Total Church - Chapter 6 - Theological Education and Leaderhip

"We are not against theological colleges, but we need a big switch of focus from the isolation of residential theological colleges to apprenticeships in the context of ministry. This is how Jesus trained people. This is how Paul trained people. In residential colleges the academy sets the agenda. With on-the-job training, ministry and mission set the agenda.

Colleges also suit a certain type of person, and this then shapes a view of what it means to be a church leader. Most church leaders today are middle-class graduates who were trained in a college and whose qualification for ministry is a degree. The first apostles were from very mixed social backgrounds, most with no education. They trained by accompanying Jesus, and their qualification for ministry was that they knew Jesus. When the Jewish leaders “saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). One of the reasons we have middle-class churches that are failing to reach working-class people is that we have middle-class leaders. And we have middle-class leaders because our expectations of what constitutes leadership and our training methods are middle-class. Indeed working-class people only really get into leadership by effectively becoming middle-class.

Paul had the highest education possible (Acts 22:3). It is not bad to be highly educated. But the qualities he outlines for Christian leaders are not skills-based but character-based. The focus in
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is on the character of leaders—their godliness, their maturity, their example. The only skill needed is the ability to teach—and that does not necessarily mean giving forty-five-minute sermons. It is the ability to apply God’s word to the life of the church and the lives of its members."

- Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Total Church, p. 118, 120


My comment:

This is why I am very excited that right now our church has 4 young guys in seminary through the Covenant Seminary ACCESS program (distance ed). The church invests in the education of young leaders while giving them hands-on, on the job training in the context of the local church.

I would say that generally speaking (there are always exceptions) this should be the ideal for most pastors in training. I have seen the huge blessing in my life (I should, God willing, be finished with my MATS in January) and also in the lives and ministries of those I serve alongside. If you are currently in leadership at your church why not invest in this way in the future of the church by equipping a few young guys to go to seminary and get trained by you at the same time?

Reasons this might be a good idea for young guys who show vocational ministry potential:

1. No debt. Based on what most pastors get paid, going into 5 figure debt for seminary is probably not wise.

2. The Body of Christ and church leaders gets a chance to affirm your gifts and calling. Let's say you work for the church and enroll in distance education along the way and find out through others or self-assessment that full time ministry is just not your calling. This scenario is not nearly as big of a deal as if you spent thousands of dollars in traditional seminary education. How much better of an idea to test out your gifts and calling under the leadership of people you love and trust in order to help you answer the question, "should I go to seminary and pursue vocational ministry?" I would say that most guys should not pursue seminary unless they are encouraged to do so by two or three trusted pastors from whom they seek counsel and wisdom.

3. Most seminaries have apprenticeship programs, but these usually pale in comparison to working for the church and taking seminary classes along the way. In the model I am advocating, you get an immediate context in which to apply what you are learning in very real ways among people with whom you have built great relationships. You also have an immediate filter by which you can know if what you are learning is actually applicable to real-life ministry. It's harder to acquire the academic "ivory tower" mentality this way.

4. You don't have to check out of serving in the local church for three to four years. Most seminary students who have a family, job, and 15 hours of theological studies a week know that just being able to show up on Sunday mornings might be a chore in and of itself.

5. You don't have to uproot your family and lose your job! This was my biggest reason for not going to traditional seminary but rather doing it via distance education at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis.

Again, some people are called to the traditional, on campus, three/four year, MDiv. model of seminary education, but I would argue, based on the reasons above, that for most people this is not necessary and it may be far more beneficial to pursue distance education while working for, or serving heavily in, the local church.