This past week I discovered first hand why a seminary education must be a requirement for the pastorate. At first I didn't necessarily believe this. Seminaries were presented to me as being cemeteries--a place where the liberals or the "dead in Christ" called home. Of course I didn't want anything to do with that. After speaking to many people from various seminaries--including the staff members--I realized that this representation of seminary was not only a misrepresentation, but a flat-out lie. It is true that some seminaries are worthy of abstaining, but on the other hand, there are many seminaries that preach Christ and have a heart for the ministry. I've even taken a class at a decent seminary. People would say to me, quoting 1 Cor 8:1 that "knowledge puffs up, but love edifies," thus meaning that seminary is all about knowledge and so we must rely upon the Spirit solely in pursuit of studying the bible. Yet how many of these people that argue that a seminary education is bad, really know why? They think they do, but the problem is that most of them only know what they've been told, never knowing what it is to read the scriptures exegetically. Thankfully, I am not still in that place. Let's say this together, "having proper education is both smart and respectable."
Back to the whole reason that I am writing this now. Earlier this week I spoke with a pastor as I was demonstrating our new bible software. I said, "Oh look, we even have some of these charts by Clarence Larkin," thinking that would catch his attention being a dispensationalist. He answered that he didn't believe in dispensationalism. I was astonished, thinking that he was some renegade pastor because dispensationalism was one of the very tenets of his denomination. I began explaining what dispensationalism was and he agreed with every point, but ended with, "I just don't believe in that." Though I am not a dispensationalist myself, I found it very odd that a person who subscribed to that very doctrine (in a denomination that requires it), did not even know its own label. He was very confused on this matter to say in the least.
I just continued with my demonstration until he made a second interesting statement. He said that the NIV is a very poor translation because it omits the name "Jesus" in over 200 places. I could not refrain from interrupting him as he continued to bag on a decent translation. I gave him a suggestion of a book to read that might help him to have a better grasp on the argument, but he was not open to any further reading because his mind was made, his position firm. He basically told me that the NIV was unreliable because Westcott and Hort were bad Christians. I told him that his argument was fallible because 1) it was ad hominem and an attack against someone's character has no value when we have 5,500 manuscripts to look at, and 2) Westcott and Hort are not even responsible for the text of the NIV. Then I asked him if he wanted to play the whole "ad hominem game" because Erasmus, the founder of his text (the Textus Receptus) was remembered most for being a humanist. He said that it didn't matter because the KJV was God's inspired text. You can ask Seth, the pastor actually said that the KJV was inspired by God. He basically concluded that he felt like it was the right text and that nothing was going to change his mind.
All I wanted to do was to open, just a tad, that closed mind of his. His problem is two-fold. First he was uneducated concerning the issues at hand, but Second, he was unwilling to become educated. He had asked me if I had heard a certain tape series on the topic. The tapes were by the head pastor in the denomination. I told him that I had heard the tapes and thought they misrepresented the issues. He then concluded that I was badly mistaken because I disagreed with his denominational head and so I must speak to that person to get my head on right. The root of the issue, I believe, is that in this denomination a proper education as preparation for the pastorate is both not required nor esteemed. If one was to go to seminary they need to be extra careful that they do not rely on their education rather than the teachings of the Holy Spirit. Yet if that pastor that I had been talking to actually went to seminary he would know what he believes concerning eschatology, and also would know the arguments about bible versions and etc. Ignorance in the pastorate is a sad thing and I would absolutely hate to sit under a pastor each week that did not know what in the world he was talking about.
Back to the whole reason that I am writing this now. Earlier this week I spoke with a pastor as I was demonstrating our new bible software. I said, "Oh look, we even have some of these charts by Clarence Larkin," thinking that would catch his attention being a dispensationalist. He answered that he didn't believe in dispensationalism. I was astonished, thinking that he was some renegade pastor because dispensationalism was one of the very tenets of his denomination. I began explaining what dispensationalism was and he agreed with every point, but ended with, "I just don't believe in that." Though I am not a dispensationalist myself, I found it very odd that a person who subscribed to that very doctrine (in a denomination that requires it), did not even know its own label. He was very confused on this matter to say in the least.
I just continued with my demonstration until he made a second interesting statement. He said that the NIV is a very poor translation because it omits the name "Jesus" in over 200 places. I could not refrain from interrupting him as he continued to bag on a decent translation. I gave him a suggestion of a book to read that might help him to have a better grasp on the argument, but he was not open to any further reading because his mind was made, his position firm. He basically told me that the NIV was unreliable because Westcott and Hort were bad Christians. I told him that his argument was fallible because 1) it was ad hominem and an attack against someone's character has no value when we have 5,500 manuscripts to look at, and 2) Westcott and Hort are not even responsible for the text of the NIV. Then I asked him if he wanted to play the whole "ad hominem game" because Erasmus, the founder of his text (the Textus Receptus) was remembered most for being a humanist. He said that it didn't matter because the KJV was God's inspired text. You can ask Seth, the pastor actually said that the KJV was inspired by God. He basically concluded that he felt like it was the right text and that nothing was going to change his mind.
All I wanted to do was to open, just a tad, that closed mind of his. His problem is two-fold. First he was uneducated concerning the issues at hand, but Second, he was unwilling to become educated. He had asked me if I had heard a certain tape series on the topic. The tapes were by the head pastor in the denomination. I told him that I had heard the tapes and thought they misrepresented the issues. He then concluded that I was badly mistaken because I disagreed with his denominational head and so I must speak to that person to get my head on right. The root of the issue, I believe, is that in this denomination a proper education as preparation for the pastorate is both not required nor esteemed. If one was to go to seminary they need to be extra careful that they do not rely on their education rather than the teachings of the Holy Spirit. Yet if that pastor that I had been talking to actually went to seminary he would know what he believes concerning eschatology, and also would know the arguments about bible versions and etc. Ignorance in the pastorate is a sad thing and I would absolutely hate to sit under a pastor each week that did not know what in the world he was talking about.
