Synod Lutherans a few years ago insisted that their Concordia Seminary in St. Louis be brought back to the orthodox doctrine of the churches, the accrediting organization, according to reports, tried to intimidate the churches by defending the “academic freedom” of the Liberal professors against whom the churches were acting.
In spite of the real danger to the training of ministers that there is in such academic developments, I do not believe that the suggestion that we ought to seek “practical” rather than “academic” training is valid. These should not be considered alternatives. An adequate training for the gospel ministry should be academically thorough and should include the study of the languages in which the Bible was written.
Warfield on Seminaries
Almost a century ago Dr. B.B. Warfield, the famous Presbyterian theologian, stated very clearly the reasons why that kind of training was necessary. His writings on this subject were printed in an article on “Our Seminary Curriculum” in The Presbyterian of September 15, 1909 and in another on “The Purpose of the Seminary” in the November 22, 1917 issue of the same paper. (Both are reprinted in Vol. I of his Selected Shorter Writings issued by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 369–378.)
Erroneous Views of the Ministry
In the first article Dr. Warfield observed that confusion regarding proper seminary curriculum was arising out of confusion about the functions of the ministry for which it was supposed to prepare. He saw among the churches a lowered view of the ministry which made extensive training seem unnecessary. “If the minister comes to be thought of . . . as merely the head of a social organization from whom may be demanded pleasant manners and executive ability; or as little more than a zealous ‘promoter’ who knows how to seek out and attach to his enterprise a multitude of men; or as merely an entertaining lecturer who can . . . charm away an hour or two of dull Sabbaths; or even . . . an infinitely higher conception_as merely an enthusiastic Christian eager to do work for Christ . . . we might as well close our theological seminaries.” “The ‘three R’s’ will constitute all the literary equipment they require; their English Bible their whole theological outfit; and zeal their highest spiritual attainment.”
Warfield saw a secularized conception of the minister, pioneered by the Unitarians, invading “evangelical circles.” “Extremes meet. Pietist and Rationalist have ever hunted in couples and dragged down their quarry together. They may differ as to why they deem theology mere lumber, and would not have the prospective minister waste his time in aquiring it. The one loves God so much, the other loves Him so little, that he does not care to know Him. The simple English Bible seems to the one sufficient equipment for the minister, because . . . it seems to him enough for the renovating of the world just to lisp its precious words to man. It seems to the other all the theological equipment a minister needs, because in his view the less theology a minister has the better. He considers him ill employed in poring over Hebrew and Greek pages, endeavoring to extract their real meaning—for what does it matter what their real meaning is? The prospective minister would, in his opinion, be better occupied . . . in learning to know that social animal Man, by tracing out the workings of his social aptitudes and probing the secrets of his social movements.”
God’s High Calling
“But, if the minister is the mouth-piece of the Most High, charged with a message to deliver, to expound and enforce; standing in the name of God before men, to make known to them who and what God is, and what His purposes of grace are, and what His will for His people—then the whole aspect of things is changed. Then, it is the prime duty of the minister to know his message; to know the instructions which have been committed to him for the people, and to know them thoroughly; to be prepared to declare them with confidence and exactness, to commend them with wisdom, and to urge them with force and defend them with skill, and to build men up by means of them into a true knowledge of God and of His will, which will be unassailable in the face of the fiercest assault. No second–hand knowledge of the revelation of God for the salvation of a ruined world can suffice the needs of a ministry whose function it is to convey this revelation to men, commend it to their acceptance and apply it in detail to their needs—to all their needs, from the moment that they are called into participation in the grace of God, until the moment when they stand perfect in God’s sight, built up by His Spirit into new men. For such a ministry as this the most complete knowledge of the wisdom of the world supplies no equipment; the most fervent enthusiasm of service leaves without furnishing. Nothing will suffice for it but to know; to know the Book; to know it at first hand; and to know it through and through. And what is required first of all for training men for such a ministry is that the Book should be given them in its very words as it has come from God’s hand and in the fulness of its meaning, as that meaning has been ascertained by the labors of generations of men of God who have brought to bear upon it all the resources of sanctified scholarship and consecrated thought.”
In the second article Warfield, eight years later, restated the same plea for a seminary concentrating on Biblical training. He reminded us that Christ has sent the minister “to preach the gospel; not to ameliorate the lot of men, but to carry them to salvation . . . and the business of the minister is to apply the saving gospel to lost men for their salvation from sin—from its guilt and from its corruption and power. Palpably, what he needs for this is just the gospel; and if he is to perform his functions at all, he must know this gospel, know it thoroughly, know it in all its details, and in all its power. It is the business of the seminary to give him this knowledge of the gospel. That is the real purpose of the seminary.”
“We may talk of ‘the simple gospel’ being enough; and we may thank God that the gospel is simple, and that it is enough. But it is no simple matter rightly to apply this simple gospel in all the varied relations of life. . . . ”
For this . . . he (the minister) needs to know the gospel: to know it at first hand, and to know it through and through. All the work of the seminary must be directed to just this end.
“Of course, ‘the simple preaching’ of the ‘simple gospel’ will not fail of its effect. The loving lisping of the name of Jesus by the lips of a child may carry far. But that is not reason why we should man our pulpits with children lisping the name of Jesus. The foolishness of preaching is one thing; foolish preaching is another.” “If knowledge without zeal is useless; zeal without knowledge is worse than useless—it is positively destructive.” Warfield concluded by recalling that the zealous William Farel felt the need to call for the help of John Calvin in the Reformation in Geneva—“John Calvin, scholar become saint, scholar–saint become preacher of God’s grace.” “What we need in our pulpits is scholarsaints become preachers.” Preparing such men, he saw as “the one business of the theological seminaries.”
With such an exalted view of his calling, need anyone be surprised that Warfield, the prince of theologians, became a legend to men he helped to train and inspire with enthusiasm for the gospel ministry?
One of the most common complaints about preachers—often although not only heard after classical examinations—is that they do not know our faith in its Biblical definition and detail. How can anyone effectively teach, defend and promote what he does not know? If seminaries are to prepare ministers of the gospel, they must, as Calvin and Warfield saw so clearly, train them in that gospel.