In terms of quality of Part fives, I’m hoping this post will fall somewhere between Rocky V (many Rocky fans pretend this one was never made) and The Empire Strikes Back (the consensus pick as the best of the Star Wards series amongst true fans). If this is the first post you’ve read, you probably want to go back and read previous ones (1, 2, 3, and 4) to get some context on what I’m talking about. Without further ado, here’s three more ideas on how we can do a better job of training ministers to be leaders of a disciple-making movement.
5. Seriously look at the concept of ordination and how we use it and determine if it is biblically sound. There’s no doubt that the NT talks about church leadership and some ways in which to go about developing and empowering it. From my observations, the way we currently do this (the ordination process), doesn’t seem to parallel very well with what we find in the New Testament. In fact, the way we do it almost seems to match up more with the Old Testament than the New. We say we believe in the “priesthood of all believers”, but I don’t see our actions match that. Every Christian is commissioned by Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit to do the work of a minister. Sadly, the Church has taken on the identity of an institution rather than a movement. This means that priority #1 is to protect the institution. The way you do that is create structures and systems that focus on maintaining uniformity, which means you give away power to a small number people and you only give it to those who have been thoroughly educated in what is deemed important to maintaining the institution.
I don’t think our denomination has intentionally done this, but, nevertheless, this is where we find ourselves. By creating such a large gap in the level of training and education between ordained ministers and those who make up their congregations, we have inadvertently set pastors up as the experts, which means that they are seen as the primary conduits through which God speaks and works in the local church. Learning goes through them. Ministering to the body goes through them. New ministry efforts and strategies go through them. Pastors have complained for years about the lack of ministry involvement by their people. The problem is that we have trained them to do this. We have created an extremely definable separation between clergy and laity that I do not believe can be supported by the New Testament.
So what do we do about it? I think some of the ideas I mentioned in Part 4 would help this. Again, make ordination more focused on character and fruitfulness, which would have to include the ability to equip others to do ministry. This is actually the main role of leadership in the Church, but because we have an institutional mindset, we are leery of giving away ministry to those who are untrained. Perhaps we shouldn’t ordain someone who can’t point to multiple examples of being able to equip people.
6. Assess those who are still relatively new in ministry to help them know where they are most gifted and what roles might be best for them. The basic education requirements we currently have in place for ordination are heavily weighted towards pastoral ministry. As I mentioned in Part 3, God has gifted leadership in a variety of ways, and those who are pastors are just one part of that equation. If you’re gifted to be a pastor, or perhaps a teacher, you’re in luck. If you’re gifted to be an apostle, evangelist, prophet, or something else, then it’s not so easy for you. You’ll learn very little about how to function in those roles within the local church in our current education format.
So how about intentionally assessing people who are committed to ministry as they’re doing ministry? A spiritual gifts inventory can be helpful, but, in my opinion, direct observation from others tends to be more valuable in assessing giftedness and strengths. This would mean doing ministry under and with someone who’s committed to mentoring someone who’s not as experienced or educated. Once a good assessment has been done, every effort should be made to partner them with someone of a similar gift set that has been able to successfully function in that role so that they can be mentored even further.
What about adding more options into the education requirements that don’t make it quite so uniform? Perhaps keep the same amount of hours needed for ordination, but add more flexibility in terms of what classes to take based on your giftedness. After all, how important is a class about how to do Christian Education in a local church to someone who’s going to be doing the work of an apostle? I’m not saying there is no value in it, but learning about how to evaluate a culture in order to plant a church is more valuable to someone like that.
7. Decrease the role our colleges and universities play in the ordination process and find more experiential and cheaper ways of educating. This goes hand in hand with some of the other solutions I’ve laid out. I think this wasn’t a viable possibility 50, 20, or even 10 years ago. Now that information is so much more accessible due to the internet and other telecommunications advances, we no longer have to physically move to a certain location in order to receive the benefit of it. Education is much more flexible than it used to be, which is a good thing. However, Wesleyan schools are extremely expensive, as are pretty much every other private school and they’re only getting more expensive. I don’t see how scholarship money will be able to keep up with the rise in tuition over the next few years, which means students will have to keep going into more and more debt in order to get the education requirements needed for ordination. We need to adjust our ordination requirements to start allowing for education that is not received through the traditional means. The access to information we currently have is unprecedented and that access is rapidly expanding. Requiring classes in the traditional sense, even if they’re done online, doesn’t leave room for the way in which education is changing. The system needs to be rigid in its principles but flexible in its methods.
As I’ve been working on this series of posts, I think about other issues or ideas, but I think this is a good enough place for me to stop and let those of you reading step in. I didn’t start this series so that people could know what I thought. I started it in the hopes of beginning a conversation that might actually lead to something. I really, really want to hear from anyone who reads this. Let me know what you agree or don’t agree with. What are your own ideas and thoughts about this? What might be some practical first steps in making some changes that you think need to be made?
