Is Seminary Really a “Cemetary”? (i.e., I AM FREAKIN TIRED)
Pardon my French s’il vous plais.
I’ve been groaning under the weight of finishing off my MDiv and the words of Scot McKnight perfectly capture what I’ve been feeling:
Rarely has so much been expected of so few. Those in ministry are expected to be competent in church history, systematic theology, ethics, apologetics, contemporary social analysis, Christian education, missions, evangelism, homiletics and psychology. At the same time, they are expected to master at least two archaic languages – and these, it is often claimed, must be reduced in palatable form for the person on the street! (McKnight, NT Greek Grammatical Analysis)
I just LOVE that quote.
And it explains much of how I feel – (I admit, I’m complaining) so it begs the question – WHO NEEDS ALL OF THIS STUFF?
And my answer is:
I do.
The ancient doctors of the church studied their brains out. It is alleged that Thomas Aquinas did so to the point of stroke. The Patristics used knowledge to fill out revelation (in a manner of speaking). The Fathers availed themselves to the hardest and best learning that was at their disposal… So no matter how much I bitch and moan about the workload – if I am to continue in the apostolic line (in a manner of speaking) I need to know this.
Thus I find the revelation / reason dichotomy. Do we need reason to supplement revelation (assuming that we begin w/ revelation)? Or is all we need Jesus, i.e., Jesus is enough?
I am graduating soon too. Seminary has been the hardest, most painful, most difficult time of my life. I’ve learned what it meant to trust in Jesus more here than I have ever had to in the past. I’ve learned more about the gospel here than I thought I would. Sounds like the journey has been similar for you.
Agreed; I would rank seminary among the top 5 hardest things ever, and “suicide Greek” among the top 3. I’m stupid enough to consider doing suicide Hebrew too.
I love when people express their anti-intellectualism in terms of “all you need is the Bible.” Without a long line of Christian scholars there would be no English Bible!
Nice post, Wayne. I would say that ministers need to study as much as others required to go to graduate school, such as doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. What makes the comparison even better to me, at least, is that all of the disciplines for the most part have a theoretical and practical component. Moreover, there is also the need for continued education in all of these fields. That said, I think it would be great for future ministers also to undergo some sort of internship. Finally, on a more practical level – what intelligent layperson would want to be under the pastoral care of someone ignorant?
Regent right now could use a larger helping of the practical component. Come back Darrell Johnson.
Yes, i vote with both my hands and feet!
@Wayne
@Wayne
Yes, Darrell’s message of grace has kept me sane these years. I hope he can keep teaching as much as he can.
@Sherrien @Anson
great to see you guys here.
I love Regent but lately I’ve had a growing gripe, and that’s this strong philosophical bent towards “sacramental ontology” on campus these days. I almost started a new post titled “Regent needs to stop talking about sacramental ontology & get back to the Gospel” but I was afraid such a seditious comment would get me a lot of flack from the philosophiles and into trouble. So maybe I’ll just subsume this sentiment under this post.
Essentially, it’s this. Before I am accused of obscurantizing theology I would just say the nominalist / realist debate is helpful. It’s compelling in light of the loss of sacramental efficacy and the resulting fragmentation of our faith into mere symbols and particularities. We’ve lost vision of metaphysical grandeur in lieu of our own private Jesus. So it’s an important distinction to make.
But why do we talk about it all the time? Why is it such a big debate among faculty? “What do we do with this stuff?” is a sentiment echoed by Rikk Watts and I would concur; we see the problem, how does this compel us towards growth in grace? And for some I suspect the desire is to plunge the Church back into the Dark Ages, and I emphasize “Dark”. Orthodoxy must lead us to orthopraxy, correct? I can see the orthodoxy sought after in the “sacramental ontology” debate. I just haven’t the foggiest how there is anything pastoral in it – and I’ve thought real hard to find an application. If it’s there, it’s certainly not being worked out in front of us nor explicated. At best I feel like I go in front of the church now and proclaim some kind of a Protestant version of pseudo-transubstantiation. Neat thought, but who is really being transformed? The bread or us? And what good is it if we proclaim the bread undergoes mystical union (ok, “living presence”) but we walk away unaffected? Perhaps that is the heart of the debate but like I said, it doesn’t resolve into praxis.
Somebody even irritatingly wrote “sacramental ontology” on the Atrium window, proudly displayed for all the world to see. Our student rag ETC. contains nominalist / realist debates. That’s just as bad as some seminaries championing TULIP and making that their charter statement. What ever happened to the great emphasis of the Puritans on “studied simplicity?” How do we translate the nominalist / realist debate to our people from the pulpit?
If I may be candid, there’s a sense of intellectual arrogance going on around campus now. That’s not to say we should not be rational; but there’s a sense of philosophical elitism that is just… unbecoming for us who belong to Christ. Was it like this in Packer’s day?
