Pastor searches and doctoral degrees

I thought the first several posts, mine included, were in line with the OP. Maybe I misread it or something...which wouldn't be a surprise.

 

I too thought I was on topic in saying that a PhD is clearly more respectable than a DMin.

 

Exactly. Jesus Christ called one person with the equivalent of a PhD to be an apostle, the rest were considered "ignorant and unlearned men". Apparently Jesus hadn't consulted 21st Century pastoral search committees. The one educated man He made an apostle said he didn't use his education to preach the gospel, instead depending solely on the Spirit of God.

This is how you end up with preachers who can't preach because they were never called by God yet they are pastoring big churches - because men esteem their own standards over God's and exalt man-made degrees over scriptural qualifications. This is how you end up with cookie-cutter power point sermons that do little more than give the congregation just enough bible to make them think they got fed when in reality they are starving to death.

 

I have not served on a pastoral search team, but here is my gut reaction to the question:

I think the guy with the D.Min was probably planning to pastor from the start, so, for the degree's sake itself, I would favor that degree. The D.Min is more for a guy wanting to pastor than a guy who wants to teach.

With the Ph.D in the theological field, I would be concerned that the guy's heart is in academic training and he's not really doing what he'd like to do.

However, there are exceptions in all of that. The degree itself neither qualifies nor disqualifies the man. More important is his personal integrity, his family, what is experience level is (does he have demonstrated pastoral gifts?), his demeanor, and what his vision for the church is.

 

I agree with what others in here have stated regarding the PhD and D.Min and that there are distinctions in quality yet, also in application to the pastorate.

With the above.. all I can say is .. Amen and Amen.

 

Jesus also spent three years, night and day with them, training them and teaching them. Guess how long seminary is. Yes, that's right ... Three years.

Of course there's no correlation there obviously (although some could really run with that, but the type that would interpret Scripture that way would be against seminary anyway). But the fact is that Jesus trained men for ministry, and that is what seminary does.

Degrees are not guarantee of godliness, but a man with a degree has usually been exposed to more stuff, read more, studied more, and been taught to think better.

As I said earlier, everything one gets in a DMin or a PhD can be gotten on your own. But most people won't, and most people wouldn't even begin to know where to start.

To Tom's question directly, I haven't been on a pastoral search committee, but I know if I were ever looking for an assistant, or were helping a pastoral search committee, level of education and institution where said education was gained is going to be high on the list. A guy with a legitimate PhD goes to the top. A guy with a legitimate DMin is a step down. A guy with neither is a few steps below that, but not ruled out, depending on other things. IMO, there is no silver bullet. There are a lot of factors, and education is only one of them, but it certainly is one that is important.

 

Yeah, like the guy who started Moody Bible Institute. First night in Romans class, at the end, the prof says, "go home and before the next class, read through the entire book of Romans". The student complained, "why should I be taking this class? I could have done that assignment on my own". The prof replied, "Well, why didn't you?"

 

Yes, Jesus trained these men. In the same manner Paul trained Timothy. You never hear one mention of the apostles setting up a school styled after secular college. Why not? Because they had the pattern for training preachers given by Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't sit in a classroom teaching ancient languages, assigning the writings of men, etc. Jesus personally taught them and they heard Him preach on many occasions. It was the same way with Paul and Timothy. Paul told Timothy that the same things that he had heard Paul preach among many witnesses he was to committ to faithful men who could teach others also. That's the scriptural pattern for training preachers. Fathers and sons in the ministry. The experienced take the new preachers under their wing and train them. The classroom is the church, the textbook is the bible, and the teacher is the man God called to preach.

 

Paul taught daily in the school of Tyrannus. Teaching was going on regularly in the churches. So on this point, I think you are simply incorrect.

BTW, many "secular colleges" started as divinity schools. So it is probably more accurate to say that modern secular colleges are patterned after divinity schools and teaching.

Right, he did it by the sea, in houses, walking along etc. And they already knew ancient language, which weren't ancient. We have to learn them because we don't know them. They already knew them.

Your negative phrase "the writings of men" seems a slap in teh face to God's gift to the church through the ages. You have no problem saying that a person should learn from a pastor/teacher in his church, but then you seem negative about him learning from another pastor/teacher in print. God has gifted the church with teachers. Some of them have written books that are helpful. Other men have written books that are not helpful. Interacting with them is an important part of ministry preparation.

Great point. This is exactly what seminary is ... faithful men teaching others so they can in turn teach others. It is the continuation of what Jesus started.

 

No, it is a rebellion against what Jesus set up. We don't need separate colleges to educated ministers, all that is needed is given in the church.

 

We forget that Paul was a traditionally schooled individual. He sat at the feet Gamaliel and other significant Jewish theologians of his day. In his hermeneutic there are definite touches of Hillel's approach to Midrash.

Paul would have gone through a fairly rigorous academic process and by his own accounts we can tell it would have been similar to someone pursuing theological education from middle school through PhD.

Thus, while education should not over-qualify someone it should also not dis-qualify them.

