FROM THE PASTOR'S PERSPECTIVE

By Martin Murphy

Theological education is at the root of a faithful biblical church. Theological education is a blessing and is a primary means of equipping men for the work of ministry. Since theological liberalism is the majority report in the church does that mean that theological education is a curse rather than a blessing? We must consider this question.

The norm for theological education is found in Scripture primarily in implicit concepts describing the relationship between the student and the teacher. Obviously a theological teacher should be a man of wisdom, orthodoxy, and a lover of the law of God. Our Lord left us with a significant statement that is most applicable to theological education. In speaking a parable to His disciples Jesus said "Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher" (Luke 6:39,40). The epistemological implications found in that text would require this whole newsletter and more, but the point is well made that the teacher will stimulate and provoke the mind to adopt a particular world and life view. Even if the theological student is well seasoned and able to defend his views, a theological professor will have some influence over the student.

My personal experience as a theological student was a bitter/sweet experience. During my four years at Columbia Bible College, I went from one class taught by an Arminian dispensationalist to another class taught by a Calvinist. Columbia Bible College and Seminary had its share of confessing Calvinists, but most were tainted with Arminianism to a greater or lesser degree. However there were a few consistent Calvinists (both students and faculty) who provided fellowship and a challenge to maintain a Reformed world and life view. The bitter/sweet experience prevents me from recommending Columbia Bible College because of their inconsistent and precarious theological views. After graduating from Columbia Bible College, I spent three years at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando Campus). It too was a bitter/sweet experience. The church growth movement advocates made a vigorous and unrelenting effort to promote their agenda through the seminary. From all indications they were successful. I know why the church growth movement invaded the ranks of theological education, but I don't know how it happened so quickly.

Why would a seminary with deep Reformed theological roots venture into atheological education? Do seminaries actually teach atheological courses? Yes! You will find an abundance of such courses available in conservative, fundamental, or Reformed seminaries. Atheological education is fundamental to the chief advocates of the church growth movement. C. Peter Wagner said "church growth principles have intentionally been kept as atheological as possible" (Church Growth and the Whole Gospel, p. 83). The church growth movement is not entirely to blame for the widespread permeation of atheological education in seminaries. The therapeutic movement (counseling department) contributes to the damage. From the annals of Robert Schullers' self esteem psychology to group psychotherapy, many seminaries are in need of a recovery program to recover from recovery.

Theological education at a seminary with Reformed standards is not without a multitude of problems. Postmodern thought significantly influences theological education. Revisionism and deconstruction hermeneutics have played a subtle role in the shift from confessional standards to broad evangelicalism and perhaps even an ecumenical spirit. It would be nice if these problems were internal and had never found their way into the church. But as Jesus said "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher." I was in a committee meeting recently with some other teaching and ruling elders. A recommendation had been made that would place church planters (ordained men in a Reformed and Presbyterian church) under the instruction of a group of Arminian seminar leaders. I argued against the proposal because of theological integrity. (That was probably a mistake since there is so little theological integrity around these days). Two ministers spoke in favor of the measure. One said, "When my wife had surgery, I didn't ask the theology of the doctor, I wanted professional advice." The other said, "Practical ministry does not need to be Reformed." These men attended seminaries that embrace Reformed theology as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Yet their statements are totally inconsistent with a Reformed epistemology and Reformed doctrinal standards. They were either not taught these standards in the seminary or either they had forgotten the standards. I am inclined to believe that their ideas came as a result of seminary training or lack thereof.

The following questions appeared on a survey conducted on the campus of a nationally known seminary. The particular seminary I have in mind subscribes to Reformed theology as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms.

Do you believe that infants should be baptized?

Yes: 41%

No: 36%

Not sure: 23%

Does man have free will to accept or reject Christ?

Yes: 25%

No: 65%

Not sure: 10%

What happens to a person who dies having never heard the gospel of Christ?

Heaven: 0%

Hell 67%

Not sure: 33%

For whom did Christ die?

Everybody: 19%

The elect: 75%

Not sure: 6%

Where did these students come up with such strange ideas? Apparently many of these students do not agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. What about the 35% of the students surveyed who believe Arminian doctrine at best and Pelagianism at worst? Are the professors (presumably Reformed, Calvinistic, and Covenant theologians) not having any influence over these students. Then there is the question of whether of not an inaugural, perhaps ever so subtle, form of annihilationism and universalism was being taught.

Our Lord's words deserve our attention again and again: "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher." When I hear about men like Dr. Philip Hughes, former professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, coming out "against hell" I can only wonder how many students were affected by his heterodoxy. Consider men like Dr. John Stott who believes that Hell does not exist and how his eschatological heresy will affect those who study under him. Maybe someone should start a campaign to save theological students from theological heretics who will be trained like their heretical teachers.

The great awakening of the 18th century was instrumental in the founding of theological academies which significantly contributed to Presbyterian theological education in this country. The famous Log College founded by William Tennent trained two or three ministers a year between 1735 and 1742. Tennent's Log College was used by the Lord to encourage others to establish academies to train ministers. One historian has traced the founding of "65 Presbyterian academies" from the time of Tennent's Log College to the end of the 18th century. The seminary replaced the academy model as modernity began to weave its web to embrace the church in the spirit of the age.

Can the academy model be useful in our high tech post modern church? Yes it can and by the grace of God I am engaged in that endeavor as I write this letter. Last month Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary approved a measure that will allow me to train men for the ministry at our location in York, Alabama, yet under the guidance and care of the seminary and by using their curriculum. Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (GPTS) is favorable toward the academy model. According to their catalog "Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary was developed according to the 'academy model' rather than the 'university model.' That is, the Seminary sees itself more as an arm of the Church than of the university. In practice this means that GPTS does not expect to develop a campus or major educational facilities. Instead, the Seminary intends to operate out of existing facilities of a church or churches. All too often in the history of seminaries, major facilities have been developed, and then the institution becomes something that is perpetuated just because of the investment in land and buildings. This means that the original purpose of the institution may be lost, but the institution is continued. . . .One of the major problems of the 'university model' as it is used for theological education is that seminary students tend to become divorced from 'real life.' That is, by providing on the campus an isolated, almost 'monastic' setting, seminaries set up an artificial atmosphere in which theological training takes place, but which does not properly prepare men to serve the Church. All too often it takes men several years to get back to a good level of communication with the average people of the congregation. By adopting the 'academy model' which keeps the seminary closely related to the local church it is hoped that this problem may be avoided."

The academy model is an alternative to the popular seminary model. The academy model will accommodate young men who have not completed their undergraduate training or the college graduate. The academy model follows a rigorous academic program (a more rigorous academic program than most of the popular seminaries) without the influence of the church growth movement, the therapeutic movement or heresies such as dispensationalism or Arminianism. Practical theology will not be just a classroom exercise. The student must be under care of a presbytery and actively involved in the ministry of the local church.

For those of you who see the church from the pulpit I hope you will ponder this question: Who will replace me in the next generation? For those of you who see the church from the pew I hope you will ponder this question: Who will preach and pastor my children and grandchildren?

Rev. Martin Murphy is the pastor of York Presbyterian Church.