“Somebody even irritatingly wrote “sacramental ontology” on the Atrium window, proudly displayed for all the world to see.” Er, I think that was a joke on Graeme’s part.
You have half a point – I’ve taken four classes with Hans and still struggle with the pastoral relevance of sacramental ontology. But Thollander’s paper at the symposium yesterday was fairly convincing that Nouvelle Theology developed out of and was important for Catholic resistance to the Nazis in Vichy France. The Gestapo didn’t hunt down and execute de Lubac’s fellow Jesuits for no reason, after all.
Think of it this way. Somewhere there’s a bunch of Catholic theology students sitting around asking why they have to read Karl Barth and questioning what possible pastoral relevance neo-orthodoxy could ever have. But Barth’s influence on figures ranging from Bonhoeffer and Niebuhr to Hauerwas and Yoder is enormous. Similarly, without being exposed to Nouvelle Theology we cannot expect to understand Vatican II, John Paul II, Solidarity in Poland, and Benedict XVI very well.
In this area, I choose to trust that (some of) our professors know better than I do what’s important for me to learn.
Sorry, that last bit came across rather snarky, which was not my intent. Better would be – “I am trying to trust that our professors know what I need to learn better than I do.”
Color me skeptical, or cynical. As a non-seminary trained bootleg preachers what I have to offer is little in the way of contributing to this discussion, but that’s never stopped me before. While I have deep appreciation for the good of theological education for the clergy and for all the professional training provided through seminary, I can’t help but wonder why it is we have some many seminary trained people and so many dead churches, so little evangelism, and so little societal transformation. As one on the outside looking in (and planning to pursue theological education myself) I have to say that the conversations seem much more like the Pharisees debating the Sadduccees in the Sanhedrin, or questioning whether the limits of appropriate fasting than it does anything that Jesus did. As I said, that is not a total knock on seminary education, but one must wonder about so much so-called “preparation” with so little resulting fruit. What’s up with that?
@elderj
Elderj: I’ve written a response to your comment at my blog. Your criticisms are appropriate and I’ve tried to compare Jesus method of teaching with seminary from the stand point of the medium is the message.
Here is the url: Discipleship vs. School: the medium is the message
@Michael
We had Ross Hastings and Paul Stevens give a closing chat for our supervised min today. It was humorous to see Stevens ribbing Ross the whole time about all this “sacramental” business. I guess the older generation is noticing the new emphases. Speaking of new, I’ve heard of Nouvelle Theo but confess I don’t know enough about it. I’m assuming it is synonymous of or includes sacramentalism?
Thanx for swinging by Michael
and the critique of “clericalism” – is in some respects not new. It’s a necessary ballast, but a reaction nonetheless. Like scholasticism has its extremes, so does anti-scholasticism. I am looking for the middle way myself.
@elderj
I should also add that my reply was written from my blackberry, hence all the misspellings.
I had always heard Aquinas’ stroke was also possible a vision of Christ, prompting him to remark that the sum of all his work was “straw”… Perhaps therein lies the question. I think the scholar has a place in the Church, always has and always will. All Christians should make a point to know theology (some vocationally so), but more important than knowing words about God is knowing the Word that is God. Study can help, but trying to reach Heaven with our minds is the same as trying to build a tower with our hands, both are human, fleshly efforts. We don’t know God because we have come to a conclusion regarding what Hans Boersma teaches on sacramental ontology, we know God because He has revealed Himself to us through His Son. The response to this is wonder, worship, praise, and adoration. If, for some, that takes the form of writing the Summa Theologica than praise to be God that we can learn from their adoration. But lets not make that the rule we all aspire to.
love,
luke
WHADDDDUP ANSON AND WAYNE!!!
=)
so far…i have not used the phrase sacramental ontology in my pastoral role…
nor do I anticipate needing to…ever.
BUT
It is interesting to read about, and if you`re in that class…then it`s required reading and them`s the breaks of taking that class at that time.
I agree that seminary and institutionalized-education isn`t for everybody.
But I really gotta agree with Stackhouse (sigh…that hurts me so much inside lol jk)
But I know one aspect I wish I had worked harder at is the languages…and being able to do my exegesis without stopping constantly to look things up and etc…
And yeah, we have to `make it palatable`to ppl when we use it in sermons, but what of its value to us? Do we not gain when we study – even when it likely won`t be used in our actual ministry?
I can`t easily say no to that. because I feel that I`ve gained a lot – yes knowledge, but also in ways of thinking, and how to view the world (and not just in adopting the professor`s view of the world and scripture and other relevant topics…)
anyways…I really just wanted to say hi.
lol
@Raymond Leung
Good to hear from you bro. Where are u ministering @?
Wayne–Great Post and discussion! I am totally feeling you on this. I think that you nailed my discomfort with the ‘sacramental ontology’ discussions (even though I see the value of not jettisoning a sacramental universe).