We can talk about how the apostles were, for the most part, seemingly uneducated individuals...but that seems to go more towards the power of the Holy Spirit than a solid case for anti-intellectualism. Truth be told degrees dominate now, but I wouldn't single out a candidate for a position just because of lack of degrees. If someone pursued a course of apprenticeship and mentoring in churches by strong ministers I would consider that a big step towards the right direction.

But I guess I have to ask: with all of the resources available, the access to traditional education systems, and the ease of taking up a degree plan for ministry...why would someone buck the system for a silly point?

We need Spirit led people leading our churches. It is no shallow principle that I have met too many academics that have theologized out the Holy Spirit's anointing in their ministry. I have a good friend who is on staff at a successful church at the executive level and he has no degrees. He admits he wishes he had them, but in order to keep up with others he knows that he must read twice as much, study twice as hard, and keep to it and he has one of the most dynamic ministry environments because of his humility.

Too often though I have met people who shirk degrees because of their laziness. I just can't see a reason not to pursue some kind of basic degree...even an undergraduate. I dunno, just saying.

 

I don't understand "practical" above. Really I don't. I've reviewed a bunch of DMin degree completion plans and they aren't that outstanding. How is a theological seminar on Christology, Soteriology, Patristic readings in apologetics, Contemporary Ecclesiology, etc from a PhD level worse for ministry?

I asked several questions above which you must have missed so I'll reiterate here:

With a few outstanding exceptions, most DMins are overheated MDivs with a vapid project at the end. Note I said "a few outstandig exceptions." I reallly believe that many DMins are just clergy advancement degrees. Where are the languages? Where is the comprehensive work with higher level theological issues? Where is the difficult and rigorous examinations?

With only a few notable exceptions I can't think of a DMin that requires this. Honestly it would make their programs better. But why settle for an equivalent degree to an advanced MDiv (with a longer reading list and thesis) when you can strive for excellence?

On this point we agree. :thumbs: There are some academicians who would ruin a church if they walked into it. (Yet I don't know many guys with a DMin that could help an academic department at a seminary.) I do know many DMin guys (this, for some reason, is usually the older crowd when the degree was a lock from acceptance) who really did benefit.

I think we as the Church need to reconcile the need for a clergy advancement degree with the challenge of producing biblically trained scholars who can rightly lead a church to change their context for the better. We need to return the pastorate from the grips of a counseling and management nightmare and back into a place of legitimate teaching and growth to lead people to plumb the depths of God's glory.

Just in terms of how I have advised a few pastor search committees who have I asked I can't begin to think the DMin is equal to a PhD...but I also add my cautions about what to look for to see how the degree has or has not impacted the ministry ethic of a person.

 

You need to make up your mind. Do you think we should do it like Jesus did it? Or do you think we should do it through the church? Because those are two very different models.

(Perhaps that is a good illustration of why people need education).

The truth is that seminary education does not in anyway contradict the biblical method. Those who say otherwise don't know the Bible. A great many colleges and seminaries are run by churches or church fellowships.

 

I agree with your post.. but an honest answer to the above question is simply two fold ... calling and money.

Sometimes 'God' does not allow men to complete their schooling or even go into college. I have met many men who are called to be pastors but don't have the financial resourses to get a 'proper' education or even get there.

Yet, while I was IN school, I have met many more people getting their education who should NOT be there. For them it is about getting a degree to make more money and to get noticed or maybe better, respect. As if having having letters in front of your name affords a person more respect than those who are toiling in the fields of God with less education. (I am speaking of these guys view - not the general attitude of those who are seeking to increase their edcuation)

When dealing with schooling your are dealing with large amounts of debt. Going into debt is a hard thing to swallow biblically but the amount we are asked to pay now (tens of thousands of dollars), and it is increasing by the year, establishes to me something very unscriptural. How many people who come out with a BA or more, can even pay off their student loans in 10 to 15 years? Not many. Back in 93 while attending TTU.. it cost (I believe) $5000+ a semester. Doing a Vo-Teck college last year, the tutition was for it $10,000 a year, and that was after state aide, and the very minimum of whatever field you wished to get your foot into the door. - and pretty much only your foot.

What is amazing to me.. is that those with the 'advanced' degrees (Masters and such) are considered - able to teach in colleges or universities. Why do these men not take the time to teach those who wish to be in ministry, in their congregations, those same things they did. Most do not!

This is what I believe the learning they are attaining if for - to teach others those same things. Preaching is not the same thing as teaching nor is teaching the whole congregation general aspects of your training the same as teaching individuals the depths of each of those fundamental aspects you dealt with in school. Otherwise, what was the purpose of all your learning?

I am rambling.. PLEASE understand - I am for education, but not for education being the main focus or primary thing looked for by a Pastor Search Committee, and the things scripture stipulates being typically 3rd or 4th in line if at all.

 

Just a thought here, but some of the best teaching/preaching I have ever experienced has been at the feet of men who had not attended bible college or seminary BUT they did have graduate degrees in other areas. It seems that level of study more than prepared them in research techniques, logical processes, etc. Note, however, this doesn't address the more "pastoral" type of study which in my opinion might be better learned through a mentoring/relationsip process. Of course, your mileage might vary.