Matt,
As for #7, one way to make ministerial education more affordable is to require an M.Div. for ordination. Four years of state U plus four years of seminary is still cheaper than four years at a christian college. With the support of my local church, a small scholarship, and a part time job, I was able to get through seminary without any debt.
As for #6, the main thought about assessment is good, but I think you oversimplify. What I’ve found in a few years of pastoring is that every pastoral call requires a wide range of giftedness, such that no one is truly “qualified.” Even those with the spiritual gifts of pastor and teacher need to do the work of an evangelist, and apostle, and many other things which might be outside their area of giftedness. There is no one perfect skill set for pastoral ministry. And yet somehow God has ordained to use the flawed ministries of regular men to accomplish his divine purposes.
And as a counterpoint to your third paragraph under #6, I’d say that for me the classes that have been the MOST valuable to me have been the classes in things outside my area of giftedness. Because I’m not gifted in counseling or christian ed, I need more help learning how to do those things well. (or I could get a job at a big church where I can specialize! But small church pastors have to be generalists.)
Jeff
Thanks again for chiming in, Jeff.
Interesting idea for making education more affordable. I had never thought about that, but it would definitely work for many. The problem is that I don’t think it’s a solution for everyone due to the fact that not everyone is able to do graduate level type work. Some might say that should be a requirement for vocational ministry, but I wouldn’t. I’m not sure of any scriptural requirement for ministry that includes education or intelligence thresholds.
There’s no doubt that the current set up for smaller church pastors is one where they have to be a generalist and need a wide range of training. What I’m suggesting is a change in the set up. Certainly there are people in your church that are gifted in the areas where you aren’t. I’m suggesting that those people need to be empowered and equipped to operate in those areas so that people who aren’t gifted in those areas don’t have to. There will always be times when we’re called upon to do things that don’t really fit into our areas of primary giftedness, but Paul seems to speak very plainly about the variety of the members of the body and that each one is necessary. But I think we have to decrease the chasm between clergy and laity to really see this pattern emerge.
Actually, for what its worth, an M.Div. is not really “graduate level type work.” Its a professional degree, not an academic degree. I knew plenty of people in seminary who didn’t have the horsepower under the hood for grad level work. But they made it through seminary just fine, even if they didn’t retain greek or hebrew a day past graduation.
I agree that the intelligence threshold should not be too high. Pastors don’t need to be academic theologians. And I agree that seminary is not the perfect answer to the church’s needs.
As long as we’re on the topic, have you considered John Frames modest proposal for ministerial training? http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1978Proposal.htm
I read Frames’ “proposal”. Just goes to show that there is nothing new under the sun. Our diagnoses were very similar although our prescriptions are different but that’s as it should be. Forms should always be subject to change. If he had written it today, I’m sure he’d have a different solution. Thanks for sharing that.
Oh yeah, as long as I’m being wordy, I’ll say one more thing. A friend of mine once opined that all spiritual gifts could be roughly characterized as Priestly (gifts of empathy, counseling), Kingly (gifts of administrative usefulness, leadership), or Prophetic (gifts of teaching, preaching, evangelizing). He thought that each new church plant should be led by at least two, or ideally three people, one whose strength was in each subset of giftedness. And that by having all three work together, we would come the closest to Christ-like leadership. I thought it was an interesting idea.
I’ve heard of this as well. I think the idea is very much used in the Acts 29 network. I think this is a good way of categorizing gifts and functions. Eph. 4:11 is another.
Ahhh. My friend used to work with Acts 29. It all makes sense now.
I’m not a pastor. I have examined the call to pursue ministry as a vocation and at one point a mentor who was a pastor said to me, “If you can NOT be in full-time ministry, then don’t.” He was trying to tell me that the fire needed to be passionate and real if you want to enter the troubled waters of being on a church payroll. He said it to me because I was on the fence and I’m pretty sure he thought that was the thing I needed to hear to send me to seminary. I left that conversation feeling comfortable in a lay ministry position.
I definitely agree whole-heartedly with two main themes of the series – too much value is given to college and ordination processes, secondly, not enough value is placed on those currently in ministry. I’ve heard it phrased, “Equiping the called, not calling the equiped.” The idea of church planting has always tugged on my heart strings. I really relate to the book of Acts. But, I have zero interest in attending seminary or attaining a master of divinity. Too expensive, too time consuming, too little in return. I just want to read the bible people and teach others about it.
Thanks for sharing, Doug. At first, I wasn’t sure that the advice that was given to you was right, but the more I think about it, it might be very wise. Paul does give some serious warnings about endeavoring to be a “teacher” and the demands and consequences of doing it.
Interesting perspective on seminary. I think we’ve entered into a time where training and education has been decentralized and will continue to become more so. If you have an internet connection, the limits on what you can be exposed to are quickly fading. In your case, you have a passion to teach others about the Bible. I don’t think you need an M.Div. to do that. The resources available to you, without going to seminary, are exponentially greater than what was available to seminary students from 15 or more years ago. I think it’s wise to use the counsel of others to know what’s good and what isn’t, but the resources are vast.